Propensity score weighting for covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials

The impact of a small-group mammography video discussion on promoting screening uptake among nonadherent Chinese American immigrant women: A randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of an in-person, small-group mammography video discussion (SMVD) intervention on mammography uptake among nonadherent Chinese American immigrant women.

METHODS

Women (N = 956) were randomized into either an SMVD group, where Chinese-speaking community health workers (CHWs) used an effective, culturally appropriate video to discuss mammography, or a video-only group, which viewed the cultural video sent by mail. Outcomes were mammography uptake at 6 months and 21 months postintervention.

RESULTS

Women in both groups increased mammography uptake, and an outcome analysis revealed no group differences (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.18; 95% confidence interval [CI], .68-2.06). Overall, 61.2% of the SMVD group and 55.3% of the video-only group had at least one mammogram during the 21-month follow-up period. When considering attendance to the SMVD, SMVD attendees had higher mammography uptake than the video-only group (AOR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.19-1.92), and SMVD nonattendees had lower mammography uptake than the video-only group (AOR, .33; 95% CI, .22-.50).

CONCLUSIONS

Both intervention strategies were associated with increased mammography uptake. The authors observed that the increase in use was greater among women who participated in the SMVD session compared with those who viewed the cultural video only. Future research may explore a virtual SMVD intervention for higher session attendance and increased mammography uptake (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01292200).

Assessment of centanafadine in adults with ADHD: a matching adjusted indirect comparison versus methylphenidate hydrochloride extended release (Concerta)

OBJECTIVE

To compare safety and efficacy of centanafadine versus methylphenidate hydrochloride extended release (ER; Concerta) in adults with ADHD.

METHODS

Without head-to-head trials, anchored matching-adjusted indirect comparisons (MAIC) of adverse event rates reported across trials and mean change from baseline in Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Rating Scale (AISRS) score between centanafadine and methylphenidate hydrochloride ER were conducted. Pooled patient-level data from two centanafadine trials (NCT03605680/NCT03605836) and aggregate data from one published methylphenidate hydrochloride ER trial (NCT00937040) were used. Characteristics of individual patients from the centanafadine trials were matched to aggregate baseline characteristics from the methylphenidate hydrochloride ER trial using propensity score weighting. A sensitivity analysis assessed the robustness of the results to the capping of extreme weights (i.e. >99th percentile).

RESULTS

Compared with methylphenidate hydrochloride ER, centanafadine was associated with significantly lower risk of dry mouth (risk difference [RD] in percentage points: -11.95), initial insomnia (-11.10), decreased appetite (-8.05), anxiety (-5.39), palpitations (-5.25), and feeling jittery (-4.73) though a significantly smaller reduction in AISRS score (4.16-point). In the sensitivity analysis, the safety results were consistent with the primary analysis but there was no significant difference in efficacy between centanafadine and methylphenidate hydrochloride ER.

CONCLUSION

In this MAIC, centanafadine had better safety and possibly lower efficacy than methylphenidate hydrochloride ER. While safety results were robust across analyses, there was no efficacy difference between centanafadine and methylphenidate hydrochloride ER in the sensitivity analysis. Considering its favorable safety profile, centanafadine may be preferred among patients for whom treatment-related adverse events are a concern.

Hierarchical Bayesian modeling of heterogeneous outcome variance in cluster randomized trials

BACKGROUND

Heterogeneous outcome correlations across treatment arms and clusters have been increasingly acknowledged in cluster randomized trials with binary endpoints, where analytical methods have been developed to study such heterogeneity. However, cluster-specific outcome variances and correlations have yet to be studied for cluster randomized trials with continuous outcomes.

METHODS

This article proposes models fitted in the Bayesian setting with hierarchical variance structure to quantify heterogeneous variances across clusters and explain it with cluster-level covariates when the outcome is continuous. The models can also be extended to analyzing heterogeneous variances in individually randomized group treatment trials, with arm-specific cluster-level covariates, or in partially nested designs. Simulation studies are carried out to validate the performance of the newly introduced models across different settings.

RESULTS

Simulations showed that overall the newly introduced models have good performance, reporting low bias and approximately 95% coverage for the intraclass correlation coefficients and regression parameters in the variance model. When variances are heterogeneous, our proposed models had improved model fit over models with homogeneous variances. When used to analyze data from the Kerala Diabetes Prevention Program study, our models identified heterogeneous variances and intraclass correlation coefficients across clusters and examined cluster-level characteristics associated with such heterogeneity.

CONCLUSION

We proposed new hierarchical Bayesian variance models to accommodate cluster-specific variances in cluster randomized trials. The newly developed methods inform the understanding of how an intervention strategy is implemented and disseminated differently across clusters and can help improve future trial design.

