Literature DB >> 30352486

Moving beyond the conventional stratified analysis to estimate an overall treatment efficacy with the data from a comparative randomized clinical study.

L Tian1, F Jiang2, T Hasegawa3, H Uno4, M Pfeffer5, L J Wei6.   

Abstract

For a two-group comparative study, a stratified inference procedure is routinely used to estimate an overall group contrast to increase the precision of the simple two-sample estimator. Unfortunately, most commonly used methods including the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic for a binary outcome and the stratified Cox procedure for the event time endpoint do not serve this purpose well. In fact, these procedures may be worse than their two-sample counterparts even when the observed treatment allocations are imbalanced across strata. Various procedures beyond the conventional stratified methods have been proposed to increase the precision of estimation when the naive estimator is consistent. In this paper, we are interested in the case when the treatment allocation proportions vary markedly across strata. We study the stochastic properties of the two-sample naive estimator conditional on the ancillary statistics, the observed treatment allocation proportions and/or the stratum sizes, and present a biased-adjusted estimator. This adjusted estimator is asymptotically equivalent to the augmentation estimators proposed under the unconditional setting. Moreover, this consistent estimation procedure is also equivalent to a rather simple procedure, which estimates the mean response of each treatment group first via a stratum-size weighted average and then constructs the group contrast estimate. This simple procedure is flexible and readily applicable to any target patient population by choosing appropriate stratum weights. All the proposals are illustrated with the data from a cardiovascular clinical trial, whose treatment allocations are imbalanced.
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  CMH statistic; ancillary statistic; augmentation estimation procedure; conditional inference; mixture population

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30352486      PMCID: PMC8722706          DOI: 10.1002/sim.8015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  14 in total

1.  Statistical aspects of the analysis of data from retrospective studies of disease.

Authors:  N MANTEL; W HAENSZEL
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1959-04       Impact factor: 13.506

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

Authors:  Lu Tian; Tianxi Cai; Lihui Zhao; Lee-Jen Wei
Journal:  Biostatistics       Date:  2012-01-30       Impact factor: 5.899

3.  An efficient alternative to the stratified Cox model analysis.

Authors:  Devan V Mehrotra; Shu-Chih Su; Xiaoming Li
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 4.  Issues for covariance analysis of dichotomous and ordered categorical data from randomized clinical trials and non-parametric strategies for addressing them.

Authors:  G G Koch; C M Tangen; J W Jung; I A Amara
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1998 Aug 15-30       Impact factor: 2.373

5.  Moving beyond the hazard ratio in quantifying the between-group difference in survival analysis.

Authors:  Hajime Uno; Brian Claggett; Lu Tian; Eisuke Inoue; Paul Gallo; Toshio Miyata; Deborah Schrag; Masahiro Takeuchi; Yoshiaki Uyama; Lihui Zhao; Hicham Skali; Scott Solomon; Susanna Jacobus; Michael Hughes; Milton Packer; Lee-Jen Wei
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-06-30       Impact factor: 44.544

6.  Lasso adjustments of treatment effect estimates in randomized experiments.

Authors:  Adam Bloniarz; Hanzhong Liu; Cun-Hui Zhang; Jasjeet S Sekhon; Bin Yu
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2016-07-05       Impact factor: 11.205

7.  Covariate adjustment in randomized trials with binary outcomes: targeted maximum likelihood estimation.

Authors:  K L Moore; M J van der Laan
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2009-01-15       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  Covariate adjustment for two-sample treatment comparisons in randomized clinical trials: a principled yet flexible approach.

Authors:  Anastasios A Tsiatis; Marie Davidian; Min Zhang; Xiaomin Lu
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2008-10-15       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Valsartan, captopril, or both in myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both.

Authors:  Marc A Pfeffer; John J V McMurray; Eric J Velazquez; Jean-Lucien Rouleau; Lars Køber; Aldo P Maggioni; Scott D Solomon; Karl Swedberg; Frans Van de Werf; Harvey White; Jeffrey D Leimberger; Marc Henis; Susan Edwards; Steven Zelenkofske; Mary Ann Sellers; Robert M Califf
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-11-10       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Improving efficiency of inferences in randomized clinical trials using auxiliary covariates.

Authors:  Min Zhang; Anastasios A Tsiatis; Marie Davidian
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2008-01-11       Impact factor: 1.701

View more
  2 in total

1.  Improving precision and power in randomized trials for COVID-19 treatments using covariate adjustment, for binary, ordinal, and time-to-event outcomes.

Authors:  David Benkeser; Iván Díaz; Alex Luedtke; Jodi Segal; Daniel Scharfstein; Michael Rosenblum
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2020-10-11       Impact factor: 1.701

2.  Moving beyond conventional stratified analysis to assess the treatment effect in a comparative oncology study.

Authors:  Ryan Sun; Zachary McCaw; Lu Tian; Hajime Uno; Fangxin Hong; Dae Hyun Kim; Lee-Jen Wei
Journal:  J Immunother Cancer       Date:  2021-11       Impact factor: 13.751

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.