Statistical methods for non-adherence in non-inferiority trials: useful and used? A systematic review.
systematic_review · Level I
Where this comes from
- Record sourced from PubMed, PMID 35022173.
- Also identified by DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052656 and PMC identifier 8756274.
- Licence recorded as CC BY-NC.
- Because redistribution is not established, this page shows the abstract only. Follow the links below for the full text.
Abstract
In non-inferiority trials with non-adherence to interventions (or non-compliance), intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses are often performed; however, non-random non-adherence generally biases these estimates of efficacy. To identify statistical methods that adjust for the impact of non-adherence and thus estimate the causal effects of experimental interventions in non-inferiority trials. A systematic review was conducted by searching the Ovid MEDLINE database (31 December 2020) to identify (1) randomised trials with a primary analysis for non-inferiority that applied (or planned to apply) statistical methods to account for the impact of non-adherence to interventions, and (2) methodology papers that described such statistical methods and included a non-inferiority trial application. The statistical methods identified, their impacts on non-inferiority conclusions, and their advantages/disadvantages. A total of 24 papers were included (4 protocols, 13 results papers and 7 methodology papers) reporting relevant methods on 26 occasions. The most common were instrumental variable approaches (n=9), including observed adherence as a covariate within a regression model (n=3), and modelling adherence as a time-varying covariate in a time-to-event analysis (n=3). Other methods included rank preserving structural failure time models and inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting. The methods identified in protocols and results papers were more commonly specified as sensitivity analyses (n=13) than primary analyses (n=3). Twelve results papers included an alternative analysis of the same outcome; conclusions regarding non-inferiority were in agreement on six occasions and could not be compared on six occasions (different measures of effect or results not provided in full). Available statistical methods which attempt to account for the impact of non-adherence to interventions were used infrequently. Therefore, firm inferences about their influence on non-inferiority conclusions could not be drawn. Since intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses do not guarantee unbiased conclusions regarding non-inferiority, the methods identified should be considered for use in sensitivity analyses. CRD42020177458.
Medical subject headings
- Bias