Hypothetical strategy is a common strategy for handling intercurrent events (IEs). No current guideline or study considers treatment-IE interaction to target the estimand in any one IE-handling strategy. Based on the hypothetical strategy, we aimed to (1) assess the performance of three estimators with different considerations for the treatment-IE interaction in a simulation and (2) compare the estimation of these estimators in a real trial. Simulation data were generalized based on realistic clinical trials of Alzheimer\'s disease. The estimand of interest was the effect of treatment with no IE occurring under the hypothetical strategy. Three estimators, namely, G-estimation with and without interaction and IE-ignored estimation, were compared in scenarios where the treatment-IE interaction effect was set as -50% to 50% of the main effect. Bias was the key performance measure. The real case was derived from a randomized trial of methadone maintenance treatment. Only G-estimation with interaction exhibited unbiased estimations regardless of the existence, direction or magnitude of the treatment-IE interaction in those scenarios. Neglecting the interaction and ignoring the IE would introduce a bias as large as 0.093 and 0.241 (true value, -1.561) if the interaction effect existed. In the real case, compared with G-estimation with interaction, G-estimation without interaction and IE-ignored estimation increased the estimand of interest by 33.55% and 34.36%, respectively. This study highlights the importance of considering treatment-IE interaction in the estimand framework. In practice, it would be better to include the interaction in the estimator by default.

Clinical trials with random assignment of treatment provide evidence about causal effects of an experimental treatment compared to standard care. However, when disease processes involve multiple types of possibly semi-competing events, specification of target estimands and causal inferences can be challenging. Intercurrent events such as study withdrawal, the introduction of rescue medication, and death further complicate matters. There has been much discussion about these issues in recent years, but guidance remains ambiguous. Some recommended approaches are formulated in terms of hypothetical settings that have little bearing in the real world. We discuss issues in formulating estimands, beginning with intercurrent events in the context of a linear model and then move on to more complex disease history processes amenable to multistate modeling. We elucidate the meaning of estimands implicit in some recommended approaches for dealing with intercurrent events and highlight the disconnect between estimands formulated in terms of potential outcomes and the real world.

The ICH E9(R1) guideline outlines the estimand framework, which aligns planning, design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of a clinical trial. The benefits and value of using this framework in clinical trials have been outlined in the literature, and guidance has been provided on how to choose the estimand and define the estimand attributes. Although progress has been made in the implementation of estimands in clinical trials, to the best of our knowledge, there is no published discussion on the basic principles that estimands in clinical trials should fulfill to be well defined and consistent with the ideas presented in the ICH E9(R1) guideline. Therefore, in this Viewpoint article, we propose four key principles for defining an estimand. These principles form a basis for well-defined treatment effects that reflect the estimand thinking process. We hope that this Viewpoint will complement ICH E9(R1) and stimulate a discussion on which fundamental properties an estimand in a clinical trial should have and that such discussions will eventually lead to an improved clarity and precision for defining estimands in clinical trials.

There has been a transition from broad to more specific research questions in the practice of network meta-analysis (NMA). Such convergence is also taking place in the context of individual registrational trials, following the recent introduction of the estimand framework, which is impacting the design, data collection strategy, analysis and interpretation of clinical trials. The language of estimands has much to offer to NMA, particularly given the \"narrow\" perspective of treatments and target populations taken in health technology assessment.

The estimands framework outlined in ICH E9 (R1) describes the components needed to precisely define the effects to be estimated in clinical trials, which includes how post-baseline \'intercurrent\' events (IEs) are to be handled. In late-stage clinical trials, it is common to handle IEs like \'treatment discontinuation\' using the treatment policy strategy and target the treatment effect on outcomes regardless of treatment discontinuation. For continuous repeated measures, this type of effect is often estimated using all observed data before and after discontinuation using either a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) or multiple imputation (MI) to handle any missing data. In basic form, both these estimation methods ignore treatment discontinuation in the analysis and therefore may be biased if there are differences in patient outcomes after treatment discontinuation compared with patients still assigned to treatment, and missing data being more common for patients who have discontinued treatment. We therefore propose and evaluate a set of MI models that can accommodate differences between outcomes before and after treatment discontinuation. The models are evaluated in the context of planning a Phase 3 trial for a respiratory disease. We show that analyses ignoring treatment discontinuation can introduce substantial bias and can sometimes underestimate variability. We also show that some of the MI models proposed can successfully correct the bias, but inevitably lead to increases in variance. We conclude that some of the proposed MI models are preferable to the traditional analysis ignoring treatment discontinuation, but the precise choice of MI model will likely depend on the trial design, disease of interest and amount of observed and missing data following treatment discontinuation.

