Dataset Information

Improving precision and power in randomized trials for COVID-19 treatments using covariate adjustment, for binary, ordinal, and time-to-event outcomes.

ABSTRACT: Time is of the essence in evaluating potential drugs and biologics for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19. There are currently 876 randomized clinical trials (phase 2 and 3) of treatments for COVID-19 registered on clinicaltrials.gov. Covariate adjustment is a statistical analysis method with potential to improve precision and reduce the required sample size for a substantial number of these trials. Though covariate adjustment is recommended by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, it is underutilized, especially for the types of outcomes (binary, ordinal, and time-to-event) that are common in COVID-19 trials. To demonstrate the potential value added by covariate adjustment in this context, we simulated two-arm, randomized trials comparing a hypothetical COVID-19 treatment versus standard of care, where the primary outcome is binary, ordinal, or time-to-event. Our simulated distributions are derived from two sources: longitudinal data on over 500 patients hospitalized at Weill Cornell Medicine New York Presbyterian Hospital and a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention preliminary description of 2449 cases. In simulated trials with sample sizes ranging from 100 to 1000 participants, we found substantial precision gains from using covariate adjustment-equivalent to 4-18% reductions in the required sample size to achieve a desired power. This was the case for a variety of estimands (targets of inference). From these simulations, we conclude that covariate adjustment is a low-risk, high-reward approach to streamlining COVID-19 treatment trials. We provide an R package and practical recommendations for implementation.

SUBMITTER: Benkeser D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7537316 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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/aimsThe Food and Drug Administration recommends research into developing well-defined and reliable endpoints to evaluate treatments for severe influenza requiring hospitalization. A novel 6-category ordinal endpoint of patient health status after 7 days that ranges from death to hospital discharge with resumption of normal activities is being used in a randomized placebo-controlled trial of intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) for severe influenza (FLU-IVIG). We compare the power of the ordinal endpoint under a proportional odds model to other types of endpoints as a function of various trial parameters.MethodsWe used closed-form analysis and empirical simulation to compare the power of the ordinal endpoint to time-to-event, longitudinal, and binary endpoints. In the simulation setting, we varied the treatment effect and the distribution of the placebo group across the follow-up period with consideration of adjustment for baseline health status.ResultsIn the analytic setting, ordinal endpoints of high granularity provided greater power than time-to-event endpoints when most patients in the placebo group had either naturally progressed to the category of hospital discharge by day 7 or were far from hospital discharge on day 7. In the simulation setting, adjustment for baseline health status universally raised power for the proportional odds model. Across different placebo group distributions of the ordinal endpoint regardless of adjustment for baseline health status, only time-to-event endpoints yielded higher power than the ordinal endpoint for certain treatment effects.ConclusionsIn this case study, the FLU-IVIG ordinal endpoint provided greater power than time-to-event, binary, and longitudinal endpoints for most scenarios of the treatment effect and placebo group distribution, including the target population studied for FLU-IVIG. The ordinal endpoint was only surpassed by the time-to-event endpoint when many patients in the placebo group were on the cusp of hospital discharge on day 7 and the follow-up period for the time-to-event endpoint was extended to allow for additional events. Our general approach for evaluating the power of several potential endpoints for an influenza trial can be used for designing other influenza trials with different target populations and for other trials in other disease areas.

Project description: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.

Dataset Information

Improving precision and power in randomized trials for COVID-19 treatments using covariate adjustment, for binary, ordinal, and time-to-event outcomes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets