Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medicine 1/2023

Open Access 01-12-2023 | Semaglutide | Opinion

Why estimands are needed to define treatment effects in clinical trials

Authors: Oliver N. Keene, Helle Lynggaard, Stefan Englert, Vivian Lanius, David Wright

Published in: BMC Medicine | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The estimand for a clinical trial is a precise definition of the treatment effect to be estimated. Traditionally, estimates of treatment effects are based on either an ITT analysis or a per-protocol analysis. However, there are important clinical questions which are not addressed by either of these analyses. For example, consider a trial where patients take a rescue medication. The ITT analysis includes data after use of rescue, while the per-protocol analysis excludes these patients altogether. Neither of these analyses addresses the important question of what the treatment effect would have been if patients did not take rescue medication.

Main text

Trial estimands provide a broader perspective compared to the limitations of ITT and per-protocol analysis. Trial treatment effects depend on how events occurring after treatment initiation such as use of alternative medication or discontinuation of the intervention are included in the definition. These events can be accounted for in different ways, depending on the clinical question of interest.

Conclusion

The estimand framework is an important step forward in improving the clarity and transparency of clinical trials. The centrality of estimands to clinical trials is currently not reflected in methods recommended by the Cochrane group or the CONSORT statement, the current standard for reporting clinical trials in medical journals. We encourage revisions to these guidelines.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:726–32.CrossRefPubMed Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152:726–32.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, Gøtzsche PC, Lang T. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663–94.CrossRefPubMed Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, Gøtzsche PC, Lang T. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663–94.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Aroda VR, Rosenstock J, Terauchi Y, Altuntas Y, Lalic NM, Villegas EC, Jeppesen OK, Christiansen E, Hertz CL, Haluzík M. PIONEER 1: randomized clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide monotherapy in comparison with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2019;42:1724–32.CrossRefPubMed Aroda VR, Rosenstock J, Terauchi Y, Altuntas Y, Lalic NM, Villegas EC, Jeppesen OK, Christiansen E, Hertz CL, Haluzík M. PIONEER 1: randomized clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of oral semaglutide monotherapy in comparison with placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2019;42:1724–32.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995;123:A12–3.CrossRefPubMed Richardson WS, Wilson MC, Nishikawa J, Hayward RS. The well-built clinical question: a key to evidence-based decisions. ACP J Club. 1995;123:A12–3.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Han JK, Bachert C, Fokkens W, Desrosiers M, Wagenmann M, Lee SE, Smith SG, Martin N, Mayer B, Yancey SW, Sousa AR. Mepolizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (SYNAPSE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9:1141–53.CrossRefPubMed Han JK, Bachert C, Fokkens W, Desrosiers M, Wagenmann M, Lee SE, Smith SG, Martin N, Mayer B, Yancey SW, Sousa AR. Mepolizumab for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (SYNAPSE): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2021;9:1141–53.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Keene ON. Intent-to-treat analysis in the presence of off-treatment or missing data. Pharm Stat. 2011;10:191–5.CrossRefPubMed Keene ON. Intent-to-treat analysis in the presence of off-treatment or missing data. Pharm Stat. 2011;10:191–5.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng HY, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, Emberson JR. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;28:366. Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, Cates CJ, Cheng HY, Corbett MS, Eldridge SM, Emberson JR. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;28:366.
12.
go back to reference Keene ON, Wright D, Phillips A, Wright M. Why ITT analysis is not always the answer for estimating treatment effects in clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2021;108: 106494.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Keene ON, Wright D, Phillips A, Wright M. Why ITT analysis is not always the answer for estimating treatment effects in clinical trials. Contemp Clin Trials. 2021;108: 106494.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Darken P, Nyberg J, Ballal S, Wright D. The attributable estimand: a new approach to account for intercurrent events. Pharm Stat. 2020;19:626–35.CrossRefPubMed Darken P, Nyberg J, Ballal S, Wright D. The attributable estimand: a new approach to account for intercurrent events. Pharm Stat. 2020;19:626–35.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Akacha M, Bretz F, Ruberg S. Estimands in clinical trials – broadening the perspective. Statist Med. 2017;36:5–19.CrossRef Akacha M, Bretz F, Ruberg S. Estimands in clinical trials – broadening the perspective. Statist Med. 2017;36:5–19.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Young JG, Vatsa R, Murray EJ, Hernán MA. Interval-cohort designs and bias in the estimation of per-protocol effects: a simulation study. Trials. 2019;20(1):1–9.CrossRef Young JG, Vatsa R, Murray EJ, Hernán MA. Interval-cohort designs and bias in the estimation of per-protocol effects: a simulation study. Trials. 2019;20(1):1–9.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Why estimands are needed to define treatment effects in clinical trials
Authors
Oliver N. Keene
Helle Lynggaard
Stefan Englert
Vivian Lanius
David Wright
Publication date
01-12-2023
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Semaglutide
Published in
BMC Medicine / Issue 1/2023
Electronic ISSN: 1741-7015
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-023-02969-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

BMC Medicine 1/2023 Go to the issue