Search

Surrogate endpoints play an important role in drug development when they can be used to measure treatment effect early compared to the final clinical outcome and to predict clinical benefit or harm. Such endpoints are assessed for their predictive value of clinical benefit by investigating the surrogate relationship between treatment effects on the surrogate and final outcomes using meta-analytic methods. When surrogate relationships vary across treatment classes, such validation may fail due to limited data within each treatment class. In this paper, two alternative Bayesian meta-analytic methods are introduced which allow for borrowing of information from other treatment classes when exploring the surrogacy in a particular class. The first approach extends a standard model for the evaluation of surrogate endpoints to a hierarchical meta-analysis model assuming full exchangeability of surrogate relationships across all the treatment classes, thus facilitating borrowing of information across the classes. The second method is able to relax this assumption by allowing for partial exchangeability of surrogate relationships across treatment classes to avoid excessive borrowing of information from distinctly different classes. We carried out a simulation study to assess the proposed methods in nine data scenarios and compared them with subgroup analysis using the standard model within each treatment class. We also applied the methods to an illustrative example in colorectal cancer which led to obtaining the parameters describing the surrogate relationships with higher precision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The relative risk, risk difference, and odds ratio are three major indices of differences in risks of diseases between different groups. Although widely used in research and practice in biomedical and epidemiologic research, misconceptions are not uncommon about their relationships. Many publications offer contradicting advices in how to use them in studies. Some biomedical researchers believe that these indices are related in a monotone fashion, and, thus, changes in one direction in one of the indices can be interpreted as same directional changes in the other two. Misconceptions about these three indices such as the monotone relationship are so prevalent in the biomedical and epidemiologic research that clarifications of such popular beliefs are warranted. In this paper, we take a systematic approach to characterize the relationships among the indices. We develop key results to elucidate the intricate relationships between the indices. Our findings speak to the need for investigators to carefully consider the different indices before using them in their studies, since they are not interchangeable and results based on one index are generally not translatable into any of the others. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we present a unified modeling framework to combine aggregated data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with individual participant data (IPD) from observational studies. Rather than simply pooling the available evidence into an overall treatment effect, adjusted for potential confounding, the intention of this work is to explore treatment effects in specific patient populations reflected by the IPD. In this way, by collecting IPD, we can potentially gain new insights from RCTs' results, which cannot be seen using only a meta-analysis of RCTs. We present a new Bayesian hierarchical meta-regression model, which combines submodels, representing different types of data into a coherent analysis. Predictors of baseline risk are estimated from the individual data. Simultaneously, a bivariate random effects distribution of baseline risk and treatment effects is estimated from the combined individual and aggregate data. Therefore, given a subgroup of interest, the estimated treatment effect can be calculated through its correlation with baseline risk. We highlight different types of model parameters: those that are the focus of inference (e.g., treatment effect in a subgroup of patients) and those that are used to adjust for biases introduced by data collection processes (e.g., internal or external validity). The model is applied to a case study where RCTs' results, investigating efficacy in the treatment of diabetic foot problems, are extrapolated to groups of patients treated in medical routine and who were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Mediation analysis allows the examination of effects of a third variable in the pathway between an exposure and an outcome. The general multiple mediation analysis method, proposed by Yu et al, improves traditional methods (eg, estimation of natural and controlled direct effects) to enable consideration of multiple mediators/confounders simultaneously and the use of linear and nonlinear predictive models for estimating mediation/confounding effects. In this paper, we extend the method for time-to-event outcomes and apply the method to explore the racial disparity in breast cancer survivals. Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer death among women of all races. Despite improvement of survival rates of breast cancer in the US, a significant difference between white and black women remains. Previous studies have found that more advanced and aggressive tumors and less than optimal treatment may explain the lower survival rates for black women as compared to white women. Due to limitations of current analytic methods and the lack of comprehensive data sets, researchers have not been able to differentiate the relative effect each factor contributes to the overall racial disparity. We use the CDC-funded Patterns of Care study to examine the determinants of racial disparities in breast cancer survival using a novel multiple mediation analysis. Using the proposed method, we applied the Cox hazard model and multiple additive regression trees as predictive models and found that all racial disparity in survival among Louisiana breast cancer patients were explained by factors included in the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we propose a large-scale multiple testing procedure to find the significant sub-areas between two samples of curves