Dataset Information

The effect of covariate adjustment for baseline severity in acute stroke clinical trials with responder analysis outcomes.

ABSTRACT: Traditionally in acute stroke clinical trials, the primary clinical outcome employed is a dichotomized modified Rankin Scale (mRS). New statistical methods, such as responder analysis, are being used in stroke studies to address the concern that baseline prognostic variables, such as stroke severity, impact the likelihood of a successful outcome. Responder analysis allows the definition of success to vary according to baseline prognostic variables, producing a more clinically relevant insight into the actual effect of investigational treatments. It is unclear whether or not statistical analyses should adjust for prognostic variables when responder analysis is used, as the outcome already takes these prognostic variables into account. This research aims to investigate the effect of covariate adjustment in the responder analysis framework in order to determine the appropriate analytic method.Using a current stroke clinical trial and its pilot studies to guide simulation parameters, 1,000 clinical trials were simulated at varying sample sizes under several treatment effects to assess power and type I error. Covariate-adjusted and unadjusted logistic regressions were used to estimate the treatment effect under each scenario. In the case of covariate-adjusted logistic regression, the trichotomized National Institute of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) was used in adjustment.Under various treatment effect settings, the operating characteristics of the unadjusted and adjusted analyses do not substantially differ. Power and type I error are preserved for both the unadjusted and adjusted analyses.Our results suggest that, under the given treatment effect scenarios, the decision whether or not to adjust for baseline severity when using a responder analysis outcome should be guided by the needs of the study, as type I error rates and power do not appear to vary largely between the methods. These findings are applicable to stroke trials which use the mRS for the primary outcome, but also provide a broader insight into the analysis of binary outcomes that are defined based on baseline prognostic variables.This research is part of the Stroke Hyperglycemia Insulin Network Effort (SHINE) trial, Identification Number NCT01369069.

SUBMITTER: Garofolo KM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3821551 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The effect of covariate adjustment for baseline severity in acute stroke clinical trials with responder analysis outcomes.

Garofolo Kyra M KM Yeatts Sharon D SD Ramakrishnan Viswanathan V Jauch Edward C EC Johnston Karen C KC Durkalski Valerie L VL

Trials 20130411

<h4>Background</h4>Traditionally in acute stroke clinical trials, the primary clinical outcome employed is a dichotomized modified Rankin Scale (mRS). New statistical methods, such as responder analysis, are being used in stroke studies to address the concern that baseline prognostic variables, such as stroke severity, impact the likelihood of a successful outcome. Responder analysis allows the definition of success to vary according to baseline prognostic variables, producing a more clinically ...[more]

PMID: 24499406

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundRestricted 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.MethodsThis 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionWhen comparing restricted means in a randomized clinical trial, adjusting for prognostic covariates can improve precision and increase power.

Project description:BACKGROUND:It is important to estimate the treatment effect of interest accurately and precisely within the analysis of randomised controlled trials. One way to increase precision in the estimate and thus improve the power for randomised trials with continuous outcomes is through adjustment for pre-specified prognostic baseline covariates. Typically covariate adjustment is conducted using regression analysis, however recently, Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (IPTW) using the propensity score has been proposed as an alternative method. For a continuous outcome it has been shown that the IPTW estimator has the same large sample statistical properties as that obtained via analysis of covariance. However the performance of IPTW has not been explored for smaller population trials (<?100 participants), where precise estimation of the treatment effect has potential for greater impact than in larger samples. METHODS:In this paper we explore the performance of the baseline adjusted treatment effect estimated using IPTW in smaller population trial settings. To do so we present a simulation study including a number of different trial scenarios with sample sizes ranging from 40 to 200 and adjustment for up to 6 covariates. We also re-analyse a paediatric eczema trial that includes 60 children. RESULTS:In the simulation study the performance of the IPTW variance estimator was sub-optimal with smaller sample sizes. The coverage of 95% CI's was marginally below 95% for sample sizes <?150 and???100. For sample sizes <?100 the coverage of 95% CI's was always significantly below 95% for all covariate settings. The minimum coverage obtained with IPTW was 89% with n?=?40. In comparison, regression adjustment always resulted in 95% coverage. The analysis of the eczema trial confirmed discrepancies between the IPTW and regression estimators in a real life small population setting. CONCLUSIONS:The IPTW variance estimator does not perform so well with small samples. Thus we caution against the use of IPTW in small sample settings when the sample size is less than 150 and particularly when sample size <?100.

Dataset Information

The effect of covariate adjustment for baseline severity in acute stroke clinical trials with responder analysis outcomes.

Publications

The effect of covariate adjustment for baseline severity in acute stroke clinical trials with responder analysis outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets