Search

Effective and rapid decision-making from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) requires unbiased and precise treatment effect inferences. Two strategies to address this requirement are to adjust for covariates that are highly correlated with the outcome, and to leverage historical control information via Bayes' theorem. We propose a new Bayesian prognostic covariate adjustment methodology, referred to as Bayesian PROCOVA, that combines these two strategies. Covariate adjustment in Bayesian PROCOVA is based on generative artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms that construct a digital twin generator (DTG) for RCT participants. The DTG is trained on historical control data and yields a digital twin (DT) probability distribution for each RCT participant's outcome under the control treatment. The expectation of the DT distribution, referred to as the prognostic score, defines the covariate for adjustment. Historical control information is leveraged via an additive mixture prior with two components: an informative prior probability distribution specified based on historical control data, and a weakly informative prior distribution. The mixture weight determines the extent to which posterior inferences are drawn from the informative component, versus the weakly informative component. This weight has a prior distribution as well, and so the entire additive mixture prior is completely pre-specifiable without involving any RCT information. We establish an efficient Gibbs algorithm for sampling from the posterior distribution, and derive closed-form expressions for the posterior mean and variance of the treatment effect parameter conditional on the weight, in Bayesian PROCOVA. We evaluate efficiency gains of Bayesian PROCOVA via its bias control and variance reduction compared to frequentist PROCOVA in simulation studies that encompass different discrepancies. These gains translate to smaller RCTs., Comment: 33 pages, 12 figures, 2 tables; Added a new appendix section (conclusions unchanged)

Historical data about disease outcomes can be integrated into the analysis of clinical trials in many ways. We build on existing literature that uses prognostic scores from a predictive model to increase the efficiency of treatment effect estimates via covariate adjustment. Here we go further, utilizing a Bayesian framework that combines prognostic covariate adjustment with an empirical prior distribution learned from the predictive performances of the prognostic model on past trials. The Bayesian approach interpolates between prognostic covariate adjustment with strict type I error control when the prior is diffuse, and a single-arm trial when the prior is sharply peaked. This method is shown theoretically to offer a substantial increase in statistical power, while limiting the type I error rate under reasonable conditions. We demonstrate the utility of our method in simulations and with an analysis of a past Alzheimer's disease clinical trial., Comment: 28 pages, 11 figures

Estimating causal effects from randomized experiments is central to clinical research. Reducing the statistical uncertainty in these analyses is an important objective for statisticians. Registries, prior trials, and health records constitute a growing compendium of historical data on patients under standard-of-care that may be exploitable to this end. However, most methods for historical borrowing achieve reductions in variance by sacrificing strict type-I error rate control. Here, we propose a use of historical data that exploits linear covariate adjustment to improve the efficiency of trial analyses without incurring bias. Specifically, we train a prognostic model on the historical data, then estimate the treatment effect using a linear regression while adjusting for the trial subjects' predicted outcomes (their prognostic scores). We prove that, under certain conditions, this prognostic covariate adjustment procedure attains the minimum variance possible among a large class of estimators. When those conditions are not met, prognostic covariate adjustment is still more efficient than raw covariate adjustment and the gain in efficiency is proportional to a measure of the predictive accuracy of the prognostic model above and beyond the linear relationship with the raw covariates. We demonstrate the approach using simulations and a reanalysis of an Alzheimer's Disease clinical trial and observe meaningful reductions in mean-squared error and the estimated variance. Lastly, we provide a simplified formula for asymptotic variance that enables power calculations that account for these gains. Sample size reductions between 10% and 30% are attainable when using prognostic models that explain a clinically realistic percentage of the outcome variance.