Estimating causal effects using prior information on nontrial treatments.
BACKGROUND
Departures from randomized treatments complicate the analysis of many randomized controlled trials. Intention-to-treat analysis estimates the effect of being allocated to treatment. It is now possible to estimate the effect of receiving treatment without assuming comparability of groups defined by actual treatment. However, the methodology is largely confined to trials where the only treatment changes were switches to other trial treatments.


OBJECTIVE
To propose a method for comparing the effects of receiving trial treatments in an active-controlled clinical trial where some participants received nontrial treatments and others received no treatment at all, and to illustrate the method in the PENTA 5 trial in HIV-infected children.


METHODS
We combine the instrumental variables approach, which forms unbiased estimating equations based on the randomization but does not fully identify the contrasts of trial treatment effects, with prior information about the distribution of possible effects of nontrial treatments and of one trial treatment; we do not need to use prior information about the comparisons of trial treatments. Prior information in PENTA 5 was elicited from the investigators.


RESULTS
In PENTA 5, the prior information suggested that all treatments were beneficial, but there was uncertainty about the degree of benefit. Allowing for this prior information changed point estimates and increased standard errors compared with ignoring nontrial treatments.


CONCLUSIONS
The method depends on the correct specification of the causal effect of treatment: in PENTA 5, this assumed a linear effect of dose and no interactions between treatments. This specification is hard to check from the data but can be explored in sensitivity analyses. Prior information would be better derived from the literature whenever possible.


CONCLUSIONS
The use of partial prior information gives a way to adjust for complex patterns of departures from randomized treatments. It should be useful in all trials where nontrial treatments are used and in active-controlled trials where trial treatments are not universally used.
Bond
Simon J
SJ
MRC Biostatistics Unit, Institute of Public Health, Cambridge, UK.
White
Ian R
IR
D001499:Bayes Theorem; D015984:Causality; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D004359:Drug Therapy, Combination; D015658:HIV Infections / Q000628:therapy*; D006801:Humans; D016018:Least-Squares Analysis; D016014:Linear Models; D015233:Models, Statistical; D009010:Monte Carlo Method; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic / Q000379:methods*; D012107:Research Design; D013223:Statistics as Topic; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires; D016896:Treatment Outcome
Biostatistics. 2011 Apr;12(2):247-57
20805286
BMJ. 1996 Jul 6;313(7048):36-9
8664772
Control Clin Trials. 1999 Dec;20(6):531-46
10588294
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jul;60(7):663-9
17573981
Stat Methods Med Res. 2005 Aug;14(4):327-47
16178136
Stat Med. 2005 Jan 30;24(2):191-210
15515152
Clin Trials. 2007;4(2):125-39
17456512
Stat Med. 2004 Feb 28;23(4):571-90
14755390
Stat Med. 2005 Jan 15;24(1):1-10
15532089
Stat Med. 1997 May 15;16(9):1017-29
9160496
Stat Med. 1991 Jan;10(1):45-52
2006355
Stat Med. 1998 Feb 15;17(3):269-302; discussion 387-9
9493255
Biostatistics. 2008 Apr;9(2):277-89
17681993
Biometrics. 2002 Mar;58(1):21-9
11890317
Lancet. 2002 Mar 2;359(9308):733-40
11888583
Biostatistics. 2000 Mar;1(1):69-88
12933526
J Clin Epidemiol. 2006 Jul;59(7):685-96
16765271
Stat Med. 2007 Mar 30;26(7):1473-96
16900567
Stat Med. 2008 Feb 10;27(3):317-32
17340597