Sample size and power considerations for cluster randomized trials with count outcomes subject to right truncation

Designing individually randomized group treatment trials with repeated outcome measurements using generalized estimating equations

Individually randomized group treatment (IRGT) trials, in which the clustering of outcome is induced by group-based treatment delivery, are increasingly popular in public health research. IRGT trials frequently incorporate longitudinal measurements, of which the proper sample size calculations should account for correlation structures reflecting both the treatment-induced clustering and repeated outcome measurements. Given the relatively sparse literature on designing longitudinal IRGT trials, we propose sample size procedures for continuous and binary outcomes based on the generalized estimating equations approach, employing the block exchangeable correlation structures with different correlation parameters for the treatment arm and for the control arm, and surveying five marginal mean models with different assumptions of time effect: no-time constant treatment effect, linear-time constant treatment effect, categorical-time constant treatment effect, linear time by treatment interaction, and categorical time by treatment interaction. Closed-form sample size formulas are derived for continuous outcomes, which depends on the eigenvalues of the correlation matrices; detailed numerical sample size procedures are proposed for binary outcomes. Through simulations, we demonstrate that the empirical power agrees well with the predicted power, for as few as eight groups formed in the treatment arm, when data are analyzed using the matrix-adjusted estimating equations for the correlation parameters with a bias-corrected sandwich variance estimator.

Leveraging baseline covariates to analyze small cluster-randomized trials with a rare binary outcome

Cluster-randomized trials (CRTs) involve randomizing entire groups of participants-called clusters-to treatment arms but are often comprised of a limited or fixed number of available clusters. While covariate adjustment can account for chance imbalances between treatment arms and increase statistical efficiency in individually randomized trials, analytical methods for individual-level covariate adjustment in small CRTs have received little attention to date. In this paper, we systematically investigate, through extensive simulations, the operating characteristics of propensity score weighting and multivariable regression as two individual-level covariate adjustment strategies for estimating the participant-average causal effect in small CRTs with a rare binary outcome and identify scenarios where each adjustment strategy has a relative efficiency advantage over the other to make practical recommendations. We also examine the finite-sample performance of the bias-corrected sandwich variance estimators associated with propensity score weighting and multivariable regression for quantifying the uncertainty in estimating the participant-average treatment effect. To illustrate the methods for individual-level covariate adjustment, we reanalyze a recent CRT testing a sedation protocol in 31 pediatric intensive care units.

Informative cluster size in cluster-randomised trials: A case study from the TRIGGER trial

BACKGROUND

Recent work has shown that cluster-randomised trials can estimate two distinct estimands: the participant-average and cluster-average treatment effects. These can differ when participant outcomes or the treatment effect depends on the cluster size (termed informative cluster size). In this case, estimators that target one estimand (such as the analysis of unweighted cluster-level summaries, which targets the cluster-average effect) may be biased for the other. Furthermore, commonly used estimators such as mixed-effects models or generalised estimating equations with an exchangeable correlation structure can be biased for both estimands. However, there has been little empirical research into whether informative cluster size is likely to occur in practice.

METHOD

We re-analysed a cluster-randomised trial comparing two different thresholds for red blood cell transfusion in patients with acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding to explore whether estimates for the participant- and cluster-average effects differed, to provide empirical evidence for whether informative cluster size may be present. For each outcome, we first estimated a participant-average effect using independence estimating equations, which are unbiased under informative cluster size. We then compared this to two further methods: (1) a cluster-average effect estimated using either weighted independence estimating equations or unweighted cluster-level summaries, and (2) estimates from a mixed-effects model or generalised estimating equations with an exchangeable correlation structure. We then performed a small simulation study to evaluate whether observed differences between cluster- and participant-average estimates were likely to occur even if no informative cluster size was present.

RESULTS

For most outcomes, treatment effect estimates from different methods were similar. However, differences of >10% occurred between participant- and cluster-average estimates for 5 of 17 outcomes (29%). We also observed several notable differences between estimates from mixed-effects models or generalised estimating equations with an exchangeable correlation structure and those based on independence estimating equations. For example, for the EQ-5D VAS score, the independence estimating equation estimate of the participant-average difference was 4.15 (95% confidence interval: -3.37 to 11.66), compared with 2.84 (95% confidence interval: -7.37 to 13.04) for the cluster-average independence estimating equation estimate, and 3.23 (95% confidence interval: -6.70 to 13.16) from a mixed-effects model. Similarly, for thromboembolic/ischaemic events, the independence estimating equation estimate for the participant-average odds ratio was 0.43 (95% confidence interval: 0.07 to 2.48), compared with 0.33 (95% confidence interval: 0.06 to 1.77) from the cluster-average estimator.

CONCLUSION

In this re-analysis, we found that estimates from the various approaches could differ, which may be due to the presence of informative cluster size. Careful consideration of the estimand and the plausibility of assumptions underpinning each estimator can help ensure an appropriate analysis methods are used. Independence estimating equations and the analysis of cluster-level summaries (with appropriate weighting for each to correspond to either the participant-average or cluster-average treatment effect) are a desirable choice when informative cluster size is deemed possible, due to their unbiasedness in this setting.

Sample size considerations for assessing treatment effect heterogeneity in randomized trials with heterogeneous intracluster correlations and variances

An important consideration in the design and analysis of randomized trials is the need to account for outcome observations being positively correlated within groups or clusters. Two notable types of designs with this consideration are individually randomized group treatment trials and cluster randomized trials. While sample size methods for testing the average treatment effect are available for both types of designs, methods for detecting treatment effect modification are relatively limited. In this article, we present new sample size formulas for testing treatment effect modification based on either a univariate or multivariate effect modifier in both individually randomized group treatment and cluster randomized trials with a continuous outcome but any types of effect modifier, while accounting for differences across study arms in the outcome variance, outcome intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) and the cluster size. We consider cases where the effect modifier can be measured at either the individual level or cluster level, and with a univariate effect modifier, our closed-form sample size expressions provide insights into the optimal allocation of groups or clusters to maximize design efficiency. Overall, our results show that the required sample size for testing treatment effect heterogeneity with an individual-level effect modifier can be affected by unequal ICCs and variances between arms, and accounting for such between-arm heterogeneity can lead to more accurate sample size determination. We use simulations to validate our sample size formulas and illustrate their application in the context of two real trials: an individually randomized group treatment trial (the AWARE study) and a cluster randomized trial (the K-DPP study).

Improving sandwich variance estimation for marginal Cox analysis of cluster randomized trials

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) frequently recruit a small number of clusters, therefore necessitating the application of small-sample corrections for valid inference. A recent systematic review indicated that CRTs reporting right-censored, time-to-event outcomes are not uncommon and that the marginal Cox proportional hazards model is one of the common approaches used for primary analysis. While small-sample corrections have been studied under marginal models with continuous, binary, and count outcomes, no prior research has been devoted to the development and evaluation of bias-corrected sandwich variance estimators when clustered time-to-event outcomes are analyzed by the marginal Cox model. To improve current practice, we propose nine bias-corrected sandwich variance estimators for the analysis of CRTs using the marginal Cox model and report on a simulation study to evaluate their small-sample properties. Our results indicate that the optimal choice of bias-corrected sandwich variance estimator for CRTs with survival outcomes can depend on the variability of cluster sizes and can also slightly differ whether it is evaluated according to relative bias or type I error rate. Finally, we illustrate the new variance estimators in a real-world CRT where the conclusion about intervention effectiveness differs depending on the use of small-sample bias corrections. The proposed sandwich variance estimators are implemented in an R package CoxBcv.

Estimands in cluster-randomized trials: choosing analyses that answer the right question

BACKGROUND

Cluster-randomized trials (CRTs) involve randomizing groups of individuals (e.g. hospitals, schools or villages) to different interventions. Various approaches exist for analysing CRTs but there has been little discussion around the treatment effects (estimands) targeted by each.

METHODS

We describe the different estimands that can be addressed through CRTs and demonstrate how choices between different analytic approaches can impact the interpretation of results by fundamentally changing the question being asked, or, equivalently, the target estimand.

