Skip to main content
Log in

Issues in Adjusting for Covariates Arising Postrandomization in Clinical Trials

  • Published:
Drug information journal : DIJ / Drug Information Association Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

While there is broad consensus on analytic techniques for adjusting for covariates at baseline, the situation for covariates arising postrandomization is considerably more difficult. Examples include the level of patient “compliance” measured through pill counts and other biochemical markers, the occurrence of missing data over patient followup, and early withdrawal from medication. The “intention-to-treat” (ITT) principle requires that all randomized patients be included in all analyses irrespective of their confounder experience. This approach, however, seems at odds with good scientific method and is a considerable source of friction with medical investigators. In this paper, we review the interpretation of this analysis strategy and suggest that the statistical community has been careless in its interpretation of these results. We outline a conservative strategy that is consistent with ITT principles. Nevertheless, any analysis that adjusts for these covariates must be considered speculative in nature and followed by a properly designed confirmatory study. For this reason, we argue that these analyses are of greater relevance early in a drug development program.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wickramaratne PJ, Holford TR. Confounding in epidemiologic studies: The adequacy of the control group as a measure of confounding. Biometrics. 1987;43:751–765.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Miettinen OS, Cook EF. Confounding: essence and detection. Am J Epidemiol. 1981;114:593–603.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Oakes D, Moss AJ, Fleiss JL, Bigger JT, Therneau T, Eberly SW, McDermott MP, Manatunga A, Carleen E, Benhorin J. Use of compliance measures in an analysis of the effect of Diltiazem on mortality and reinfarction after myocardial Infarction. J Am Stat Assoc. 1993;88:44–49.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Andersen PK. Time-dependent covariates and Markov processes. In: Moolgavkar SH, Prentice RL, eds. Modern Statistical Methods in Chronic Disease Epidemiology. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1986:82–103.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Efron B, Feldman D. Compliance as an explanatory variable in clinical trials (with discussion). J Am Stat Assoc. 1991;86:9–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Robins J. The analysis of randomized and nonran-domized AIDS treatment trials using a new approach to causal inference in longitudinal studies. In: Sechrest L, Freeman H, Mulley A, eds. Health Service Research Methodology: A Focus on AIDS. Washington, DC: NCHSR, U.S. Public Health Service; 1989: 113–159.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Robins JM, Tsiatis AA. Correcting for non-compliance in randomized trials using rank preserving structural failure time models. Comm Stat Theory Meth. 1991;20:2609–2631.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Mark SD, Robins JM. A method for the analysis of randomized trials with compliance information: an application to the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Control Clin Trials. 1993;14:79–97.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Robins JM. Correcting for non-compliance in randomized trials using structural nested mean models. Comm Stat Theory Meth. 1994;23:2379–2412.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wu MC, Bailey KR. Estimation and comparison of changes in the presence of informative censoring: conditional linear model. Biometrics. 1989;45:939–955.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Wu MC, Carroll RJ. Estimation and comparison of changes in the presence of informative right censoring by modeling the censoring process. Biometrics. 1988;44:175–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Diggle P. Informative dropout in longitudinal data analysis (with discussion). Appl Stat. 1994;43: 49–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Robins J, Greenland S. Adjusting for differential rates of prophylaxis therapy for PCP in high- versus low-dose AZT treatment arms in an AIDS randomized Trial. J Am Stat Assoc. 1994;89:737–749.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Rochon J. Supplementing the Intent-To-Treat analysis: accounting for covariates observed post randomization in clinical trials. J Am Stat Assoc. 1995;90: 292–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Rochon J. Accounting for covariates observed post randomization for discrete and continuous repeated measures data. J Roy Stat Soc B. 1996;58:205–219.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Yusuf S, Wittes J, Probstfield J, Tyroler HA. Analysis and interpretation of treatment effects in subgroups of patients in randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 1991;266:93–98.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Rochon J. Analyzing bivariate repeated measures for discrete and continuous outcome variables. Biometrics. 1996;52:740–750.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James Rochon PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Rochon, J. Issues in Adjusting for Covariates Arising Postrandomization in Clinical Trials. Ther Innov Regul Sci 33, 1219–1228 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286159903300425

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286159903300425

Key Words

Navigation