IMPROVING POWER IN GROUP SEQUENTIAL, RANDOMIZED TRIALS BY ADJUSTING FOR PROGNOSTIC BASELINE VARIABLES AND SHORT-TERM OUTCOMES

In group sequential designs, adjusting for baseline variables and short-term outcomes can lead to increased power and reduced sample size. We derive formulas for the precision gain from such variable adjustment using semiparametric estimators for the average treatment effect, and give new results on what conditions lead to substantial power gains and sample size reductions. The formulas reveal how the impact of prognostic variables on the precision gain is modified by the number of pipeline participants, analysis timing, enrollment rate, and treatment effect heterogeneity, when the semiparametric estimator uses correctly specified models. Given set prognostic value of baseline variables and short-term outcomes within each arm, the precision gain is maximal when there is no treatment effect heterogeneity. In contrast, a purely predictive ∗Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; e-mail: tqian2@jhu.edu †Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; e-mail: michael.a.rosenblum@gmail.com ‡Department of Biostatistics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA; e-mail: hqiu@jhsph.edu

[1]  Andrea Manca,et al.  A substantial and confusing variation exists in handling of baseline covariates in randomized controlled trials: a review of trials published in leading medical journals. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[2]  D. Hanley,et al.  Safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery plus recombinant tissue plasminogen activator in intracerebral haemorrhage evacuation (MISTIE): a randomised, phase 2 trial , 2016, The Lancet Neurology.

[3]  Mark J. van der Laan,et al.  Simple Examples of Estimating Causal Effects Using Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation , 2010 .

[4]  Nigel Stallard,et al.  A confirmatory seamless phase II/III clinical trial design incorporating short‐term endpoint information , 2010, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  M. J. van der Laan,et al.  A General Implementation of TMLE for Longitudinal Data Applied to Causal Inference in Survival Analysis , 2012, The international journal of biostatistics.

[6]  M. J. van der Laan,et al.  Targeted Minimum Loss Based Estimation of Causal Effects of Multiple Time Point Interventions , 2012, The international journal of biostatistics.

[7]  A. Tsiatis,et al.  Semiparametric estimation of treatment effect with time-lagged response in the presence of informative censoring , 2011, Lifetime Data Analysis.

[8]  L. Thabane,et al.  Empirical comparison of four baseline covariate adjustment methods in analysis of continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials , 2014, Clinical epidemiology.

[9]  James M. Robins,et al.  Unified Methods for Censored Longitudinal Data and Causality , 2003 .

[10]  Romain Neugebauer,et al.  Robust extraction of covariate information to improve estimation efficiency in randomized trials , 2011, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  Maya L. Petersen,et al.  Longitudinal Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation , 2015 .

[12]  Tianchen Qian,et al.  Sensitivity of adaptive enrichment trial designs to accrual rates, time to outcome measurement, and prognostic variables , 2017, Contemporary clinical trials communications.

[13]  J. Robins,et al.  Doubly Robust Estimation in Missing Data and Causal Inference Models , 2005, Biometrics.

[14]  S. Pocock,et al.  Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practiceand problems , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[15]  J. Robins,et al.  Nonparametric Locally Efficient Estimation of the Treatment Specific Survival Distribution with Right Censored Data and Covariates in Observational Studies , 2000 .

[16]  M. J. van der Laan Targeted Maximum Likelihood Based Causal Inference: Part I , 2010, The international journal of biostatistics.

[17]  Michael Rosenblum,et al.  Multiple testing procedures for adaptive enrichment designs: combining group sequential and reallocation approaches. , 2016, Biostatistics.

[18]  M J van der Laan,et al.  Covariate adjustment in randomized trials with binary outcomes: Targeted maximum likelihood estimation , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  J. Robins,et al.  Recovery of Information and Adjustment for Dependent Censoring Using Surrogate Markers , 1992 .

[20]  Lisa V. Hampson,et al.  Group sequential tests for delayed responses (with discussion) , 2013 .