scholarly journals Model-Robust Inference for Clinical Trials that Improve Precision by Stratified Randomization and Covariate Adjustment

Author(s):  
Bingkai Wang ◽  
Ryoko Susukida ◽  
Ramin Mojtabai ◽  
Masoumeh Amin-Esmaeili ◽  
Michael Rosenblum
Trials ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kyra M Garofolo ◽  
Sharon D Yeatts ◽  
Viswanathan Ramakrishnan ◽  
Edward C Jauch ◽  
Karen C Johnston ◽  
...  

1991 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 652
Author(s):  
Rolf Holle ◽  
Maria Pritsch

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Hou ◽  
Victoria Ding ◽  
Kang Li ◽  
Xiao-Hua Zhou

2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 605-611 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sue-Jane Wang ◽  
H.M. James Hung

Neurosurgery ◽  
2005 ◽  
Vol 57 (6) ◽  
pp. 1244-1253 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrían V. Hernández ◽  
Ewout W. Steyerberg ◽  
Gillian S. Taylor ◽  
Anthony Marmarou ◽  
J Dik F. Habbema ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
pp. 174077452110285
Author(s):  
Siyun Yang ◽  
Fan Li ◽  
Laine E Thomas ◽  
Fan Li

Background: Subgroup analyses are frequently conducted in randomized clinical trials to assess evidence of heterogeneous treatment effect across patient subpopulations. Although randomization balances covariates within subgroups in expectation, chance imbalance may be amplified in small subgroups and adversely impact the precision of subgroup analyses. Covariate adjustment in overall analysis of randomized clinical trial is often conducted, via either analysis of covariance or propensity score weighting, but covariate adjustment for subgroup analysis has been rarely discussed. In this article, we develop propensity score weighting methodology for covariate adjustment to improve the precision and power of subgroup analyses in randomized clinical trials. Methods: We extend the propensity score weighting methodology to subgroup analyses by fitting a logistic regression propensity model with pre-specified covariate–subgroup interactions. We show that, by construction, overlap weighting exactly balances the covariates with interaction terms in each subgroup. Extensive simulations were performed to compare the operating characteristics of unadjusted estimator, different propensity score weighting estimators and the analysis of covariance estimator. We apply these methods to the Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training trial to evaluate the effect of exercise training on 6-min walk test in several pre-specified subgroups. Results: Standard errors of the adjusted estimators are smaller than those of the unadjusted estimator. The propensity score weighting estimator is as efficient as analysis of covariance, and is often more efficient when subgroup sample size is small (e.g. <125), and/or when outcome model is misspecified. The weighting estimators with full-interaction propensity model consistently outperform the standard main-effect propensity model. Conclusion: Propensity score weighting is a transparent and objective method to adjust chance imbalance of important covariates in subgroup analyses of randomized clinical trials. It is crucial to include the full covariate–subgroup interactions in the propensity score model.


2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 178-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore Karrison ◽  
Masha Kocherginsky

Background: Restricted mean survival time is a measure of average survival time up to a specified time point. There has been an increased interest in using restricted mean survival time to compare treatment arms in randomized clinical trials because such comparisons do not rely on proportional hazards or other assumptions about the nature of the relationship between survival curves. Methods: This article addresses the question of whether covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials that compare restricted mean survival times improves precision of the estimated treatment effect (difference in restricted mean survival times between treatment arms). Although precision generally increases in linear models when prognostic covariates are added, this is not necessarily the case in non-linear models. For example, in logistic and Cox regression, the standard error of the estimated treatment effect does not decrease when prognostic covariates are added, although the situation is complicated in those settings because the estimand changes as well. Because estimation of restricted mean survival time in the manner described in this article is also based on a model that is non-linear in the covariates, we investigate whether the comparison of restricted mean survival times with adjustment for covariates leads to a reduction in the standard error of the estimated treatment effect relative to the unadjusted estimator or whether covariate adjustment provides no improvement in precision. Chen and Tsiatis suggest that precision will increase if covariates are chosen judiciously. We present results of simulation studies that compare unadjusted versus adjusted comparisons of restricted mean survival time between treatment arms in randomized clinical trials. Results: We find that for comparison of restricted means in a randomized clinical trial, adjusting for covariates that are associated with survival increases precision and therefore statistical power, relative to the unadjusted estimator. Omitting important covariates results in less precision but estimates remain unbiased. Conclusion: When comparing restricted means in a randomized clinical trial, adjusting for prognostic covariates can improve precision and increase power.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document