When assessing comparative effectiveness or safety in observational research, the impact of unmeasured confounding should not be ignored. Instead, we suggest quantitatively evaluating the impact of unmeasured confounding and provided a best practice recommendation for selecting appropriate analytical methods.

Purpose: We review statistical methods for assessing the possible impact of bias due to unmeasured confounding in real world data analysis and provide detailed recommendations for choosing among the methods. Methods: By updating an earlier systematic review, we summarize modern statistical best practices for evaluating and correcting for potential bias due to unmeasured confounding in estimating causal treatment effect from non-interventional studies. Results: We suggest a hierarchical structure for assessing unmeasured confounding. First, for initial sensitivity analyses, we strongly recommend applying a recently developed method, the E-value, that is straightforward to apply and does not require prior knowledge or assumptions about the unmeasured confounder(s). When some such knowledge is available, the E-value could be supplemented by the rule-out or array method at this step. If these initial analyses suggest results may not be robust to unmeasured confounding, subsequent analyses could be conducted using more specialized statistical methods, which we categorize based on whether they require access to external data on the suspected unmeasured confounder(s), internal data, or no data. Other factors for choosing the subsequent sensitivity analysis methods are also introduced and discussed, including the types of unmeasured confounders and whether the subsequent sensitivity analysis is intended to provide a corrected causal treatment effect. Conclusion: Various analytical methods have been proposed to address unmeasured confounding, but little research has discussed a structured approach to select appropriate methods in practice. In providing practical suggestions for choosing appropriate initial and, potentially, more specialized subsequent sensitivity analyses, we hope to facilitate the widespread reporting of such sensitivity analyses in non-interventional studies. The suggested approach also has the potential to inform pre-specification of sensitivity analyses before executing the analysis, and therefore increase the transparency and limit selective study reporting.

The ICH E9(R1) addendum (2019) proposed principal stratification (PS) as one of five strategies for dealing with intercurrent events. Therefore, understanding the strengths, limitations, and assumptions of PS is important for the broad community of clinical trialists. Many approaches have been developed under the general framework of PS in different areas of research, including experimental and observational studies. These diverse applications have utilized a diverse set of tools and assumptions. Thus, need exists to present these approaches in a unifying manner. The goal of this tutorial is threefold. First, we provide a coherent and unifying description of PS. Second, we emphasize that estimation of effects within PS relies on strong assumptions and we thoroughly examine the consequences of these assumptions to understand in which situations certain assumptions are reasonable. Finally, we provide an overview of a variety of key methods for PS analysis and use a real clinical trial example to illustrate them. Examples of code for implementation of some of these approaches are given in Supplemental Materials.

Aim: Patients with secondary immunodeficiency (SID) are at increased risk of infections and may be treated with immunoglobulin replacement therapy (IgRT). Despite growing efficacy evidence for IgRT in infection prevention in SID, treatment guidelines are not aligned. Materials & methods: A retrospective database analysis was conducted to assess treatment patterns and infection rates in patients at risk of SID-related infections, with or without IgRT (IgPro10) exposure, to evaluate real-world effectiveness of IgRT in infection prevention. Results: Of 11,448 patients included, 222 received IgPro10. B-cell malignancies and solid organ transplants were the predominant underlying conditions. Despite being sicker at baseline, the IgPro10 cohort demonstrated fewer infections post-index than the non-IgRT cohort. Conclusion: IgPro10 may be an effective option for infection prevention in SID.