automatically. The procedure is optimal in that it controls the directional false discovery rate at any specified level on a continuum asymptotically. By introducing a nonparametric Gaussian process regression model for the two-sided multiple test, the procedure is computationally inexpensive. It can cope with problems with multidimensional covariates and accommodate different sampling designs across the samples. We further propose the significant curve/surface, giving an insight on dynamic significant differences between two curves. Simulation studies demonstrate that the proposed procedure enjoys superior performance with strong power and good directional error control. The procedure is also illustrated with the application to two executive function studies in hemiplegia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Clinical trials are often designed to compare treatments on the basis of multiple outcomes. For the analysis of the treatment comparison from such a trial, in 1999, the Finkelstein-Schoenfeld test was proposed, which was a generalization of the Gehan-Wilcoxon test based on pairwise comparison of patients on a primary outcome when possible but otherwise on a secondary outcome. In 2012, Pocock and colleagues suggested an estimate based on this concept, the Win Ratio, which summarized the ratio of the number of patients who fared better versus worse on the experimental arm. However, in 2016, Oakes noted that the Win Ratio could be a function of the distribution of follow-up times of the trial. The aim of this paper is to propose an approach to representing the Win Ratio graphically in such a way that the effect of time on the estimate would be apparent. In addition, the methods are used to display the contribution of each endpoint to the composite. We apply the methods to clinical trials in cancer, cardiology, and neurology. Software is available named winRatioAnalysis in CRAN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper considers the analysis of a repeat event outcome in clinical trials of chronic diseases in the context of dependent censoring (e.g. mortality). It has particular application in the context of recurrent heart failure hospitalisations in trials of heart failure. Semi-parametric joint frailty models (JFMs) simultaneously analyse recurrent heart failure hospitalisations and time to cardiovascular death, estimating distinct hazard ratios whilst individual-specific latent variables induce associations between the two processes. A simulation study was carried out to assess the suitability of the JFM versus marginal analyses of recurrent events and cardiovascular death using standard methods. Hazard ratios were consistently overestimated when marginal models were used, whilst the JFM produced good, well-estimated results. An application to the Candesartan in Heart failure: Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and morbidity programme was considered. The JFM gave unbiased estimates of treatment effects in the presence of dependent censoring. We advocate the use of the JFM for future trials that consider recurrent events as the primary outcome. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In clinical trials with survival endpoint, it is common to observe an overlap between two Kaplan-Meier curves of treatment and control groups during the early stage of the trials, indicating a potential delayed treatment effect. Formulas have been derived for the asymptotic power of the log-rank test in the presence of delayed treatment effect and its accompanying sample size calculation. In this paper, we first reformulate the alternative hypothesis with the delayed treatment effect in a rescaled time domain, which can yield a simplified sample size formula for the log-rank test in this context. We further propose an intersection-union test to examine the efficacy of treatment with delayed effect and show it to be more powerful than the log-rank test. Simulation studies are conducted to demonstrate the proposed methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Interventions with multivalued treatments are common in medical and health research, such as when comparing the efficacy of competing drugs or interventions, or comparing between various doses of a particular drug. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in the development of multivalued treatment effect estimators using observational data. In this paper, we compare the performance of commonly used regression-based methods that estimate multivalued treatment effects based on the unconfoundedness assumption. These estimation methods fall into three general categories: (i) estimators based on a model for the outcome variable using conventional regression adjustment; (ii) weighted estimators based on a model for the treatment assignment; and (iii) 'doubly-robust' estimators that model both the treatment assignment and outcome variable within the same framework. We assess the performance of these models using Monte Carlo simulation and demonstrate their application with empirical data. Our results show that (i) when models estimating both the treatment and outcome are correctly specified, all adjustment methods provide similar unbiased estimates; (ii) when the outcome model is misspecified, regression adjustment performs poorly, while all the weighting methods provide unbiased estimates; (iii) when the treatment model is misspecified, methods based solely on modeling the treatment perform poorly, while regression adjustment and the doubly robust models provide unbiased estimates; and (iv) when both the treatment and outcome models are misspecified, all methods perform poorly. Given that researchers will rarely know which of the two models is misspecified, our results support the use of doubly robust estimation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Motivated by the setting of clinical trials in low back pain, this work investigated statistical methods to identify patient subgroups for which there is a large treatment effect (treatment by subgroup interaction). Statistical tests for interaction are often underpowered. Individual patient data (IPD) meta-analyses provide a framework with improved statistical power to investigate subgroups. However, conventional