On the relevance of prognostic information for clinical trials: A theoretical quantification

The question of how individual patient data from cohort studies or historical clinical trials can be leveraged for designing more powerful, or smaller yet equally powerful, clinical trials becomes increasingly important in the era of digitalization. Today, the traditional statistical analyses approaches may seem questionable to practitioners in light of ubiquitous historical prognostic information. Several methodological developments aim at incorporating historical information in the design and analysis of future clinical trials, most importantly Bayesian information borrowing, propensity score methods, stratification, and covariate adjustment. Adjusting the analysis with respect to a prognostic score, which was obtained from some model applied to historical data, received renewed interest from a machine learning perspective, and we study the potential of this approach for randomized clinical trials. In an idealized situation of a normal outcome in a two-arm trial with 1:1 allocation, we derive a simple sample size reduction formula as a function of two criteria characterizing the prognostic score: (1) the coefficient of determination R² on historical data and (2) the correlation ρ between the estimated and the true unknown prognostic scores. While maintaining the same power, the original total sample size n planned for the unadjusted analysis reduces to $(1-R^2{\rho }^2)\times n$ in an adjusted analysis. Robustness in less ideal situations was assessed empirically. We conclude that there is potential for substantially more powerful or smaller trials, but only when prognostic scores can be accurately estimated.     

Cox regression model with randomly censored covariates

This paper deals with a Cox proportional hazards regression model, where some covariates of interest are randomly right‐censored. While methods for censored outcomes have become ubiquitous in the literature, methods for censored covariates have thus far received little attention and, for the most part, dealt with the issue of limit‐of‐detection. For randomly censored covariates, an often‐used method is the inefficient complete‐case analysis (CCA) which consists in deleting censored observations in the data analysis. When censoring is not completely independent, the CCA leads to biased and spurious results. Methods for missing covariate data, including type I and type II covariate censoring as well as limit‐of‐detection do not readily apply due to the fundamentally different nature of randomly censored covariates. We develop a novel method for censored covariates using a conditional mean imputation based on either Kaplan–Meier estimates or a Cox proportional hazards model to estimate the effects of these covariates on a time‐to‐event outcome. We evaluate the performance of the proposed method through simulation studies and show that it provides good bias reduction and statistical efficiency. Finally, we illustrate the method using data from the Framingham Heart Study to assess the relationship between offspring and parental age of onset of cardiovascular events.     

Estimation and interpretation of incidence rate difference for recurrent events when the estimation model is misspecified

Recurrent events data are common in experimental and observational studies. It is often of interest to estimate the effect of an intervention on the incidence rate of the recurrent events. The incidence rate difference is a useful measure of intervention effect. A weighted least squares estimator of the incidence rate difference for recurrent events was recently proposed for an additive rate model in which both the baseline incidence rate and the covariate effects were constant over time. In this article, we relax this model assumption and examine the properties of the estimator under the additive and multiplicative rate models assumption in which the baseline incidence rate and covariate effects may vary over time. We show analytically and numerically that the estimator gives an appropriate summary measure of the time‐varying covariate effects. In particular, when the underlying covariate effects are additive and time‐varying, the estimator consistently estimates the weighted average of the covariate effects over time. When the underlying covariate effects are multiplicative and time‐varying, and if there is only one binary covariate indicating the intervention status, the estimator consistently estimates the weighted average of the underlying incidence rate difference between the intervention and control groups over time. We illustrate the method with data from a randomized vaccine trial.