RESULTS

CRTs can address either the participant-average treatment effect (the average treatment effect across participants) or the cluster-average treatment effect (the average treatment effect across clusters). These two estimands can differ when participant outcomes or the treatment effect depends on the cluster size (referred to as 'informative cluster size'), which can occur for reasons such as differences in staffing levels or types of participants between small and large clusters. Furthermore, common estimators, such as mixed-effects models or generalized estimating equations with an exchangeable working correlation structure, can produce biased estimates for both the participant-average and cluster-average treatment effects when cluster size is informative. We describe alternative estimators (independence estimating equations and cluster-level analyses) that are unbiased for CRTs even when informative cluster size is present.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that careful specification of the estimand at the outset can ensure that the study question being addressed is clear and relevant, and, in turn, that the selected estimator provides an unbiased estimate of the desired quantity.

Design and analysis of cluster randomized trials with time-to-event outcomes under the additive hazards mixed model

A primary focus of current methods for cluster randomized trials (CRTs) has been for continuous, binary, and count outcomes, with relatively less attention given to right-censored, time-to-event outcomes. In this article, we detail considerations for sample size requirement and statistical inference in CRTs with time-to-event outcomes when the intervention effect parameter is specified through the additive hazards mixed model (AHMM), which includes a frailty term to explicitly account for the dependency between the failure times. First, we discuss improved inference for the treatment effect parameter via bias-corrected sandwich variance estimators and randomization-based test under AHMM, addressing potential small-sample biases in CRTs. Next, we derive a new sample size formula for AHMM analysis of CRTs accommodating both equal and unequal cluster sizes. When the cluster sizes vary, our sample size formula depends on the mean and coefficient of variation of cluster sizes, based on which we articulate the impact of cluster size variation in CRTs with time-to-event outcomes. Furthermore, we obtain the insight that the classical variance inflation factor for CRTs with a non-censored outcome can in fact apply to CRTs with a time-to-event outcome, providing that an appropriate definition of the intraclass correlation coefficient is considered under AHMM. Simulation studies are carried out to illustrate key design and analysis considerations in CRTs with a small to moderate number of clusters. The proposed sample size procedure and analytical methods are further illustrated using the context of the STrategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders CRT.

Clustered restricted mean survival time regression

For multicenter randomized trials or multilevel observational studies, the Cox regression model has long been the primary approach to study the effects of covariates on time-to-event outcomes. A critical assumption of the Cox model is the proportionality of the hazard functions for modeled covariates, violations of which can result in ambiguous interpretations of the hazard ratio estimates. To address this issue, the restricted mean survival time (RMST), defined as the mean survival time up to a fixed time in a target population, has been recommended as a model-free target parameter. In this article, we generalize the RMST regression model to clustered data by directly modeling the RMST as a continuous function of restriction times with covariates while properly accounting for within-cluster correlations to achieve valid inference. The proposed method estimates regression coefficients via weighted generalized estimating equations, coupled with a cluster-robust sandwich variance estimator to achieve asymptotically valid inference with a sufficient number of clusters. In small-sample scenarios where a limited number of clusters are available, however, the proposed sandwich variance estimator can exhibit negative bias in capturing the variability of regression coefficient estimates. To overcome this limitation, we further propose and examine bias-corrected sandwich variance estimators to reduce the negative bias of the cluster-robust sandwich variance estimator. We study the finite-sample operating characteristics of proposed methods through simulations and reanalyze two multicenter randomized trials.

Power considerations for generalized estimating equations analyses of four-level cluster randomized trials

In this article, we develop methods for sample size and power calculations in four-level intervention studies when intervention assignment is carried out at any level, with a particular focus on cluster randomized trials (CRTs). CRTs involving four levels are becoming popular in healthcare research, where the effects are measured, for example, from evaluations (level 1) within participants (level 2) in divisions (level 3) that are nested in clusters (level 4). In such multilevel CRTs, we consider three types of intraclass correlations between different evaluations to account for such clustering: that of the same participant, that of different participants from the same division, and that of different participants from different divisions in the same cluster. Assuming arbitrary link and variance functions, with the proposed correlation structure as the true correlation structure, closed-form sample size formulas for randomization carried out at any level (including individually randomized trials within a four-level clustered structure) are derived based on the generalized estimating equations approach using the model-based variance and using the sandwich variance with an independence working correlation matrix. We demonstrate that empirical power corresponds well with that predicted by the proposed method for as few as eight clusters, when data are analyzed using the matrix-adjusted estimating equations for the correlation parameters with a bias-corrected sandwich variance estimator, under both balanced and unbalanced designs.