approaches to subgroup analyses applied in both a single trial setting and an IPD setting have a number of issues, one of them being that factors used to define subgroups are investigated one at a time. As individuals have multiple characteristics that may be related to response to treatment, alternative exploratory statistical methods are required.Methods: Tree-based methods are a promising alternative that systematically searches the covariate space to identify subgroups defined by multiple characteristics. A tree method in particular, SIDES, is described and extended for application in an IPD meta-analyses setting by incorporating fixed-effects and random-effects models to account for between-trial variation. The performance of the proposed extension was assessed using simulation studies. The proposed method was then applied to an IPD low back pain dataset.Results: The simulation studies found that the extended IPD-SIDES method performed well in detecting subgroups especially in the presence of large between-trial variation. The IPD-SIDES method identified subgroups with enhanced treatment effect when applied to the low back pain data.Conclusions: This work proposes an exploratory statistical approach for subgroup analyses applicable in any research discipline where subgroup analyses in an IPD meta-analysis setting are of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A dynamic treatment regime (DTR) is a sequence of decision rules, each of which recommends a treatment based on a patient's past and current health status. Sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trials (SMARTs) are multi-stage trial designs that yield data specifically for building effective DTRs. Modeling the marginal mean trajectories of a repeated-measures outcome arising from a SMART presents challenges, because traditional longitudinal models used for randomized clinical trials do not take into account the unique design features of SMART. We discuss modeling considerations for various forms of SMART designs, emphasizing the importance of considering the timing of repeated measures in relation to the treatment stages in a SMART. For illustration, we use data from three SMART case studies with increasing level of complexity, in autism, child attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and adult alcoholism. In all three SMARTs, we illustrate how to accommodate the design features along with the timing of the repeated measures when comparing DTRs based on mean trajectories of the repeated-measures outcome. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With heighted interest in causal inference based on real-world evidence, this empirical study sought to understand differences between the results of observational analyses and long-term randomized clinical trials. We hypothesized that patients deemed "eligible" for clinical trials would follow a different survival trajectory from those deemed "ineligible" and that this factor could partially explain results. In a large observational registry dataset, we estimated separate survival trajectories for hypothetically trial-eligible vs ineligible patients under both coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We also explored whether results would depend on the causal inference method (inverse probability of treatment weighting vs optimal full propensity matching) or the approach to combine propensity scores from multiple imputations (the "across" vs "within" approaches). We found that, in this registry population of PCI/CABG multivessel patients, 32.5% would have been eligible for contemporaneous RCTs, suggesting that RCTs enroll selected populations. Additionally, we found treatment selection bias with different distributions of propensity scores between PCI and CABG patients. The different methodological approaches did not result in different conclusions. Overall, trial-eligible patients appeared to demonstrate at least marginally better survival than ineligible patients. Treatment comparisons by eligibility depended on disease severity. Among trial-eligible three-vessel diseased and trial-ineligible two-vessel diseased patients, CABG appeared to have at least a slight advantage with no treatment difference otherwise. In conclusion, our analyses suggest that RCTs enroll highly selected populations, and our findings are generally consistent with RCTs but less pronounced than major registry findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Observational studies of treatment effects attempt to mimic a randomized experiment by balancing the covariate distribution in treated and control groups, thus removing biases related to measured confounders. Methods such as weighting, matching, and stratification, with or without a propensity score, are common in cross-sectional data. When treatments are initiated over longitudinal follow-up, a target pragmatic trial can be emulated using appropriate matching methods. The ideal experiment of interest is simple; patients would be enrolled sequentially, randomized to one or more treatments and followed subsequently. This tutorial defines a class of longitudinal matching methods that emulate this experiment and provides a review of existing variations, with guidance regarding study design, execution, and analysis. These principles are illustrated in application to the study of statins on cardiovascular outcomes in the Framingham Offspring cohort. We identify avenues for future research and highlight the relevance of this methodology to high-quality comparative effectiveness studies in the era of big data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In failure-time settings, a competing event is any event that makes it impossible for the event of interest to occur. For example, cardiovascular disease death is a competing event for prostate cancer death because an individual cannot die of prostate cancer once he has died of cardiovascular disease. Various statistical estimands have been defined as possible targets of inference in the classical competing risks literature. Many reviews have described these statistical estimands and their estimating procedures with recommendations about their use. However, this previous work has not used a formal framework for characterizing