Prepare Romania: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial of an intervention to promote pre-exposure prophylaxis adherence and persistence among gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men

BACKGROUND

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) represent a high-risk group for HIV transmission in Romania, yet they possess few resources for prevention. Despite having no formal access to pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) through the health system, GBMSM in Romania demonstrate a high need for and interest in this medication. In anticipation of a national rollout of PrEP, this study tests the efficacy of a novel strategy, Prepare Romania, that combines two evidence-based PrEP promotion interventions for GBMSM living in Romania.

METHODS

This study uses a randomized controlled trial design to examine whether GBMSM living in Romania receiving Prepare Romania, a culturally adapted counseling and mobile health intervention (expected n = 60), demonstrate greater PrEP adherence and persistence than those assigned to a PrEP education control arm (expected n = 60). Participants from two main cities in Romania are prescribed PrEP and followed-up at 3 and 6 months post-randomization. PrEP adherence data are obtained through weekly self-report surveys and dried blood spot testing at follow-up visits. Potential mediators (e.g., PrEP use motivation) of intervention efficacy are also assessed. Furthermore, Prepare Romania's implementation (e.g., proportion of enrolled participants attending medical visits, intervention experience) will be examined through interviews with participants, study implementers, and healthcare officials.

DISCUSSION

The knowledge gained from this study will be utilized for further refinement and scale-up of Prepare Romania for a future multi-city effectiveness trial. By studying the efficacy of tools to support PrEP adherence and persistence, this research has the potential to lay the groundwork for PrEP rollout in Romania and similar contexts. Trial registration This study was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT05323123 , on March 25, 2022.

Transporting randomized trial results to estimate counterfactual survival functions in target populations

When the distributions of treatment effect modifiers differ between a randomized trial and an external target population, the sample average treatment effect in the trial may be substantially different from the target population average treatment, and accurate estimation of the latter requires adjusting for the differential distribution of effect modifiers. Despite the increasingly rich literature on transportability, little attention has been devoted to methods for transporting trial results to estimate counterfactual survival functions in target populations, when the primary outcome is time to event and subject to right censoring. In this article, we study inverse probability weighting and doubly robust estimators to estimate counterfactual survival functions and the target average survival treatment effect in the target population, and provide their respective approximate variance estimators. We focus on a common scenario where the target population information is observed only through a complex survey, and elucidate how the survey weights can be incorporated into each estimator we considered. Simulation studies are conducted to examine the finite-sample performances of the proposed estimators in terms of bias, efficiency and coverage, under both correct and incorrect model specifications. Finally, we apply the proposed method to assess transportability of the results in the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes-Blood Pressure (ACCORD-BP) trial to all adults with Diabetes in the United States.

Causal interpretation of the hazard ratio in randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Although the hazard ratio has no straightforward causal interpretation, clinical trialists commonly use it as a measure of treatment effect.

METHODS

We review the definition and examples of causal estimands. We discuss the causal interpretation of the hazard ratio from a two-arm randomized clinical trial, and the implications of proportional hazards assumptions in the context of potential outcomes. We illustrate the application of these concepts in a synthetic model and in a model of the time-varying effects of COVID-19 vaccination.

RESULTS

We define causal estimands as having either an individual-level or population-level interpretation. Difference-in-expectation estimands are both individual-level and population-level estimands, whereas without strong untestable assumptions the causal rate ratio and hazard ratio have only population-level interpretations. We caution users against making an incorrect individual-level interpretation, emphasizing that in general a hazard ratio does not on average change each individual's hazard by a factor. We discuss a potentially valid interpretation of the constant hazard ratio as a population-level causal effect under the proportional hazards assumption.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that the population-level hazard ratio remains a useful estimand, but one must interpret it with appropriate attention to the underlying causal model. This is especially important for interpreting hazard ratios over time.

Combined use of anticoagulant and antiplatelet on outcome after stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and systemic atherosclerosis

This study aimed to investigate whether there was a difference in one-year outcome after stroke between patients treated with antiplatelet and anticoagulation (OAC + antiplatelet) and those with anticoagulation only (OAC), when comorbid atherosclerotic disease was present with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). This was a retrospective study using a prospective cohort of consecutive patients with ischemic stroke. Patients with NVAF and comorbid atherosclerotic disease were assigned to the OAC + antiplatelet or OAC group based on discharge medication. All-cause mortality, recurrent ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, myocardial infarction, and bleeding events within 1 year after the index stroke were compared. Of the 445 patients included in this study, 149 (33.5%) were treated with OAC + antiplatelet. There were no significant differences in all outcomes between groups. After inverse probability of treatment weighting, OAC + antiplatelet was associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio 0.48; 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.98; P = 0.045) and myocardial infarction (0% vs. 3.0%, P < 0.001). The risk of hemorrhagic stroke was not significantly different (P = 0.123). OAC + antiplatelet was associated with a decreased risk of all-cause mortality and myocardial infarction but an increased risk of ischemic stroke among patients with NVAF and systemic atherosclerotic diseases.

