Behavioral testing of antidepressant compounds: an analysis of crossover design for correlated binary data

The differential reinforcement of low-rate 72 seconds schedule (DRL-72) is a standard behavioral test procedure for screening potential antidepressant compounds. The protocol for the DRL-72 experiment, proposed by Evenden et al. (1993), consists of using a crossover design for the experiment and one-way ANOVA for the statistical analysis. In this paper we discuss the choice of several crossover designs for the DRL-72 experiment and propose to estimate the treatment effects using either generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) or generalized estimating equation (GEE) models for clustered binary data.     

Statistical power and sample size requirements for three level hierarchical cluster randomized trials

SUMMARY: Cluster randomized clinical trials (cluster-RCT), where the community entities serve as clusters, often yield data with three hierarchy levels. For example, interventions are randomly assigned to the clusters (level three unit). Health care professionals (level two unit) within the same cluster are trained with the randomly assigned intervention to provide care to subjects (level one unit). In this study, we derived a closed form power function and formulae for sample size determination required to detect an intervention effect on outcomes at the subject's level. In doing so, we used a test statistic based on maximum likelihood estimates from a mixed-effects linear regression model for three level data. A simulation study follows and verifies that theoretical power estimates based on the derived formulae are nearly identical to empirical estimates based on simulated data. Recommendations at the design stage of a cluster-RCT are discussed.     

Modification of sample size in group sequential clinical trials

In group sequential clinical trials, sample size reestimation can be a complicated issue when it allows for change of sample size to be influenced by an observed sample path. Our simulation studies show that increasing sample size based on an interim estimate of the treatment difference can substantially inflate the probability of type I error in most practical situations. A new group sequential test procedure is developed by modifying the weights used in the traditional repeated significance two-sample mean test. The new test has the type I error probability preserved at the target level and can provide a substantial gain in power with the increase of sample size. Generalization of the new procedure is discussed.     

Adaptive design: estimation and inference with censored data in a semiparametric model

In this article, we provide a method of estimation for the treatment effect in the adaptive design for censored survival data with or without adjusting for risk factors other than the treatment indicator. Within the semiparametric Cox proportional hazards model, we propose a bias-adjusted parameter estimator for the treatment coefficient and its asymptotic confidence interval at the end of the trial. The method for obtaining an asymptotic confidence interval and point estimator is based on a general distribution property of the final test statistic from the weighted linear rank statistics at the interims with or without considering the nuisance covariates. The computation of the estimates is straightforward. Extensive simulation studies show that the asymptotic confidence intervals have reasonable nominal probability of coverage, and the proposed point estimators are nearly unbiased with practical sample sizes.     

Improving efficiency of inferences in randomized clinical trials using auxiliary covariates

Summary .   The primary goal of a randomized clinical trial is to make comparisons among two or more treatments. For example, in a two-arm trial with continuous response, the focus may be on the difference in treatment means; with more than two treatments, the comparison may be based on pairwise differences. With binary outcomes, pairwise odds ratios or log odds ratios may be used. In general, comparisons may be based on meaningful parameters in a relevant statistical model. Standard analyses for estimation and testing in this context typically are based on the data collected on response and treatment assignment only. In many trials, auxiliary baseline covariate information may also be available, and it is of interest to exploit these data to improve the efficiency of inferences. Taking a semiparametric theory perspective, we propose a broadly applicable approach to adjustment for auxiliary covariates to achieve more efficient estimators and tests for treatment parameters in the analysis of randomized clinical trials. Simulations and applications demonstrate the performance of the methods.     

