Efficient and flexible simulation-based sample size determination for clinical trials with multiple design parameters.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Wilson DT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8008419 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundThe use of cluster randomized trials (CRTs) is increasing, along with the variety in their design and analysis. The simplest approach for their sample size calculation is to calculate the sample size assuming individual randomization and inflate this by a design effect to account for randomization by cluster. The assumptions of a simple design effect may not always be met; alternative or more complicated approaches are required.MethodsWe summarise a wide range of sample size methods available for cluster randomized trials. For those familiar with sample size calculations for individually randomized trials but with less experience in the clustered case, this manuscript provides formulae for a wide range of scenarios with associated explanation and recommendations. For those with more experience, comprehensive summaries are provided that allow quick identification of methods for a given design, outcome and analysis method.ResultsWe present first those methods applicable to the simplest two-arm, parallel group, completely randomized design followed by methods that incorporate deviations from this design such as: variability in cluster sizes; attrition; non-compliance; or the inclusion of baseline covariates or repeated measures. The paper concludes with methods for alternative designs.ConclusionsThere is a large amount of methodology available for sample size calculations in CRTs. This paper gives the most comprehensive description of published methodology for sample size calculation and provides an important resource for those designing these trials.
| S-EPMC4521133 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recently, multi-regional clinical trials (MRCTs), which incorporate subjects from many countries/regions around the world under the same protocol, have been widely conducted by many global pharmaceutical companies. The objective of such trials is to accelerate the development process for a drug and shorten the drug's approval time in key markets. Several statistical methods have been purposed for the design and evaluation of MRCTs, as well as for assessing the consistency of treatment effects across all regions with one primary endpoint. However, in some therapeutic areas (e.g., Alzheimer's disease), the clinical efficacy of a new treatment may be characterized by a set of possibly correlated endpoints, known as multiple co-primary endpoints. In this paper, we focus on a specific region and establish three statistical criteria for evaluating consistency between the specific region and overall results in MRCTs with multiple co-primary endpoints. More specifically, two of those criteria are used to assess whether the treatment effect in the region of interest is as large as that of the other regions or of the regions overall, while the other criterion is used to assess the consistency of the treatment effect of the specific region achieving a pre-specified threshold. The sample size required for the region of interest can also be evaluated based on these three criteria.
| S-EPMC5493407 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9773100 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In stepped wedge cluster randomized trials, intact clusters of individuals switch from control to intervention from a randomly assigned period onwards. Such trials are becoming increasingly popular in health services research. When a closed cohort is recruited from each cluster for longitudinal follow-up, proper sample size calculation should account for three distinct types of intraclass correlations: the within-period, the inter-period, and the within-individual correlations. Setting the latter two correlation parameters to be equal accommodates cross-sectional designs. We propose sample size procedures for continuous and binary responses within the framework of generalized estimating equations that employ a block exchangeable within-cluster correlation structure defined from the distinct correlation types. For continuous responses, we show that the intraclass correlations affect power only through two eigenvalues of the correlation matrix. We demonstrate that analytical power agrees well with simulated power for as few as eight clusters, when data are analyzed using bias-corrected estimating equations for the correlation parameters concurrently with a bias-corrected sandwich variance estimator.
| S-EPMC6461045 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Cohort Multiple Randomised Controlled Trial (cmRCT) is a newly proposed pragmatic trial design; recently several cmRCT have been initiated. This study tests the unresolved question of whether differential refusal in the intervention arm leads to bias or loss of statistical power and how to deal with this.We conduct simulations evaluating a hypothetical cluster cmRCT in patients at risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). To deal with refusal, we compare the analysis methods intention to treat (ITT), per protocol (PP) and two instrumental variable (IV) methods: two stage predictor substitution (2SPS) and two stage residual inclusion (2SRI) with respect to their bias and power. We vary the correlation between treatment refusal probability and the probability of experiencing the outcome to create different scenarios.We found ITT to be biased in all scenarios, PP the most biased when correlation is strong and 2SRI the least biased on average. Trials suffer a drop in power unless the refusal rate is factored into the power calculation.The ITT effect in routine practice is likely to lie somewhere between the ITT and IV estimates from the trial which differ significantly depending on refusal rates. More research is needed on how refusal rates of experimental interventions correlate with refusal rates in routine practice to help answer the question of which analysis more relevant. We also recommend updating the required sample size during the trial as more information about the refusal rate is gained.
| S-EPMC5000409 | biostudies-other
Project description:We discuss sample size determination in group-sequential designs with two endpoints as co-primary. We derive the power and sample size within two decision-making frameworks. One is to claim the test intervention's benefit relative to control when superiority is achieved for the two endpoints at the same interim timepoint of the trial. The other is when superiority is achieved for the two endpoints at any interim timepoint, not necessarily simultaneously. We evaluate the behaviors of sample size and power with varying design elements and provide a real example to illustrate the proposed sample size methods. In addition, we discuss sample size recalculation based on observed data and evaluate the impact on the power and Type I error rate.