causal effects and their identifying conditions, which makes it difficult to interpret effect estimates and assess recommendations regarding analytic choices. Here we use a counterfactual framework to explicitly define each of these classical estimands. We clarify that, depending on whether competing events are defined as censoring events, contrasts of risks can define a total effect of the treatment on the event of interest or a direct effect of the treatment on the event of interest not mediated by the competing event. In contrast, regardless of whether competing events are defined as censoring events, counterfactual hazard contrasts cannot generally be interpreted as causal effects. We illustrate how identifying assumptions for all of these counterfactual estimands can be represented in causal diagrams, in which competing events are depicted as time-varying covariates. We present an application of these ideas to data from a randomized trial designed to estimate the effect of estrogen therapy on prostate cancer mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the analysis of composite endpoints in a clinical trial, time to first event analysis techniques such as the logrank test and Cox proportional hazard test do not take into account the multiplicity, importance, and the severity of events in the composite endpoint. Several generalized pairwise comparison analysis methods have been described recently that do allow to take these aspects into account. These methods have the additional benefit that all types of outcomes can be included, such as longitudinal quantitative outcomes, to evaluate the full treatment effect. Four of the generalized pairwise comparison methods, ie, the Finkelstein-Schoenfeld, the Buyse, unmatched Pocock, and adapted O'Brien test, are summarized. They are compared to each other and to the logrank test by means of simulations while specifically evaluating the effect of correlation between components of the composite endpoint on the power to detect a treatment difference. These simulations show that prioritized generalized pairwise comparison methods perform very similarly, are sensitive to the priority rank of the components in the composite endpoint, and do not measure the true treatment effect from the second priority-ranked component onward. The nonprioritized pairwise comparison test does not suffer from these limitations and correlation affects only its variance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Differences between arm-based (AB) and contrast-based (CB) models for network meta-analysis (NMA) are controversial. We compare the CB model of Lu and Ades (2006), the AB model of Hong et al(2016), and two intermediate models, using hypothetical data and a selected real data set. Differences between models arise primarily from study intercepts being fixed effects in the Lu-Ades model but random effects in the Hong model, and we identify four key difference. (1) If study intercepts are fixed effects then only within-study information is used, but if they are random effects then between-study information is also used and can cause important bias. (2) Models with random study intercepts are suitable for deriving a wider range of estimands, eg, the marginal risk difference, when underlying risk is derived from the NMA data; but underlying risk is usually best derived from external data, and then models with fixed intercepts are equally good. (3) The Hong model allows treatment effects to be related to study intercepts, but the Lu-Ades model does not. (4) The Hong model is valid under a more relaxed missing data assumption, that arms (rather than contrasts) are missing at random, but this does not appear to reduce bias. We also describe an AB model with fixed study intercepts and a CB model with random study intercepts. We conclude that both AB and CB models are suitable for the analysis of NMA data, but using random study intercepts requires a strong rationale such as relating treatment effects to study intercepts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In randomised trials, continuous endpoints are often measured with some degree of error. This study explores the impact of ignoring measurement error and proposes methods to improve statistical inference in the presence of measurement error. Three main types of measurement error in continuous endpoints are considered: classical, systematic, and differential. For each measurement error type, a corrected effect estimator is proposed. The corrected estimators and several methods for confidence interval estimation are tested in a simulation study. These methods combine information about error-prone and error-free measurements of the endpoint in individuals not included in the trial (external calibration sample). We show that, if measurement error in continuous endpoints is ignored, the treatment effect estimator is unbiased when measurement error is classical, while Type-II error is increased at a given sample size. Conversely, the estimator can be substantially biased when measurement error is systematic or differential. In those cases, bias can largely be prevented and inferences improved upon using information from an external calibration sample, of which the required sample size increases as the strength of the association between the error-prone and error-free endpoint decreases. Measurement error correction using already a small (external) calibration sample is shown to improve inferences and should be considered in trials with error-prone endpoints. Implementation of the proposed correction methods is accommodated by a new software package for R. