Dataset Information

Two-sample binary phase 2 trials with low type I error and low sample size.

ABSTRACT: We address design of two-stage clinical trials comparing experimental and control patients. Our end point is success or failure, however measured, with null hypothesis that the chance of success in both arms is p0 and alternative that it is p0 among controls and p1 > p0 among experimental patients. Standard rules will have the null hypothesis rejected when the number of successes in the (E)xperimental arm, E, sufficiently exceeds C, that among (C)ontrols. Here, we combine one-sample rejection decision rules, E?m, with two-sample rules of the form E - C > r to achieve two-sample tests with low sample number and low type I error. We find designs with sample numbers not far from the minimum possible using standard two-sample rules, but with type I error of 5% rather than 15% or 20% associated with them, and of equal power. This level of type I error is achieved locally, near the stated null, and increases to 15% or 20% when the null is significantly higher than specified. We increase the attractiveness of these designs to patients by using 2:1 randomization. Examples of the application of this new design covering both high and low success rates under the null hypothesis are provided. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

SUBMITTER: Litwin S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5378610 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Two-sample binary phase 2 trials with low type I error and low sample size.

Litwin Samuel S Basickes Stanley S Ross Eric A EA

Statistics in medicine 20170124 9

We address design of two-stage clinical trials comparing experimental and control patients. Our end point is success or failure, however measured, with null hypothesis that the chance of success in both arms is p0 and alternative that it is p0 among controls and p1 > p0 among experimental patients. Standard rules will have the null hypothesis rejected when the number of successes in the (E)xperimental arm, E, sufficiently exceeds C, that among (C)ontr ...[more]

PMID: 28118686

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background/aimsGeneralized estimating equations are commonly used to fit logistic regression models to clustered binary data from cluster randomized trials. A commonly used correlation structure assumes that the intracluster correlation coefficient does not vary by treatment arm or other covariates, but the consequences of this assumption are understudied. We aim to evaluate the effect of allowing variation of the intracluster correlation coefficient by treatment or other covariates on the efficiency of analysis and show how to account for such variation in sample size calculations.MethodsWe develop formulae for the asymptotic variance of the estimated difference in outcome between treatment arms obtained when the true exchangeable correlation structure depends on the treatment arm and the working correlation structure used in the generalized estimating equations analysis is: (i) correctly specified, (ii) independent, or (iii) exchangeable with no dependence on treatment arm. These formulae require a known distribution of cluster sizes; we also develop simplifications for the case when cluster sizes do not vary and approximations that can be used when the first two moments of the cluster size distribution are known. We then extend the results to settings with adjustment for a second binary cluster-level covariate. We provide formulae to calculate the required sample size for cluster randomized trials using these variances.ResultsWe show that the asymptotic variance of the estimated difference in outcome between treatment arms using these three working correlation structures is the same if all clusters have the same size, and this asymptotic variance is approximately the same when intracluster correlation coefficient values are small. We illustrate these results using data from a recent cluster randomized trial for infectious disease prevention in which the clusters are groups of households and modest in size (mean 9.6 individuals), with intracluster correlation coefficient values of 0.078 in the control arm and 0.057 in an intervention arm. In this application, we found a negligible difference between the variances calculated using structures (i) and (iii) and only a small increase (typically <5%) for the independent correlation structure (ii), and hence minimal effect on power or sample size requirements. The impact may be larger in other applications if there is greater variation in the ICC between treatment arms or with an additional covariate.ConclusionThe common approach of fitting generalized estimating equations with an exchangeable working correlation structure with a common intracluster correlation coefficient across arms likely does not substantially reduce the power or efficiency of the analysis in the setting of a large number of small or modest-sized clusters, even if the intracluster correlation coefficient varies by treatment arm. Our formulae, however, allow formal evaluation of this and may identify situations in which variation in intracluster correlation coefficient by treatment arm or another binary covariate may have a more substantial impact on power and hence sample size requirements.

Dataset Information

Two-sample binary phase 2 trials with low type I error and low sample size.

Publications

Two-sample binary phase 2 trials with low type I error and low sample size.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets