Identification and Estimation of Causal Effects Using Non-Concurrent Controls in Platform Trials
Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 21, 2025

The Innovation Arena: A Method for Comparing Innovative Problem-Solving Across Groups
Published on: May 13, 2022
Michele Santacatterina1, Federico Macchiavelli Giron1, Xinyi Zhang1
1Division of Biostatistics, Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA.
Abstract:
Platform trials are multi-arm designs that simultaneously evaluate multiple treatments for a single disease within the same overall trial structure. Unlike traditional randomized controlled trials, they allow treatment arms to enter and exit the trial at distinct times while maintaining a control arm throughout. This control arm comprises both concurrent controls, where participants are randomized concurrently to either the treatment or control arm, and non-concurrent controls, who enter the trial when the treatment arm under study is unavailable. While flexible, platform trials introduce the challenge of using non-concurrent controls, raising questions about estimating treatment effects. Specifically, which estimands should be targeted? Under what assumptions can these estimands be identified and estimated? Are there any efficiency gains? In this article, we discuss issues related to the identification and estimation assumptions of common choices of estimand. We conclude that the most robust strategy to increase efficiency without imposing unwarranted assumptions is to target the concurrent average treatment effect (cATE), the ATE among only concurrent units, using a covariate-adjusted doubly robust estimator. Our studies suggest that, for the purpose of obtaining efficiency gains, collecting important prognostic variables is more important than relying on non-concurrent controls. We also discuss the perils of targeting ATE due to an untestable extrapolation assumption that will often be invalid. We provide simulations illustrating our points and an application to the ACTT platform trial, resulting in a 20% improvement in precision compared to the naive estimator that ignores non-concurrent controls and prognostic variables.
More Related Videos
12:12Irrelevant Stimuli and Action Control: Analyzing the Influence of Ignored Stimuli via the Distractor-Response Binding Paradigm
Published on: May 14, 2014
05:58Using Rapid Serial Visual Presentation to Measure Set-Specific Capture, a Consequence of Distraction While Multitasking
Published on: August 29, 2018
Related Concept Videos
Controls in Experiments
Experimental Designs
Statistical Significance
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Cause and Effect
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...