Assessing Methods for Adjusting Estimates of Treatment Effectiveness for Patient Nonadherence in the Context of Time-to-Event Outcomes and Health Technology Assessment: A Simulation Study

Randomized controlled trials are usually analyzed using the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle, which produces a valid estimate of effectiveness relating to the underlying trial, but when patient adherence to medications in the real world is known to differ from that observed in the trial, such estimates are likely to result in a biased representation of real-world effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.Our simulation study demonstrates that generalized methods (g-methods; IPCW, SNFTM) and per-protocol analysis provide more accurate estimates of the treatment effect than the ITT analysis does, when adjustment for nonadherence is required; however, even with these adjustment methods, considerable bias may remain in some scenarios.When real-world adherence is expected to differ from adherence observed in a trial, adjustment methods should be used to provide estimates of real-world effectiveness.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medical Decision Making
Published
2024-11-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x241293414
Primary Topic
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Assessing Methods for Adjusting Estimates of Treatment Effectiveness for Patient Nonadherence in the Context of Time-to-Event Outcomes and Health Technology Assessment: A Simulation Study

Nicholas Latimer, Abualbishr Alshreef, Paul Tappenden, Simon Dixon
Medical Decision Making
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
article

Assessing Methods for Adjusting Estimates of Treatment Effectiveness for Patient Nonadherence in the Context of Time-to-Event Outcomes and Health Technology Assessment: A Simulation Study

Nicholas Latimer, Abualbishr Alshreef, Paul Tappenden, Simon Dixon
article en

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials are usually analyzed using the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle, which produces a valid estimate of effectiveness relating to the underlying trial, but when patient adherence to medications in the real world is known to differ from that observed in the trial, such estimates are likely to result in a biased representation of real-world effectiveness and cost-effectiveness.Our simulation study demonstrates that generalized methods (g-methods; IPCW, SNFTM) and per-protocol analysis provide more accurate estimates of the treatment effect than the ITT analysis does, when adjustment for nonadherence is required; however, even with these adjustment methods, considerable bias may remain in some scenarios.When real-world adherence is expected to differ from adherence observed in a trial, adjustment methods should be used to provide estimates of real-world effectiveness.

Medical Decision MakingVol. 45(1)
AbbVie (United States) (US), University of Sheffield (GB)
National Institute for Health and Care Research
Openalex Percentile: Top 76%
Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.