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of molecular diagnostic tools to achieve individualized medicine requires accurate estimation of individual treatment effects (ITEs). Although several effective data analytic strategies have been proposed for this purpose, they have limitations when it comes to flexibly capturing the complex relationships between clinical outcome and possibly high-dimensional covariates. In this article, we propose an effective machine learning method to estimate ITEs using the gradient boosting trees (GBT). GBT is a powerful nonparametric regression tool in machine learning, and its outstanding performance has been widely recognized for various applications. We use GBT to develop an estimation method for the ITE that is formulated under the potential outcome model framework. Our method can flexibly capture the relationship between clinical outcome and possibly high-dimensional covariates, and it would also be useful for identifying subpopulations of patients who would benefit from the treatment. Results of simulation studies and a real-data analysis of a breast cancer clinical study show that the proposed method can precisely estimate ITEs, and these estimates possibly identify the subgroup of patients who can benefit from treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trial planning requires making efficient yet practical design choices. In a cluster randomized crossover trial, clusters of subjects cross back and forth between implementing the control and intervention conditions over the course of the trial, with each crossover marking the start of a new period. If it is possible to set up such a trial with more crossovers, a pertinent question is whether there are efficiency gains from clusters crossing over more frequently, and if these gains are substantial enough to justify the added complexity and cost of implementing more crossovers. We seek to determine the optimal number of crossovers for a fixed trial duration, and then identify other highly efficient designs by allowing the total number of clusters to vary and imposing thresholds on maximum cost and minimum statistical power. Our results pertain to trials with continuous recruitment and a continuous primary outcome, with the treatment effect estimated using a linear mixed model. To account for the similarity between subjects' outcomes within a cluster, we assume a correlation structure in which the correlation decays gradually in a continuous manner as the time between subjects' measurements increases. The optimal design is characterized by crossovers between the control and intervention conditions with each successive subject. However, this design is neither practical nor cost-efficient to implement, nor is it necessary: the gains in efficiency increase sharply in moving from a two-period to a four-period trial design, but approach an asymptote for the scenarios considered as the number of crossovers continues to increase. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purely nonparametric methods are developed for general two-sample problems in which each experimental unit may have an individual number of possibly correlated replicates. In particular, equality of the variances, or higher moments, of the distributions of the data is not assumed, even under the null hypothesis of no treatment effect. Thus, a solution for the so-called nonparametric Behrens-Fisher problem is proposed for such models. The methods are valid for metric, count, ordered categorical, and even dichotomous data in a unified way. Point estimators of the treatment effects as well as their asymptotic distributions will be studied in detail. For small sample sizes, the distributions of the proposed test statistics are approximated using Satterthwaite-Welch-type t-approximations. Extensive simulation studies show favorable performance of the new methods, in particular, in small sample size situations. A real data set illustrates the application of the proposed methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In March of 2018, the National Kidney Foundation, in collaboration with the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, sponsored a workshop in which surrogate endpoints other than currently established event-time endpoints for clinical trials in chronic kidney disease (CKD) were presented and discussed. One such endpoint is a slope-based parameter describing the rate of decline in the estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over time. There are a number of challenges that can complicate such slope-based analyses in CKD trials. These include the possibility of an early but short-term acute treatment effect on the slope, both within-subject and between-subject heteroscedasticity, and informative censoring resulting from patient dropout due to death or onset of end-stage kidney disease. To address these issues, we first consider a class of mixed-effects models for eGFR that are linear in the parameters describing the mean eGFR trajectory but which are intrinsically nonlinear when a power-of-mean variance structure is used to model within-subject heteroscedasticity. We then combine the model for eGFR with a model for time to dropout to form a class of shared parameter models which, under the right specification of shared random effects, can minimize bias due to informative censoring. The models and methods of analysis are described and illustrated using data from two CKD studies one of which was one of 56 studies made available to the workshop analytical team. Lastly, methodology and accompanying software for prospectively determining sample size/power estimates are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surrogate endpoints are very important in regulatory decision making in healthcare, in particular if they can be measured early compared to the long-term final clinical outcome and act as good predictors of clinical benefit. Bivariate meta-analysis methods can be used to evaluate surrogate endpoints and to predict the treatment effect on the final outcome from the treatment effect measured on a surrogate endpoint. However, candidate surrogate endpoints are often imperfect, and the level of association between the treatment effects on the surrogate and final outcomes may vary between treatments. This imposes a limitation on methods which do not differentiate between the treatments. We develop bivariate network meta-analysis (bvNMA) methods, which combine data on treatment effects on the surrogate and final outcomes, from trials investigating multiple treatment contrasts. The bvNMA methods estimate the effects on both outcomes for all treatment contrasts individually in a single analysis. At the same time, they allow us to model the trial-level surrogacy patterns within each treatment contrast and treatment-level surrogacy, thus enabling predictions of the treatment effect on the