UNASSIGNED: To summarize recent literature on selection bias in disparities research addressing either descriptive or causal questions, with examples from dementia research.
UNASSIGNED: Defining a clear estimand, including the target population, is essential to assess whether generalizability bias or collider-stratification bias are threats to inferences. Selection bias in disparities research can result from sampling strategies, differential inclusion pipelines, loss to follow-up, and competing events. If competing events occur, several potentially relevant estimands can be estimated under different assumptions, with different interpretations. The apparent magnitude of a disparity can differ substantially based on the chosen estimand. Both randomized and observational studies may misrepresent health disparities or heterogeneity in treatment effects if they are not based on a known sampling scheme.
UNASSIGNED: Researchers have recently made substantial progress in conceptualization and methods related to selection bias. This progress will improve the relevance of both descriptive and causal health disparities research.

There has been a growing interest in covariate adjustment in the analysis of randomized controlled trials in past years. For instance, the US Food and Drug Administration recently issued guidance that emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between conditional and marginal treatment effects. Although these effects may sometimes coincide in the context of linear models, this is not typically the case in other settings, and this distinction is often overlooked in clinical trial practice. Considering these developments, this article provides a review of when and how to use covariate adjustment to enhance precision in randomized controlled trials. We describe the differences between conditional and marginal estimands and stress the necessity of aligning statistical analysis methods with the chosen estimand. In addition, we highlight the potential misalignment of commonly used methods in estimating marginal treatment effects. We hereby advocate for the use of the standardization approach, as it can improve efficiency by leveraging the information contained in baseline covariates while remaining robust to model misspecification. Finally, we present practical considerations that have arisen in our respective consultations to further clarify the advantages and limitations of covariate adjustment.

Treatment noncompliance and censoring are two common complications in clinical trials. Motivated by the ADAPTABLE pragmatic clinical trial, we develop methods for assessing treatment effects in the presence of treatment noncompliance with a right-censored survival outcome. We classify the participants into principal strata, defined by their joint potential compliance status under treatment and control. We propose a multiply robust estimator for the causal effects on the survival probability scale within each principal stratum. This estimator is consistent even if one, sometimes two, of the four working models-on the treatment assignment, the principal strata, censoring, and the outcome-is misspecified. A sensitivity analysis strategy is developed to address violations of key identification assumptions, the principal ignorability and monotonicity. We apply the proposed approach to the ADAPTABLE trial to study the causal effect of taking low- versus high-dosage aspirin on all-cause mortality and hospitalization from cardiovascular diseases.

Accurate frequentist performance of a method is desirable in confirmatory clinical trials, but is not sufficient on its own to justify the use of a missing data method. Reference-based conditional mean imputation, with variance estimation justified solely by its frequentist performance, has the surprising and undesirable property that the estimated variance becomes smaller the greater the number of missing observations; as explained under jump-to-reference it effectively forces the true treatment effect to be exactly zero for patients with missing data.

Time-to-event estimands are central to many oncology clinical trials. The estimands framework (addendum to the ICH E9 guideline) calls for precisely defining the treatment effect of interest to align with the clinical question of interest and requires predefining the handling of intercurrent events (ICEs) that occur after treatment initiation and \"affect either the interpretation or the existence of the measurements associated with the clinical question of interest.\" We discuss a practical problem in clinical trial design and execution, that is, in some clinical contexts it is not feasible to systematically follow patients to an event of interest. Loss to follow-up in the presence of intercurrent events can affect the meaning and interpretation of the study results. We provide recommendations for trial design, stressing the need for close alignment of the clinical question of interest and study design, impact on data collection, and other practical implications. When patients cannot be systematically followed, compromise may be necessary to select the best available estimand that can be feasibly estimated under the circumstances. We discuss the use of sensitivity and supplementary analyses to examine assumptions of interest.