Implementation of the trial emulation approach in medical research: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: When conducting randomised controlled trials is impractical, an alternative is to carry out an observational study. However, making valid causal inferences from observational data is challenging because of the risk of several statistical biases. In 2016 Hernán and Robins put forward the 'target trial framework' as a guide to best design and analyse observational studies whilst preventing the most common biases. This framework consists of (1) clearly defining a causal question about an intervention, (2) specifying the protocol of the hypothetical trial, and (3) explaining how the observational data will be used to emulate it. METHODS: The aim of this scoping review was to identify and review all explicit attempts of trial emulation studies across all medical fields. Embase, Medline and Web of Science were searched for trial emulation studies published in English from database inception to February 25, 2021. The following information was extracted from studies that were deemed eligible for review: the subject area, the type of observational data that they leveraged, and the statistical methods they used to address the following biases: (A) confounding bias, (B) immortal time bias, and (C) selection bias. RESULTS: The search resulted in 617 studies, 38 of which we deemed eligible for review. Of those 38 studies, most focused on cardiology, infectious diseases or oncology and the majority used electronic health records/electronic medical records data and cohort studies data. Different statistical methods were used to address confounding at baseline and selection bias, predominantly conditioning on the confounders (N = 18/49, 37%) and inverse probability of censoring weighting (N = 7/20, 35%) respectively. Different approaches were used to address immortal time bias, assigning individuals to treatment strategies at start of follow-up based on their data available at that specific time (N = 21, 55%), using the sequential trial emulations approach (N = 11, 29%) or the cloning approach (N = 6, 16%). CONCLUSION: Different methods can be leveraged to address (A) confounding bias, (B) immortal time bias, and (C) selection bias. When working with observational data, and if possible, the 'target trial' framework should be used as it provides a structured conceptual approach to observational research.

May Measurement Month 2018: an analysis of blood pressure screening results in South Africa.

Elevated blood pressure (BP) is a growing burden worldwide, leading to over 10 million deaths each year. May Measurement Month (MMM) is a global initiative of the International Society of Hypertension (ISH) aimed at raising awareness of high BP and acting as a temporary solution to the lack of screening programmes worldwide. As part of MMM, screening in South Africa in 2017 revealed that 24.5% of adults (mean age = 31 years) have hypertension and only half of those with hypertension had controlled BP. These data highlight the need for continued screening and awareness campaigns. An opportunistic cross-sectional survey of volunteers aged ≥18 years was carried out in May 2018. Blood pressure measurements, the definition of hypertension and statistical analyses followed the MMM protocol. The sites screened were general populations and university campuses in preference to hospitals and clinics, aiming to raise awareness and allow access to screening to those less likely to be aware of their BP. In total, 2965 individuals (age 40.5 ± 18.2 years) were screened. After multiple imputation for missing BP readings, 34.6% had hypertension, only 56.7% of those with hypertension were aware, 21.2% of those not receiving treatment for hypertension were hypertensive, and a large proportion (42.5%) of individuals receiving antihypertensive medication had uncontrolled BP. These results suggest that opportunistic screening campaigns can identify significant numbers with undiagnosed and uncontrolled hypertension. The high proportions of individuals with undiagnosed and treated uncontrolled hypertension highlight the need for hypertension awareness campaigns and more rigorous management of hypertension.