| S-EPMC4082481 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Neonatal seizures are common in the neonatal intensive care unit. Clinicians treat these seizures with several anti-epileptic drugs (AEDs) to reduce seizures in a neonate. Current AEDs exhibit sub-optimal efficacy and several randomized control trials (RCT) of novel AEDs are planned. The aim of this study was to measure the influence of trial design on the required sample size of a RCT. We used seizure time courses from 41 term neonates with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy to build seizure treatment trial simulations. We used five outcome measures, three AED protocols, eight treatment delays from seizure onset (Td) and four levels of trial AED efficacy to simulate different RCTs. We performed power calculations for each RCT design and analysed the resultant sample size. We also assessed the rate of false positives, or placebo effect, in typical uncontrolled studies. We found that the false positive rate ranged from 5 to 85% of patients depending on RCT design. For controlled trials, the choice of outcome measure had the largest effect on sample size with median differences of 30.7 fold (IQR: 13.7-40.0) across a range of AED protocols, Td and trial AED efficacy (p<0.001). RCTs that compared the trial AED with positive controls required sample sizes with a median fold increase of 3.2 (IQR: 1.9-11.9; p<0.001). Delays in AED administration from seizure onset also increased the required sample size 2.1 fold (IQR: 1.7-2.9; p<0.001). Subgroup analysis showed that RCTs in neonates treated with hypothermia required a median fold increase in sample size of 2.6 (IQR: 2.4-3.0) compared to trials in normothermic neonates (p<0.001). These results show that RCT design has a profound influence on the required sample size. Trials that use a control group, appropriate outcome measure, and control for differences in Td between groups in analysis will be valid and minimise sample size.
| S-EPMC5100925 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bayesian analysis of a non-inferiority trial is advantageous in allowing direct probability statements to be made about the relative treatment difference rather than relying on an arbitrary and often poorly justified non-inferiority margin. When the primary analysis will be Bayesian, a Bayesian approach to sample size determination will often be appropriate for consistency with the analysis. We demonstrate three Bayesian approaches to choosing sample size for non-inferiority trials with binary outcomes and review their advantages and disadvantages. First, we present a predictive power approach for determining sample size using the probability that the trial will produce a convincing result in the final analysis. Next, we determine sample size by considering the expected posterior probability of non-inferiority in the trial. Finally, we demonstrate a precision-based approach. We apply these methods to a non-inferiority trial in antiretroviral therapy for treatment of HIV-infected children. A predictive power approach would be most accessible in practical settings, because it is analogous to the standard frequentist approach. Sample sizes are larger than with frequentist calculations unless an informative analysis prior is specified, because appropriate allowance is made for uncertainty in the assumed design parameters, ignored in frequentist calculations. An expected posterior probability approach will lead to a smaller sample size and is appropriate when the focus is on estimating posterior probability rather than on testing. A precision-based approach would be useful when sample size is restricted by limits on recruitment or costs, but it would be difficult to decide on sample size using this approach alone.
| S-EPMC7615731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND/AIMS:Clinical trials for Alzheimer's disease have been aimed primarily at persons who have cognitive symptoms at enrollment. However, researchers are now recognizing that the pathophysiological process of Alzheimer's disease begins years, if not decades, prior to the onset of clinical symptoms. Successful intervention may require intervening early in the disease process. Critical issues arise in designing clinical trials for primary and secondary prevention of Alzheimer's disease including determination of sample sizes and follow-up duration. We address a number of these issues through application of a unifying multistate model for the preclinical course of Alzheimer's disease. A multistate model allows us to specify at which points during the long disease process the intervention exerts its effects. METHODS:We used a nonhomogeneous Markov multistate model for the progression of Alzheimer's disease through preclinical disease states defined by biomarkers, mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease dementia. We used transition probabilities based on several published cohort studies. Sample size methods were developed that account for factors including the initial preclinical disease state of trial participants, the primary endpoint, age-dependent transition and mortality rates and specifications of which transition rates are the targets of the intervention. RESULTS:We find that Alzheimer's disease prevention trials with a clinical primary endpoint of mild cognitive impairment or Alzheimer's disease dementia will require sample sizes of the order many thousands of individuals with at least 5 years of follow-up, which is larger than most Alzheimer's disease therapeutic trials conducted to date. The reasons for the large trial sizes include the long and variable preclinical period that spans decades, high rates of attrition among elderly populations due to mortality and losses to follow-up and potential selection effects, whereby healthier subjects enroll in prevention trials. A web application is available to perform sample size calculations using the methods reported here. CONCLUSION:Sample sizes based on multistate models can account for the points in the disease process when interventions exert their effects and may lead to more accurate sample size determinations. We will need innovative strategies to help design Alzheimer's disease prevention trials with feasible sample size requirements and durations of follow-up.
| S-EPMC6442939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Justifying sample size for a pilot trial is a reporting requirement, but few pilot trials report a clear rationale for their chosen sample size. Unlike full-scale trials, pilot trials should not be designed to test effectiveness, and so, conventional sample size justification approaches do not apply. Rather, pilot trials typically specify a range of primary and secondary feasibility objectives. Often, these objectives relate to estimation of parameters that inform the sample size justification for the full-scale trial, many of which are binary. These binary outcomes are referred to as "feasibility outcomes" and include expected prevalence of the primary trial outcome, primary outcome availability, or recruitment or retention proportions.For pilot cluster trials, sample size calculations depend on the number of clusters, the cluster sizes, the anticipated intra-cluster correlation coefficient for the feasibility outcome and the anticipated proportion for that outcome. Of key importance is the intra-cluster correlation coefficient for the feasibility outcome. It has been suggested that correlations for feasibility outcomes are larger than for clinical outcomes measuring effectiveness. Yet, there is a dearth of information on realised values for these correlations.In this tutorial, we demonstrate how to justify sample size in external pilot cluster trials where the objective is to estimate a binary feasibility outcome. We provide sample size calculation formulae for a variety of scenarios, make available an R Shiny app for implementation, and compile a report of intra-cluster correlations for feasibility outcomes from a convenience sample. We demonstrate that unless correlations are very low, external pilot cluster trials can be made more efficient by including more clusters and fewer observations per cluster.
| S-EPMC10507981 | biostudies-literature