Author
Listed:
- Nai-Chia Chen
(Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, CO, USA)
- Antal T. Zemplenyi
(Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, CO, USA)
- Blythe Adamson
(Flatiron Health, Inc., New York, NY, USA)
- Alex M. Kaizer
(Department of Biostatistics and Informatics, University of Colorado School of Public Health, Aurora, CO, USA)
- Cindy L. O’Bryant
(Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, CO, USA)
- R. Brett McQueen
(Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, CO, USA)
- Kelly E. Anderson
(Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University of Colorado Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Aurora, CO, USA
Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA)
Abstract
Objective Real-world evidence is increasingly leveraged to assess treatment effectiveness outside of clinical trials, yet unmeasured confounders and missing data pose challenges to causal inference, which is particularly problematic when incorporating historical controls that lack recent prognostic factors. We applied the regression discontinuity in time (RDiT) design, a quasi-experimental approach, in a real-world case study of second-line pembrolizumab versus docetaxel for advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (aNSCLC). We compared results from the RDiT method with time-stratified inverse probability treatment weighting (ts-IPTW), benchmarking results against long-term trial data. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who received second-line pembrolizumab or docetaxel after platinum-based chemotherapy between 2011 and 2023. The introduction of pembrolizumab (Q2 2016) served as the discontinuity threshold in an RDiT framework, with treatment probabilities estimated via logistic regression. Survival outcomes, including hazard ratios (HRs), median overall survival, and restricted mean survival time (RMST), were compared across RDiT, ts-IPTW, and reconstructed trial estimates. Data Sources This study used the US-based, electronic health record–derived deidentified Flatiron Health Research Database. Results Among 1,975 patients (1,014 pembrolizumab, 961 docetaxel), RDiT estimated an adjusted median survival of 11.5 mo for pembrolizumab versus 6.9 mo for docetaxel (HR 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.48, 0.89), compared with ts-IPTW (HR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.42, 0.64) and 5-y trial data (HR 0.70, 95% CI: 0.61, 0.80). RDiT produced smaller survival gains that were better aligned with trial results relative to ts-IPTW, suggesting it may help mitigate unmeasured confounding in real-world studies. Conclusions The RDiT may provide effect estimates more consistent with trial data, particularly when confounding is a concern. More research is required to examine its performance in other applications. Highlights The regression discontinuity in time (RDiT) method incorporates historical controls and addresses unobserved confounders to strengthen causal inference. Compared with traditional propensity score–based approaches, RDiT accommodates historical and concurrent controls and reduces reliance on comprehensive measurement of observed confounders when treatment practices or biomarkers change over time. As real-world evidence increasingly informs regulatory, coverage, and pricing decisions, rigorous analytic methods are essential to produce credible and decision-relevant estimates.
Suggested Citation
Nai-Chia Chen & Antal T. Zemplenyi & Blythe Adamson & Alex M. Kaizer & Cindy L. O’Bryant & R. Brett McQueen & Kelly E. Anderson, 2026.
"Using Regression Discontinuity in Time to Strengthen Real-World Evidence: A Case Study in Lung Cancer,"
Medical Decision Making, , vol. 46(5), pages 601-623, July.
Handle:
RePEc:sae:medema:v:46:y:2026:i:5:p:601-623
DOI: 10.1177/0272989X261431776
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:46:y:2026:i:5:p:601-623. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.