Evaluating how clear the questions being investigated in randomised trials are: systematic review of estimands.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate how often the precise research question being addressed about an intervention (the estimand) is stated or can be determined from reported methods, and to identify what types of questions are being investigated in phase 2-4 randomised trials. DESIGN: Systematic review of the clarity of research questions being investigated in randomised trials in 2020 in six leading general medical journals. DATA SOURCE: PubMed search in February 2021. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Phase 2-4 randomised trials, with no restrictions on medical conditions or interventions. Cluster randomised, crossover, non-inferiority, and equivalence trials were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of trials that stated the precise primary question being addressed about an intervention (ie, the primary estimand), or for which the primary estimand could be determined unambiguously from the reported methods using statistical knowledge. Strategies used to handle post-randomisation events that affect the interpretation or existence of patient outcomes, such as intervention discontinuations or uses of additional drug treatments (known as intercurrent events), and the corresponding types of questions being investigated. RESULTS: 255 eligible randomised trials were identified. No trials clearly stated all the attributes of the estimand. In 117 (46%) of 255 trials, the primary estimand could be determined from the reported methods. Intercurrent events were reported in 242 (95%) of 255 trials; but the handling of these could only be determined in 125 (49%) of 255 trials. Most trials that provided this information considered the occurrence of intercurrent events as irrelevant in the calculation of the treatment effect and assessed the effect of the intervention regardless (96/125, 77%)-that is, they used a treatment policy strategy. Four (4%) of 99 trials with treatment non-adherence owing to adverse events estimated the treatment effect in a hypothetical setting (ie, the effect as if participants continued treatment despite adverse events), and 19 (79%) of 24 trials where some patients died estimated the treatment effect in a hypothetical setting (ie, the effect as if participants did not die). CONCLUSIONS: The precise research question being investigated in most trials is unclear, mainly because of a lack of clarity on the approach to handling intercurrent events. Clear reporting of estimands is necessary in trial reports so that all stakeholders, including clinicians, patients and policy makers, can make fully informed decisions about medical interventions. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42021238053.

Improving analysis practice of continuous adverse event outcomes in randomised controlled trials - a distributional approach.

BACKGROUND: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) provide valuable information for developing harm profiles but current analysis practices to detect between-group differences are suboptimal. Drug trials routinely screen continuous clinical and biological data to monitor participant harm. These outcomes are regularly dichotomised into abnormal/normal values for analysis. Despite the simplicity gained for clinical interpretation, it is well established that dichotomising outcomes results in a considerable reduction in information and thus statistical power. We propose an automated procedure for the routine implementation of the distributional method for the dichotomisation of continuous outcomes proposed by Peacock and Sauzet, which retains the precision of the comparison of means. METHODS: We explored the use of a distributional approach to compare differences in proportions based on the comparison of means which retains the power of the latter. We applied this approach to the screening of clinical and biological data as a means to detect 'signals' for potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Signals can then be followed-up in further confirmatory studies. Three distributional methods suitable for different types of distributions are described. We propose the use of an automated approach using the observed data to select the most appropriate distribution as an analysis strategy in a RCT setting for multiple continuous outcomes. We illustrate this approach using data from three RCTs assessing the efficacy of mepolizumab in asthma or COPD. Published reference ranges were used to define the proportions of participants with abnormal values for a subset of 10 blood tests. The between-group distributional and empirical differences in proportions were estimated for each blood test and compared. RESULTS: Within trials, the distributions varied across the 10 outcomes demonstrating value in a practical approach to selecting the distributional method in the context of multiple adverse event outcomes. Across trials, there were three outcomes where the method chosen by the automated procedure varied for the same outcome. The distributional approach identified three signals (eosinophils, haematocrit, and haemoglobin) compared to only one when using the Fisher's exact test (eosinophils) and two identified by use of the 95% confidence interval for the difference in proportions (eosinophils and potassium). CONCLUSION: When dichotomisation of continuous adverse event outcomes aids clinical interpretation, we advocate use of a distributional approach to retain statistical power. Methods are now easy to implement. Retaining information is especially valuable in the context of the analysis of adverse events in RCTs. The routine implementation of this automated approach requires further evaluation.

Current approaches to handling rescue medication in asthma and eczema randomized controlled trials are inadequate: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to examine how rescue medication is defined, reported, and accounted for in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in eczema and asthma populations. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This is a systematic review of phase II/III RCTs evaluating monoclonal antibodies for treating chronic eczema or asthma. A search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted to identify eligible RCTs. RESULTS: Sixty published RCTs were identified, of which 60 (100%) allowed use of rescue medication but only 28 (47%) reported its use. Twenty-seven (45%) articles summarized rescue use by arm, with an average of 25% (95% CI (17%, 36%)) greater use in the placebo arm. Nine (15%) trials undertook an analysis that adjusted the primary treatment effect estimate for rescue medication use, but 8 of these used a suboptimal approach using single imputation, including 4 which used "last observation carried forward" after setting postrescue data to missing. CONCLUSION: Rescue medication use in eczema and asthma trials evaluating monoclonal antibodies is often permitted, but not routinely reported. There is evidence of imbalance in rescue use between arms, but few articles attempted to estimate a rescue-adjusted treatment effect. In trials that did, the methods used were suboptimal which could introduce bias.