final outcome either for a new study in a new population or for a new treatment. Modelling assumptions about the between-studies heterogeneity and the network consistency, and their impact on predictions, are investigated using an illustrative example in advanced colorectal cancer and in a simulation study. When the strength of the surrogate relationships varies across treatment contrasts, bvNMA has the advantage of identifying treatment comparisons for which surrogacy holds, thus leading to better predictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Individuals may vary in their responses to treatment, and identification of subgroups differentially affected by a treatment is an important issue in medical research. The risk of misleading subgroup analyses has become well known, and some exploratory analyses can be helpful in clarifying how covariates potentially interact with the treatment. Motivated by a real data study of pediatric kidney transplant, we consider a semiparametric Bayesian latent model and examine its utility for an exploratory subgroup effect analysis using secondary data. The proposed method is concerned with a clinical setting where the number of subgroups is much smaller than that of potential predictors and subgroups are only latently associated with observed covariates. The semiparametric model is flexible in capturing the latent structure driven by data rather than dictated by parametric modeling assumptions. Since it is difficult to correctly specify the conditional relationship between the response and a large number of confounders in modeling, we use propensity score matching to improve the model robustness by balancing the covariates distribution. Simulation studies show that the proposed analysis can find the latent subgrouping structure and, with propensity score matching adjustment, yield robust estimates even when the outcome model is misspecified. In the real data analysis, the proposed analysis reports significant subgroup effects on steroid avoidance in kidney transplant patients, whereas standard proportional hazards regression analysis does not. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In sequential multiple assignment randomized trials, longitudinal outcomes may be the most important outcomes of interest because this type of trials is usually conducted in areas of chronic diseases or conditions. We propose to use a weighted generalized estimating equation (GEE) approach to analyzing data from such type of trials for comparing two adaptive treatment strategies based on generalized linear models. Although the randomization probabilities are known, we consider estimated weights in which the randomization probabilities are replaced by their empirical estimates and prove that the resulting weighted GEE estimator is more efficient than the estimators with true weights. The variance of the weighted GEE estimator is estimated by an empirical sandwich estimator. The time variable in the model can be linear, piecewise linear, or more complicated forms. This provides more flexibility that is important because, in the adaptive treatment setting, the treatment changes over time and, hence, a single linear trend over the whole period of study may not be practical. Simulation results show that the weighted GEE estimators of regression coefficients are consistent regardless of the specification of the correlation structure of the longitudinal outcomes. The weighted GEE method is then applied in analyzing data from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A full independent drug development programme to demonstrate efficacy may not be ethical and/or feasible in small populations such as paediatric populations or orphan indications. Different levels of extrapolation from a larger population to smaller target populations are widely used for supporting decisions in this situation. There are guidance documents in drug regulation, where a weakening of the statistical rigour for trials in the target population is mentioned to be an option for dealing with this problem. To this end, we propose clinical trials designs, which make use of prior knowledge on efficacy for inference. We formulate a framework based on prior beliefs in order to investigate when the significance level for the test of the primary endpoint in confirmatory trials can be relaxed (and thus the sample size can be reduced) in the target population while controlling a certain posterior belief in effectiveness after rejection of the null hypothesis in the corresponding confirmatory statistical test. We show that point-priors may be used in the argumentation because under certain constraints, they have favourable limiting properties among other types of priors. The crucial quantity to be elicited is the prior belief in the possibility of extrapolation from a larger population to the target population. We try to illustrate an existing decision tree for extrapolation to paediatric populations within our framework. © 2016 The Authors. Statistics in Medicine Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Q-learning is a regression-based approach that uses longitudinal data to construct dynamic treatment regimes, which are sequences of decision rules that use patient information to inform future treatment decisions. An optimal dynamic treatment regime is composed of a sequence of decision rules that indicate how to optimally individualize treatment using the patients' baseline and time-varying characteristics to optimize the final outcome. Constructing optimal dynamic regimes using Q-learning depends heavily on the assumption that regression models at each decision point are correctly specified; yet model checking in the context of Q-learning has been largely overlooked in the current literature. In this article, we show that residual plots obtained from standard Q-learning models may fail to adequately check the quality of the model fit. We present a modified Q-learning procedure that accommodates residual analyses using standard tools. We present simulation studies showing the advantage of the proposed modification over standard Q-learning. We illustrate this new Q-learning approach using data collected from a sequential multiple assignment randomized trial of patients with schizophrenia. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Longitudinal data are widely analysed using linear mixed models, with 'random slopes' models particularly common. However, when modelling, for example, longitudinal pre-treatment CD4 cell counts in HIV-positive patients, the incorporation of non-stationary stochastic processes such as Brownian motion has been shown to lead to a more biologically plausible model and a substantial improvement in model fit. In this article, we propose two further extensions. Firstly, we propose the addition of a fractional Brownian motion component, and secondly, we generalise the model to follow a multivariate-t distribution. These extensions are biologically plausible, and each demonstrated substantially improved fit on application to example data from the Concerted Action on SeroConversion to AIDS and Death in Europe study. We also propose novel procedures for residual diagnostic plots that allow such models to be assessed. Cohorts of patients were simulated from the previously reported and newly developed models in order to evaluate differences in predictions made for the timing of treatment initiation under different clinical management strategies. A further simulation study was performed to demonstrate the substantial biases in parameter estimates of the mean slope of CD4 decline with time that can occur when random slopes models are applied in the presence of censoring because of treatment initiation, with the degree of bias found to depend strongly on the treatment initiation rule applied. Our findings indicate that researchers should consider more complex and flexible models for the analysis of longitudinal biomarker data, particularly when there are substantial missing data, and that the parameter estimates from random slopes models must be interpreted with caution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In randomised controlled trials of treatments for late-stage cancer, it is common for control arm patients to receive the experimental treatment around the point of disease progression. This treatment switching can dilute the estimated treatment effect on overall survival and impact the assessment of a treatment's benefit on health economic evaluations. The rank-preserving structural failure time model of Robins and Tsiatis (Comm. Stat., 20:2609-2631) offers a potential solution to this problem and is typically implemented using the logrank test. However, in the presence of substantial switching, this test can have low power because the hazard ratio is not constant over time. Schoenfeld (Biometrika, 68:316-319) showed that when the hazard ratio is not constant, weighted versions of the logrank test become optimal. We present a weighted logrank test statistic for the late stage cancer trial context given the treatment switching pattern and working assumptions about the underlying hazard function in the population. Simulations suggest that the weighted approach can lead to large efficiency gains in either an intention-to-treat or a causal rank-preserving structural failure time model analysis compared with the unweighted approach. Furthermore, violation of the working assumptions used in the derivation of the weights only affects the efficiency of the estimates and does not induce bias or inflate the type I error rate. The weighted logrank test statistic should therefore be considered for use as part of a careful secondary, exploratory analysis of trial data affected by substantial treatment switching. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In clinical studies, the proportional odds model is widely used to compare treatment efficacies when the responses are categorically ordered. However, this model has been shown to be inappropriate when the proportional odds assumption is invalid, mainly because it is unable to control the type I error rate in such circumstances. To remedy this problem, the latent normal model was recently promoted and has been demonstrated to be superior to the proportional odds model. However, the application of the latent normal model is limited to compare treatments with similar underlying distributions except possibly their means and variances. When the underlying distributions are very different in skewness, both of the aforementioned procedures suffer from the undesirable inflation of the type I error rate. To solve the problem for clinical studies with ordinal responses, we provide a viable solution that relies on the use of the latent Weibull distribution, which is a member of the log-location-scale family. The proposed model is able to control the type I error rate regardless of the degree of skewness of the treatment responses. In addition, the power of the test also outperforms that of the latent normal model. The testing procedure draws on newly developed theoretical results related to latent distributions from the location-scale family. The testing procedure is illustrated with two clinical examples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We describe instrumental variable (IV) methods for the estimation of the 'dose'-response effects of psychological interventions in randomized controlled trials in which there is variability in the patients' adherence to the allocated therapy (that is, variability in the actual number of sessions of therapy attended) and also variability in the strength of the therapeutic alliance between patients and their therapists. The effect of the therapy on outcome is assumed to be a function of both the number of sessions attended and the strength of the therapeutic alliance, with no intervention effects in the absence of any sessions attended (an exclusion restriction) and the effect of the strength of the alliance being represented by a multiplicative term (interaction) in the treatment-effect model. The IV methods that are described allow for: (a) hidden confounding between sessions, alliance and outcome; (b) measurement errors in the alliance; and (c) that alliance is only measured in those receiving treatment. Three two-stage estimation procedures are illustrated, and their equivalence demonstrated, through Monte Carlo simulation and analysis of the results of an actual trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]