Generalized Estimating Equations in Controlled Clinical Trials: Hypotheses Testing

Generalized estimating equations (GEE) for the analysis of clustered data have gained increasing popularity. Recently, the first monograph on this method has been published. GEE have been repeatedly applied in controlled clinical trials. They have, however, been generally used as secondary or supplementary analysis. Instead, the primary analysis was mostly based on a classical method that usually ignored the clustered – mostly longitudinal – nature of the data. In this paper, we discuss the applicability of GEE as primary analysis in controlled clinical trials. From theoretical results in the literature, we derive recommendations how GEE should be used in therapeutic studies for testing statistical hypotheses. We hope that our paper is the starting point for a thorough discussion on the most appropriate analysis of controlled clinical trials with clustered dependent variables. (© 2004 WILEY‐VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim)     

Design and analysis of group sequential clinical trials with multiple primary endpoints

In many phase III clinical trials, it is desirable to separately assess the treatment effect on two or more primary endpoints. Consider the MERIT-HF study, where two endpoints of primary interest were time to death and the earliest of time to first hospitalization or death (The International Steering Committee on Behalf of the MERIT-HF Study Group, 1997, American Journal of Cardiology 80[9B], 54J-58J). It is possible that treatment has no effect on death but a beneficial effect on first hospitalization time, or it has a detrimental effect on death but no effect on hospitalization. A good clinical trial design should permit early stopping as soon as the treatment effect on both endpoints becomes clear. Previous work in this area has not resolved how to stop the study early when one or more endpoints have no treatment effect or how to assess and control the many possible error rates for concluding wrong hypotheses. In this article, we develop a general methodology for group sequential clinical trials with multiple primary endpoints. This method uses a global alpha-spending function to control the overall type I error and a multiple decision rule to control error rates for concluding wrong alternative hypotheses. The method is demonstrated with two simulated examples based on the MERIT-HF study.     

Accounting for variability in sample size estimation with applications to nonadherence and estimation of variance and effect size

We consider sample size calculations for testing differences in means between two samples and allowing for different variances in the two groups. Typically, the power functions depend on the sample size and a set of parameters assumed known, and the sample size needed to obtain a prespecified power is calculated. Here, we account for two sources of variability: we allow the sample size in the power function to be a stochastic variable, and we consider estimating the parameters from preliminary data. An example of the first source of variability is nonadherence (noncompliance). We assume that the proportion of subjects who will adhere to their treatment regimen is not known before the study, but that the proportion is a stochastic variable with a known distribution. Under this assumption, we develop simple closed form sample size calculations based on asymptotic normality. The second source of variability is in parameter estimates that are estimated from prior data. For example, we account for variability in estimating the variance of the normal response from existing data which are assumed to have the same variance as the study for which we are calculating the sample size. We show that we can account for the variability of the variance estimate by simply using a slightly larger nominal power in the usual sample size calculation, which we call the calibrated power. We show that the calculation of the calibrated power depends only on the sample size of the existing data, and we give a table of calibrated power by sample size. Further, we consider the calculation of the sample size in the rarer situation where we account for the variability in estimating the standardized effect size from some existing data. This latter situation, as well as several of the previous ones, is motivated by sample size calculations for a Phase II trial of a malaria vaccine candidate.     

Sample size re‐estimation in clinical trials

Adaptive clinical trials are becoming very popular because of their flexibility in allowing mid‐stream changes of sample size, endpoints, populations, etc. At the same time, they have been regarded with mistrust because they can produce bizarre results in very extreme settings. Understanding the advantages and disadvantages of these rapidly developing methods is a must. This paper reviews flexible methods for sample size re‐estimation when the outcome is continuous.     

Blinded sample size recalculation in multicentre trials with normally distributed outcome

The internal pilot study design enables to estimate nuisance parameters required for sample size calculation on the basis of data accumulated in an ongoing trial. By this, misspecifications made when determining the sample size in the planning phase can be corrected employing updated knowledge. According to regulatory guidelines, blindness of all personnel involved in the trial has to be preserved and the specified type I error rate has to be controlled when the internal pilot study design is applied. Especially in the late phase of drug development, most clinical studies are run in more than one centre. In these multicentre trials, one may have to deal with an unequal distribution of the patient numbers among the centres. Depending on the type of the analysis (weighted or unweighted), unequal centre sample sizes may lead to a substantial loss of power. Like the variance, the magnitude of imbalance is difficult to predict in the planning phase. We propose a blinded sample size recalculation procedure for the internal pilot study design in multicentre trials with normally distributed outcome and two balanced treatment groups that are analysed applying the weighted or the unweighted approach. The method addresses both uncertainty with respect to the variance of the endpoint and the extent of disparity of the centre sample sizes. The actual type I error rate as well as the expected power and sample size of the procedure is investigated in simulation studies. For the weighted analysis as well as for the unweighted analysis, the maximal type I error rate was not or only minimally exceeded. Furthermore, application of the proposed procedure led to an expected power that achieves the specified value in many cases and is throughout very close to it.     

