Article

On the covariate-adjusted estimation for an overall treatment difference with data from a randomized comparative clinical trial

Department of Health Research & Policy, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA.
Biostatistics (Impact Factor: 2.24). 01/2012; 13(2):256-73. DOI: 10.1093/biostatistics/kxr050
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To estimate an overall treatment difference with data from a randomized comparative clinical study, baseline covariates are often utilized to increase the estimation precision. Using the standard analysis of covariance technique for making inferences about such an average treatment difference may not be appropriate, especially when the fitted model is nonlinear. On the other hand, the novel augmentation procedure recently studied, for example, by Zhang and others (2008. Improving efficiency of inferences in randomized clinical trials using auxiliary covariates. Biometrics 64, 707-715) is quite flexible. However, in general, it is not clear how to select covariates for augmentation effectively. An overly adjusted estimator may inflate the variance and in some cases be biased. Furthermore, the results from the standard inference procedure by ignoring the sampling variation from the variable selection process may not be valid. In this paper, we first propose an estimation procedure, which augments the simple treatment contrast estimator directly with covariates. The new proposal is asymptotically equivalent to the aforementioned augmentation method. To select covariates, we utilize the standard lasso procedure. Furthermore, to make valid inference from the resulting lasso-type estimator, a cross validation method is used. The validity of the new proposal is justified theoretically and empirically. We illustrate the procedure extensively with a well-known primary biliary cirrhosis clinical trial data set.

1 Follower
 · 
97 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Extensive baseline covariate information is routinely collected on participants in randomized clinical trials, and it is well recognized that a proper covariate-adjusted analysis can improve the efficiency of inference on the treatment effect. However, such covariate adjustment has engendered considerable controversy, as post hoc selection of covariates may involve subjectivity and may lead to biased inference, whereas prior specification of the adjustment may exclude important variables from consideration. Accordingly, how to select covariates objectively to gain maximal efficiency is of broad interest. We propose and study the use of modern variable selection methods for this purpose in the context of a semiparametric framework, under which variable selection in modeling the relationship between outcome and covariates is separated from estimation of the treatment effect, circumventing the potential for selection bias associated with standard analysis of covariance methods. We demonstrate that such objective variable selection techniques combined with this framework can identify key variables and lead to unbiased and efficient inference on the treatment effect. A critical issue in finite samples is validity of estimators of uncertainty, such as standard errors and confidence intervals for the treatment effect. We propose an approach to estimation of sampling variation of estimated treatment effect and show its superior performance relative to that of existing methods. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Statistics in Medicine 12/2012; 31(29). DOI:10.1002/sim.5433 · 2.04 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IMPORTANCE Clinical practice guidelines state there is insufficient evidence to support advising patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) to participate in a home-based walking exercise program. OBJECTIVE To determine whether a home-based walking exercise program that uses a group-mediated cognitive behavioral intervention, incorporating both group support and self-regulatory skills, can improve functional performance compared with a health education control group in patients with PAD with and without intermittent claudication. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS Randomized controlled clinical trial of 194 patients with PAD, including 72.2% without classic symptoms of intermittent claudication, performed in Chicago, Illinois between July 22, 2008, and December 14, 2012. INTERVENTIONS Participants were randomized to 1 of 2 parallel groups: a home-based group-mediated cognitive behavioral walking intervention or an attention control condition. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was 6-month change in 6-minute walk performance. Secondary outcomes included 6-month change in treadmill walking, physical activity, the Walking Impairment Questionnaire (WIQ), and Physical and Mental Health Composite Scores from the 12-item Short-Form Health Survey. RESULTS Participants randomized to the intervention group significantly increased their 6-minute walk distance ([reported in meters] 357.4 to 399.8 vs 353.3 to 342.2 for those in the control group; mean difference, 53.5 [95% CI, 33.2 to 73.8]; P < .001), maximal treadmill walking time (intervention, 7.91 to 9.44 minutes vs control, 7.56 to 8.09; mean difference, 1.01 minutes [95% CI, 0.07 to 1.95]; P = .04), accelerometer-measured physical activity over 7 days (intervention, 778.0 to 866.1 vs control, 671.6 to 645.0; mean difference, 114.7 activity units [95% CI, 12.82 to 216.5]; P = .03), WIQ distance score (intervention, 35.3 to 47.4 vs control, 33.3 to 34.4; mean difference, 11.1 [95% CI, 3.9 to 18.1]; P = .003), and WIQ speed score (intervention, 36.1 to 47.7 vs control, 35.3-36.6; mean difference, 10.4 [95% CI, 3.4 to 17.4]; P = .004). CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE A home-based walking exercise program significantly improved walking endurance, physical activity, and patient-perceived walking endurance and speed in PAD participants with and without classic claudication symptoms. These findings have implications for the large number of patients with PAD who are unable or unwilling to participate in supervised exercise programs. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00693940.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 07/2013; 310(1):57-65. DOI:10.1001/jama.2013.7231 · 30.39 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A biomarker-adjusted treatment effect (BATE) model describes the effect of one treatment versus another on a subpopulation of patients defined by a biomarker. Such a model can be estimated from clinical trial data without relying on additional modeling assumptions, and the estimator can be made more efficient by incorporating information on the main effect of the biomarker on the outcome of interest. Motivated by an HIV trial known as THRIVE, we consider the use of auxiliary covariates, which are usually available in clinical trials and have been used in overall treatment comparisons, in estimating a BATE model. Such covariates can be incorporated using an existing augmentation technique. For a specific type of estimating functions for difference-based BATE models, the optimal augmentation depends only on the joint main effects of marker and covariates. For a ratio-based BATE model, this result holds in special cases but not in general; however, simulation results suggest that the augmentation based on the joint main effects of marker and covariates is virtually equivalent to the theoretically optimal augmentation, especially when the augmentation terms are estimated from data. Application of these methods and results to the THRIVE data yields new insights on the utility of baseline CD4 cell count and viral load as predictive or treatment selection markers.
    Statistical Methods in Medical Research 12/2013; DOI:10.1177/0962280213515572 · 2.96 Impact Factor

Preview

Download
1 Download
Available from