Literature DB >> 19210727

Chop-lump tests for vaccine trials.

Dean Follmann1, Michael P Fay, Michael Proschan.   

Abstract

This article proposes new tests to compare the vaccine and placebo groups in randomized vaccine trials when a small fraction of volunteers become infected. A simple approach that is consistent with the intent-to-treat principle is to assign a score, say W, equal to 0 for the uninfecteds and some postinfection outcome X > 0 for the infecteds. One can then test the equality of this skewed distribution of W between the two groups. This burden of illness (BOI) test was introduced by Chang, Guess, and Heyse (1994, Statistics in Medicine 13, 1807-1814). If infections are rare, the massive number of 0s in each group tends to dilute the vaccine effect and this test can have poor power, particularly if the X's are not close to zero. Comparing X in just the infecteds is no longer a comparison of randomized groups and can produce misleading conclusions. Gilbert, Bosch, and Hudgens (2003, Biometrics 59, 531-541) and Hudgens, Hoering, and Self (2003, Statistics in Medicine 22, 2281-2298) introduced tests of the equality of X in a subgroup-the principal stratum of those "doomed" to be infected under either randomization assignment. This can be more powerful than the BOI approach, but requires unexaminable assumptions. We suggest new "chop-lump" Wilcoxon and t-tests (CLW and CLT) that can be more powerful than the BOI tests in certain situations. When the number of volunteers in each group are equal, the chop-lump tests remove an equal number of zeros from both groups and then perform a test on the remaining W's, which are mostly >0. A permutation approach provides a null distribution. We show that under local alternatives, the CLW test is always more powerful than the usual Wilcoxon test provided the true vaccine and placebo infection rates are the same. We also identify the crucial role of the "gap" between 0 and the X's on power for the t-tests. The chop-lump tests are compared to established tests via simulation for planned HIV and malaria vaccine trials. A reanalysis of the first phase III HIV vaccine trial is used to illustrate the method.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19210727     DOI: 10.1111/j.1541-0420.2008.01131.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Biometrics        ISSN: 0006-341X            Impact factor:   2.571


  15 in total

1.  Two-part test of vaccine effect.

Authors:  Zonghui Hu; Michael Proschan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Null but not void: considerations for hypothesis testing.

Authors:  Pamela A Shaw; Michael A Proschan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-07-16       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Mediation analysis for count and zero-inflated count data.

Authors:  Jing Cheng; Nancy F Cheng; Zijian Guo; Steven Gregorich; Amid I Ismail; Stuart A Gansky
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2017-01-08       Impact factor: 3.021

4.  Efficacy Analysis in Healthy-Volunteer Influenza Challenge Trials: Intention To Treat.

Authors:  Sally Hunsberger; Matthew J Memoli
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2017-12-21       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Evaluating the efficacy of a malaria vaccine.

Authors:  Dylan S Small; Jing Cheng; Thomas R Ten Have
Journal:  Int J Biostat       Date:  2010-02-22       Impact factor: 0.968

6.  Network methods and design of randomized trials: Application to investigation of COVID-19 vaccination boosters.

Authors:  Victor DeGruttola; Ravi Goyal; Natasha K Martin; Rui Wang
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2022-07-27       Impact factor: 2.599

7.  Effects of continuous positive airway pressure on neurocognitive function in obstructive sleep apnea patients: The Apnea Positive Pressure Long-term Efficacy Study (APPLES).

Authors:  Clete A Kushida; Deborah A Nichols; Tyson H Holmes; Stuart F Quan; James K Walsh; Daniel J Gottlieb; Richard D Simon; Christian Guilleminault; David P White; James L Goodwin; Paula K Schweitzer; Eileen B Leary; Pamela R Hyde; Max Hirshkowitz; Sylvan Green; Linda K McEvoy; Cynthia Chan; Alan Gevins; Gary G Kay; Daniel A Bloch; Tami Crabtree; William C Dement
Journal:  Sleep       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 5.849

8.  Rank-based principal stratum sensitivity analyses.

Authors:  X Lu; D V Mehrotra; B E Shepherd
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-05-19       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 9.  Statistical Considerations of Food Allergy Prevention Studies.

Authors:  Henry T Bahnson; George du Toit; Gideon Lack
Journal:  J Allergy Clin Immunol Pract       Date:  2017 Mar - Apr

10.  Semiparametric models and inference for the effect of a treatment when the outcome is nonnegative with clumping at zero.

Authors:  Jing Cheng; Dylan S Small
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2020-09-22       Impact factor: 2.571

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.