Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userPower prior models for treatment effect estimation in a small n, sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trial
219
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Yan-Cheng Chao
Publication date
2020
fields
Mathematical Statistics
and research's language is
English
Authors
Yan-Cheng Chao
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
A small n, sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trial (snSMART) is a small sample, two-stage design where participants receive up to two treatments sequentially, but the second treatment depends on response to the first treatment. The treatment effect of interest in an snSMART is the first-stage response rate, but outcomes from both stages can be used to obtain more information from a small sample. A novel way to incorporate the outcomes from both stages applies power prior models, in which first stage outcomes from an snSMART are regarded as the primary data and second stage outcomes are regarded as supplemental. We apply existing power prior models to snSMART data, and we also develop new extensions of power prior models. All methods are compared to each other and to the Bayesian joint stage model (BJSM) via simulation studies. By comparing the biases and the efficiency of the response rate estimates among all proposed power prior methods, we suggest application of Fishers exact test or the Bhattacharyyas overlap measure to an snSMART to estimate the treatment effect in an snSMART, which both have performance mostly as good or better than the BJSM. We describe the situations where each of these suggested approaches is preferred.
rate research
Read More
Clinicians and researchers alike are increasingly interested in how best to personalize interventions. A dynamic treatment regimen (DTR) is a sequence of pre-specified decision rules which can be used to guide the delivery of a sequence of treatments or interventions that are tailored to the changing needs of the individual. The sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial (SMART) is a research tool which allows for the construction of effective DTRs. We derive easy-to-use formulae for computing the total sample size for three common two-stage SMART designs in which the primary aim is to compare mean end-of-study outcomes for two embedded DTRs which recommend different first-stage treatments. The formulae are derived in the context of a regression model which leverages information from a longitudinal outcome collected over the entire study. We show that the sample size formula for a SMART can be written as the product of the sample size formula for a standard two-arm randomized trial, a deflation factor that accounts for the increased statistical efficiency resulting from a longitudinal analysis, and an inflation factor that accounts for the design of a SMART. The SMART design inflation factor is typically a function of the anticipated probability of response to first-stage treatment. We review modeling and estimation for DTR effect analyses using a longitudinal outcome from a SMART, as well as the estimation of standard errors. We also present estimators for the covariance matrix for a variety of common working correlation structures. Methods are motivated using the ENGAGE study, a SMART aimed at developing a DTR for increasing motivation to attend treatments among alcohol- and cocaine-dependent patients.
Adaptive interventions (AIs) are increasingly becoming popular in medical and behavioral sciences. An AI is a sequence of individualized intervention options that specify for whom and under what conditions different intervention options should be offered, in order to address the changing needs of individuals as they progress over time. The sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trial (SMART) is a novel trial design that was developed to aid in empirically constructing effective AIs. The sequential randomizations in a SMART often yield multiple AIs that are embedded in the trial by design. Many SMARTs are motivated by scientific questions pertaining to the comparison of such embedded AIs. Existing data analytic methods and sample size planning resources for SMARTs are suitable for superiority testing, namely for testing whether one embedded AI yields better primary outcomes on average than another. This represents a major scientific gap since AIs are often motivated by the need to deliver support/care in a less costly or less burdensome manner, while still yielding benefits that are equivalent or non-inferior to those produced by a more costly/burdensome standard of care. Here, we develop data analytic methods and sample size formulas for SMART studies aiming to test the non-inferiority or equivalence of one AI over another. Sample size and power considerations are discussed with supporting simulations, and online sample size planning resources are provided. For illustration, we use an example from a SMART study aiming to develop an AI for promoting weight loss among overweight/obese adults.
The primary analysis of randomized screening trials for cancer typically adheres to the intention-to-screen principle, measuring cancer-specific mortality reductions between screening and control arms. These mortality reductions result from a combination of the screening regimen, screening technology and the effect of the early, screening-induced, treatment. This motivates addressing these different aspects separately. Here we are interested in the causal effect of early versus delayed treatments on cancer mortality among the screening-detectable subgroup, which under certain assumptions is estimable from conventional randomized screening trial using instrumental variable type methods. To define the causal effect of interest, we formulate a simplified structural multi-state model for screening trials, based on a hypothetical intervention trial where screening detected individuals would be randomized into early versus delayed treatments. The cancer-specific mortality reductions after screening detection are quantified by a cause-specific hazard ratio. For this, we propose two estimators, based on an estimating equation and a likelihood expression. The methods extend existing instrumental variable methods for time-to-event and competing risks outcomes to time-dependent intermediate variables. Using the multi-state model as the basis of a data generating mechanism, we investigate the performance of the new estimators through simulation studies. In addition, we illustrate the proposed method in the context of CT screening for lung cancer using the US National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) data.
We develop new semiparametric methods for estimating treatment effects. We focus on a setting where the outcome distributions may be thick tailed, where treatment effects are small, where sample sizes are large and where assignment is completely random. This setting is of particular interest in recent experimentation in tech companies. We propose using parametric models for the treatment effects, as opposed to parametric models for the full outcome distributions. This leads to semiparametric models for the outcome distributions. We derive the semiparametric efficiency bound for this setting, and propose efficient estimators. In the case with a constant treatment effect one of the proposed estimators has an interesting interpretation as a weighted average of quantile treatment effects, with the weights proportional to (minus) the second derivative of the log of the density of the potential outcomes. Our analysis also results in an extension of Hubers model and trimmed mean to include asymmetry and a simplified condition on linear combinations of order statistics, which may be of independent interest.
Treatment switching in a randomized controlled trial is said to occur when a patient randomized to one treatment arm switches to another treatment arm during follow-up. This can occur at the point of disease progression, whereby patients in the control arm may be offered the experimental treatment. It is widely known that failure to account for treatment switching can seriously dilute the estimated effect of treatment on overall survival. In this paper, we aim to account for the potential impact of treatment switching in a re-analysis evaluating the treatment effect of NucleosideReverse Transcriptase Inhibitors (NRTIs) on a safety outcome (time to first severe or worse sign or symptom) in participants receiving a new antiretroviral regimen that either included or omitted NRTIs in the Optimized Treatment That Includes or OmitsNRTIs (OPTIONS) trial. We propose an estimator of a treatment causal effect under a structural cumulative survival model (SCSM) that leverages randomization as an instrumental variable to account for selective treatment switching. Unlike Robins accelerated failure time model often used to address treatment switching, the proposed approach avoids the need for artificial censoring for estimation. We establish that the proposed estimator is uniformly consistent and asymptotically Gaussian under standard regularity conditions. A consistent variance estimator is also given and a simple resampling approach provides uniform confidence bands for the causal difference comparing treatment groups overtime on the cumulative intensity scale. We develop an R package named ivsacim implementing all proposed methods, freely available to download from R CRAN. We examine the finite performance of the estimator via extensive simulations.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
