Contrasting approaches for addressing non-adherence in randomized controlled trials: An illustration from the REFLUX trial

Abstract

Background: In many randomized controlled trials, a substantial proportion of patients do not comply with the treatment protocol to which they have been randomly assigned. Randomized controlled trials are required to report results according to the intention-to-treat estimand, but recent methodological guidance recognizes the importance of estimating other causal quantities. Methods: This article outlines an analytical framework for randomized controlled trials with non-compliance. We apply the ICH E9 (R1) addendum and combine it with the potential outcomes framework to define key estimands, outline the major assumptions for identification of each estimand, and highlight the assumptions that cannot be verified from the randomized controlled trial data. We contrast the assumptions and estimates in a re-analysis of the REFLUX trial. We report alternative estimates for the effectiveness of receipt of laparoscopic surgery versus medical management for patients with gastro-intestinal reflux disease. Results: The article finds that adjusted as-treated and per-protocol estimates were similar in magnitude to those based intention-to-treat methods. Instrumental variable estimates of the complier average causal effect were larger, with wider confidence intervals. Conclusion: We recommend that in randomized controlled trials with non-compliance, studies should outline which estimand is most relevant to the study context, evaluate key assumptions, and present estimates from a range of methods as a sensitivity analysis.