Finite-sample adjustments in variance estimators for clustered competing risks regression

The marginal Fine-Gray proportional subdistribution hazards model is a popular approach to directly study the association between covariates and the cumulative incidence function with clustered competing risks data, which often arise in multicenter randomized trials or multilevel observational studies. To account for the within-cluster correlations between failure times, the uncertainty of the regression parameters estimators is quantified by the robust sandwich variance estimator, which may have unsatisfactory performance with a limited number of clusters. To overcome this limitation, we propose four bias-corrected variance estimators to reduce the negative bias of the usual sandwich variance estimator, extending the bias-correction techniques from generalized estimating equations with noncensored exponential family outcomes to clustered competing risks outcomes. We further compare their finite-sample operating characteristics through simulations and two real data examples. In particular, we found the Mancl and DeRouen (MD) type sandwich variance estimator generally has the smallest bias. Furthermore, with a small number of clusters, the Wald t -confidence interval with the MD sandwich variance estimator carries close to nominal coverage for the cluster-level effect parameter. The t -confidence intervals based on the sandwich variance estimator with any one of the three types of multiplicative bias correction or the z -confidence interval with the Morel, Bokossa and Neerchal (MBN) type sandwich variance estimator have close to nominal coverage for the individual-level effect parameter. Finally, we develop a user-friendly R package crrcbcv implementing the proposed sandwich variance estimators to assist practical applications.

Accounting for unequal cluster sizes in designing cluster randomized trials to detect treatment effect heterogeneity

Unequal cluster sizes are common in cluster randomized trials (CRTs). While there are a number of previous investigations studying the impact of unequal cluster sizes on the power for testing the average treatment effect in CRTs, little is known about the impact of unequal cluster sizes on the power for testing the heterogeneous treatment effect (HTE) in CRTs. In this work, we expand the sample size procedures for studying HTE in CRTs to accommodate cluster size variation under the linear mixed model framework. Through analytical derivation and graphical exploration, we show that the sample size for the HTE with an individual-level effect modifier is less affected by unequal cluster sizes than with a cluster-level effect modifier. The impact of cluster size variability jointly depends on the mean and coefficient of variation of cluster sizes, covariate intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and the conditional outcome ICC. In addition, we demonstrate that the HTE-motivated analysis of covariance framework can be used for analyzing the average treatment effect, and offer a more efficient sample size procedure for studying the average treatment effect adjusting for the effect modifier. We use simulations to confirm the accuracy of the proposed sample size procedures for both the average treatment effect and HTE in CRTs. Extensions to multivariate effect modifiers are provided and our procedure is illustrated in the context of the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders trial.

Impact of unequal cluster sizes for GEE analyses of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials with binary outcomes

The stepped wedge (SW) design is a type of unidirectional crossover design where cluster units switch from control to intervention condition at different prespecified time points. While a convention in study planning is to assume the cluster‐period sizes are identical, SW cluster randomized trials (SW‐CRTs) involving repeated cross‐sectional designs frequently have unequal cluster‐period sizes, which can impact the efficiency of the treatment effect estimator. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive investigation of the efficiency impact of unequal cluster sizes for generalized estimating equation analyses of SW‐CRTs, with a focus on binary outcomes as in the Washington State Expedited Partner Therapy trial. Several major distinctions between our work and existing work include the following: (i) we consider multilevel correlation structures in marginal models with binary outcomes; (ii) we study the implications of both the between‐cluster and within‐cluster imbalances in sizes; and (iii) we provide a comparison between the independence working correlation versus the true working correlation and detail the consequences of ignoring correlation estimation in SW‐CRTs with unequal cluster sizes. We conclude that the working independence assumption can lead to substantial efficiency loss and a large sample size regardless of cluster‐period size variability in SW‐CRTs, and recommend accounting for correlations in the analysis. To improve study planning, we additionally provide a computationally efficient search algorithm to estimate the sample size in SW‐CRTs accounting for unequal cluster‐period sizes, and conclude by illustrating the proposed approach in the context of the Washington State study.