ArticleBMC medical research methodology2024
Addressing treatment switching in the ALTA-1L trial with g-methods: exploring the impact of model specification.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02737501 (A Phase 3 Multicenter Open-label Study of Brigatinib), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Phase 3 Multicenter Open-label Study of Brigatinib (AP26113) Versus Crizotinib in Patients With ALK-positive Advanced Lung Cancer
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTreatment switching in randomized clinical trials introduces challenges in performing causal inference. Intention To Treat (ITT) analyses often fail to fully capture the causal effect of treatment in the presence of treatment switching. Consequently, decision makers may instead be interested in causal effects of hypothetical treatment strategies that do not allow for treatment switching. For example, the phase 3 ALTA-1L trial showed that brigatinib may have improved Overall Survival (OS) compared to crizotinib if treatment switching had not occurred. Their sensitivity analysis using Inverse Probability of Censoring Weights (IPCW), reported a Hazard Ratio (HR) of 0.50 (95% CI, 0.28-0.87), while their initial ITT analysis estimated an HR of 0.81 (0.53-1.22).
methodsWe used a directed acyclic graph to depict the clinical setting of the ALTA-1L trial in the presence of treatment switching, illustrating the concept of treatment-confounder feedback and highlighting the need for g-methods. In a re-analysis of the ALTA-1L trial data, we used IPCW and the parametric g-formula to adjust for baseline and time-varying covariates to estimate the effect of two hypothetical treatment strategies on OS: "always treat with brigatinib" versus "always treat with crizotinib". We conducted various sensitivity analyses using different model specifications and weight truncation approaches.
resultsApplying the IPCW approach in a series of sensitivity analyses yielded Cumulative HRs (cHRs) ranging between 0.38 (0.12, 0.98) and 0.73 (0.45,1.22) and Risk Ratios (RRs) ranging between 0.52 (0.32, 0.98) and 0.79 (0.54,1.17). Applying the parametric g-formula resulted in cHRs ranging between 0.61 (0.38,0.91) and 0.72 (0.43,1.07) and RRs ranging between 0.71 (0.48,0.94) and 0.79 (0.54,1.05).
conclusionOur results consistently indicated that our estimated ITT effect estimate (cHR: 0.82 (0.51,1.22) may have underestimated brigatinib's benefit by around 10-45 percentage points (using IPCW) and 10-20 percentage points (using the parametric g-formula) across a wide range of model choices. Our analyses underscore the importance of performing sensitivity analyses, as the result from a single analysis could potentially stand as an outlier in a whole range of sensitivity analyses.
trial registrationClinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02737501 on April 14, 2016.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.