Leveraging External Controls in Clinical Trials: Estimands, Estimation, Assumptions
Abstract
It is increasingly common to augment randomized controlled trial with external controls from observational data, to evaluate the treatment effect of an intervention. Traditional approaches to treatment effect estimation involve ambiguous estimands and unrealistic or strong assumptions, such as mean exchangeability. We introduce a double-indexed notation for potential outcomes to define causal estimands transparently and clarify distinct sources of implicit bias. We show that the concurrent control arm is critical in assessing the plausibility of assumptions and providing unbiased causal estimation. We derive a consistent and locally efficient estimator for a class of weighted average treatment effect estimands that combines concurrent and external data without assuming mean exchangeability. This estimator incorporates an estimate of the systematic difference in outcomes between the concurrent and external units, of which we propose a Frish-Waugh-Lovell style partial regression method to obtain. We compare the proposed methods with existing methods using extensive simulation and applied to cardiovascular clinical trials.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Comparative effectiveness of GLP-1 receptor agonists on glycaemic control, body weight, and lipid profile for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis
- Adverse effects of cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors on renal and arrhythmia events: meta-analysis of randomized trials
- Benefits and harms of drug treatment for type 2 diabetes: systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
- Comparative effectiveness and safety of statins as a class and of specific statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: A systematic review, meta‐analysis, and network meta‐analysis of randomized trials with 94,283 participants
- Screen time increases overweight and obesity risk among adolescents: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis
- Exposure to WHO AWaRe antibiotics and isolation of multi-drug resistant bacteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.