Relative efficiency of unequal versus equal cluster sizes in cluster randomized trials using generalized estimating equation models

There is growing interest in conducting cluster randomized trials (CRTs). For simplicity in sample size calculation, the cluster sizes are assumed to be identical across all clusters. However, equal cluster sizes are not guaranteed in practice. Therefore, the relative efficiency (RE) of unequal versus equal cluster sizes has been investigated when testing the treatment effect. One of the most important approaches to analyze a set of correlated data is the generalized estimating equation (GEE) proposed by Liang and Zeger, in which the “working correlation structure” is introduced and the association pattern depends on a vector of association parameters denoted by ρ. In this paper, we utilize GEE models to test the treatment effect in a two‐group comparison for continuous, binary, or count data in CRTs. The variances of the estimator of the treatment effect are derived for the different types of outcome. RE is defined as the ratio of variance of the estimator of the treatment effect for equal to unequal cluster sizes. We discuss a commonly used structure in CRTs—exchangeable, and derive the simpler formula of RE with continuous, binary, and count outcomes. Finally, REs are investigated for several scenarios of cluster size distributions through simulation studies. We propose an adjusted sample size due to efficiency loss. Additionally, we also propose an optimal sample size estimation based on the GEE models under a fixed budget for known and unknown association parameter (ρ) in the working correlation structure within the cluster.     

Sample Size Considerations for GEE Analyses of Three‐Level Cluster Randomized Trials

Summary Cluster randomized trials in health care may involve three instead of two levels, for instance, in trials where different interventions to improve quality of care are compared. In such trials, the intervention is implemented in health care units (“clusters”) and aims at changing the behavior of health care professionals working in this unit (“subjects”), while the effects are measured at the patient level (“evaluations”). Within the generalized estimating equations approach, we derive a sample size formula that accounts for two levels of clustering: that of subjects within clusters and that of evaluations within subjects. The formula reveals that sample size is inflated, relative to a design with completely independent evaluations, by a multiplicative term that can be expressed as a product of two variance inflation factors, one that quantifies the impact of within‐subject correlation of evaluations on the variance of subject‐level means and the other that quantifies the impact of the correlation between subject‐level means on the variance of the cluster means. Power levels as predicted by the sample size formula agreed well with the simulated power for more than 10 clusters in total, when data were analyzed using bias‐corrected estimating equations for the correlation parameters in combination with the model‐based covariance estimator or the sandwich estimator with a finite sample correction.     

Efficient nonparametric estimation of causal effects in randomized trials with noncompliance

Causal approaches based on the potential outcome framework providea useful tool for addressing noncompliance problems in randomizedtrials. We propose a new estimator of causal treatment effectsin randomized clinical trials with noncompliance. We use theempirical likelihood approach to construct a profile randomsieve likelihood and take into account the mixture structurein outcome distributions, so that our estimator is robust toparametric distribution assumptions and provides substantialfinite-sample efficiency gains over the standard instrumentalvariable estimator. Our estimator is asymptotically equivalentto the standard instrumental variable estimator, and it canbe applied to outcome variables with a continuous, ordinal orbinary scale. We apply our method to data from a randomizedtrial of an intervention to improve the treatment of depressionamong depressed elderly patients in primary care practices.     

Power and sample size calculation of comparative diagnostic accuracy studies with multiple correlated test results

We consider the power and sample size calculation of diagnostic studies with normally distributed multiple correlated test results. We derive test statistics and obtain power and sample size formulas. The methods are illustrated using an example of comparison of CT and PET scanner for detecting extra-hepatic disease for colorectal cancer.