Linear and loglinear structural mean models to evaluate the benefits of an on-demand dosing regimen

Abstract

Background Structural mean models can be used to estimate treatment efficacy when drug exposure varies. We applied stuctural mean model to evaluate the clinical benefits of a proton pump inhibitor prescribed to be taken as needed to alleviate epigastric pain. We also investigated a new diagnostic approach to evaluate model assumptions.

Methods All patients were suffering from nonerosive reflux disease or functional ulcer-like dyspepsia and were prescribed a proton pump inhibitor to be taken as needed for relief of epigastric pain. The primary endpoint was a score variable that expresses the magnitude of gastro-intestinal symptoms at 8 weeks after randomization. We developed linear and loglinear versions of the structural mean models to derive an unbiased estimator of the reduction in symptom score as a function of exposure to the test drug. Semi-parametric models based on splines and corresponding simultaneous confidence bands identified the presence of potential interactions between drug exposure and baseline covariates.

Results The on-demand dosing regimen generated a wide range of drug exposure. Application of SMM showed that the potential treatment-induced reduction in symptom score was much greater than the average treatment reduction observed in this population of patients. Our diagnostic tool was useful for detecting the interaction between drug exposure and baseline covariates. Limitations Analysis could only be performed over the first 2 months after randomization because, afterwards, many patients dropped out from the placebo group. Conclusions The structural mean model approach allows one to estimate treatment efficacy in the presence of variable drug exposure. Similar results were obtained using linear and loglinear structural mean model. Clinical Trials 2009; 6: 403—415. http://ctj.sagepub.com

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Lee J. , Ellenberg J. , Hirtz D. , Nelson K.

Analysis of clinical trials by treatment actually received: is it really an option?

Stat Med 1991; 10: 1595-1605.

Goetghebeur E. , Pocock S. Statistical issues in allowing for noncompliance and withdrawal. Drug Inform J 1993; 27: 837-45.

Bellamy SL , Lin JY , Have TRT An introduction to causal modelling in clinical trials. Clin Trials 2007; 4: 58-73.

Sommer A. , Zeger SL On estimating efficacy from clinical trials. Stat Med 1991; 10: 45-52.

Frangakis CE , Rubin DB Addressing complications of intention-to-treat analysis in the combined presence of all-or-none treatment-noncompliance and subsequent missing outcomes. Biometrika 1999 ; 86: 365-79.

Efron B, Feldman D. Compliance as an explanatory variable in clinical trials. J Am Stat Assoc 1991; 86: 9-25. 7. Robins JM. Correcting for non-compliance in randomized trials using structural nested mean models. Commun Stat Theory Meth 1994; 23: 2379-2412.

Fisher-Lapp K. , Goetghebeur E. Practical properties of some structural mean analyses of the effect of compliance in randomized trials. Control Clin Trials 1999; 20: 531-46.

Robins J. , Rotnitzky A. Estimation of treatment effects in randomised trials with non-compliance and a dichotomous outcome using structural mean models. Biometrika 2004; 91: 763-83.

Vansteelandt S. , Goetghebeur E. Causal inference with generalized structural mean models. J R Stat Soc B 2003 ; 65: 817-35.

10.

Mark SD , Robins JM Estimating the causal effect of smoking cessation in the presence of confounding factors using a rank preserving structural failure time model . Stat Med 1993; 12: 1605-28.

11.

Loeys T. , Goetghebeur E. A causal proportional hazards estimator for the effect of treatment actually received in a randomized trial with all-or-nothing compliance. Biometrics 2003; 59: 100-05.

12.

Greenland S. , Lanes S. , Jara M. Estimating effects from randomized trials with discontinuations: the need for intent-to-treat design and G-estimation . Clin Trials 2008; 5: 5-13.

13.

Tanaka S. , Matsuyama Y. , Shiraki M. , Ohashi Y. Estimating the effects of time-varying treatments: incidence of fractures among postmenopausal Japanese women. Epidemiology 2007; 18: 529-36.

14.

Vansteelandt S. , Babanezhad M. , Goetghebeur E. Correcting instrumental variables estimators for systematic measurement error. Stat Sinica 2009; 19: 1223-46.

15.

Vrijens B. , Tousset E. , Rode R. et al. Successful projection of the time course of drug concentration in plasma during a 1-year period from electronically compiled dosing-time data used as input to individually parameterized pharmacokinetic models. J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 45: 461-67.

16.

Harter JG , Peck CC Chronobiology. Suggestions for integrating it into drug development . Ann N Y Acad Sci 1991; 618: 563-71.

17.

Sheiner LB Learning versus confirming in clinical drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 61: 275-91.

18.

Osterberg L. , Blaschke T. Adherence to medication. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 487-97.

19.

Hernan MA , Robins M.

Instruments for causal inference: an epidemiologist’s dream?

Epidemiology 2006; 17: 360-72.

20.

Vansteelandt S. , Goetghebeur E. Sense and sensitivity when correcting for observed exposures in randomized clinical trials. Stat Med 2005; 24: 191-210.

21.

Newey WK , McFadden D. Large Sample Estimation and Hypothesis Testing. Handbook of Econometrics (Vol. 4). Elsevier, Amsterdam, 1994.

22.

Van der Vaart AW Asymptotic Statistics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998.

23.

Efron B. , Tibshirani RJ An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, San Francisco, 1993.

24.

Ruppert D. , Wand MP , Carroll RJ Semiparametric Regression. Cambridge Series in Statistical and Probabilities Mathematics, Cambridge , 2003.

25.

Chamberlain G. Asymptotic efficiency in estimation with conditional moment restrictions. J Economet 1987; 34: 305-34.

26.

Bickel PJ , Klaassen CAJ , Ritov Y. , Wellner JA Efficient and Adaptive Estimation for Semiparametric Models. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1993.

27.

Goetghebeur E. , Lapp K. The effect of treatment compliance in a placebo-controlled trial: regression with unpaired data. Appl Statist 1997; 46: 351-64.