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.

Adjusted win ratio using the inverse probability of treatment weighting

The win ratio method has been increasingly applied in the design and analysis of clinical trials. However, the win ratio method is a univariate approach that does not allow for adjusting for baseline imbalances in covariates, although a stratified win ratio can be calculated when the number of strata is small. This paper proposes an adjusted win ratio to control for such imbalances by inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) method. We derive the adjusted win ratio with its variance and suggest three IPTW adjustments: IPTW-average treatment effect (IPTW-ATE), stabilized IPTW-ATE (SIPTW-ATE) and IPTW-average treatment effect in the treated (IPTW-ATT). The proposed adjusted methods are applied to analyse a composite outcome in the CHARM trial. The statistical properties of the methods are assessed through simulations. Results show that adjusted win ratio methods can correct the win ratio for covariate imbalances at baseline. Simulation results show that the three proposed adjusted win ratios have similar power to detect the treatment difference and have slightly lower power than the corresponding adjusted Cox models when the assumption of proportional hazards holds true but have consistently higher power than adjusted Cox models when the proportional hazard assumption is violated.

Covariate adjustment in randomized clinical trials with missing covariate and outcome data

When analyzing data from randomized clinical trials, covariate adjustment can be used to account for chance imbalance in baseline covariates and to increase precision of the treatment effect estimate. A practical barrier to covariate adjustment is the presence of missing data. In this article, in the light of recent theoretical advancement, we first review several covariate adjustment methods with incomplete covariate data. We investigate the implications of the missing data mechanism on estimating the average treatment effect in randomized clinical trials with continuous or binary outcomes. In parallel, we consider settings where the outcome data are fully observed or are missing at random; in the latter setting, we propose a full weighting approach that combines inverse probability weighting for adjusting missing outcomes and overlap weighting for covariate adjustment. We highlight the importance of including the interaction terms between the missingness indicators and covariates as predictors in the models. We conduct comprehensive simulation studies to examine the finite-sample performance of the proposed methods and compare with a range of common alternatives. We find that conducting the proposed adjustment methods generally improves the precision of treatment effect estimates regardless of the imputation methods when the adjusted covariate is associated with the outcome. We apply the methods to the Childhood Adenotonsillectomy Trial to assess the effect of adenotonsillectomy on neurocognitive functioning scores.

Dealing with confounding in observational studies: A scoping review of methods evaluated in simulation studies with single-point exposure

The aim of this article was to perform a scoping review of methods available for dealing with confounding when analyzing the effect of health care treatments with single-point exposure in observational data. We aim to provide an overview of methods and their performance assessed by simulation studies indexed in PubMed. We searched PubMed for simulation studies published until January 2021. Our search was restricted to studies evaluating binary treatments and binary and/or continuous outcomes. Information was extracted on the methods' assumptions, performance, and technical properties. Of 28,548 identified references, 127 studies were eligible for inclusion. Of them, 84 assessed 14 different methods (ie, groups of estimators that share assumptions and implementation) for dealing with measured confounding, and 43 assessed 10 different methods for dealing with unmeasured confounding. Results suggest that there are large differences in performance between methods and that the performance of a specific method is highly dependent on the estimator. Furthermore, the methods' assumptions regarding the specific data features also substantially influence the methods' performance. Finally, the methods result in different estimands (ie, target of inference), which can even vary within methods. In conclusion, when choosing a method to adjust for measured or unmeasured confounding it is important to choose the most appropriate estimand, while considering the population of interest, data structure, and whether the plausibility of the methods' required assumptions hold.

A comparison of covariate adjustment approaches under model misspecification in individually randomized trials

Adjustment for baseline covariates in randomized trials has been shown to lead to gains in power and can protect against chance imbalances in covariates. For continuous covariates, there is a risk that the the form of the relationship between the covariate and outcome is misspecified when taking an adjusted approach. Using a simulation study focusing on individually randomized trials with small sample sizes, we explore whether a range of adjustment methods are robust to misspecification, either in the covariate-outcome relationship or through an omitted covariate-treatment interaction. Specifically, we aim to identify potential settings where G-computation, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW), augmented inverse probability of treatment weighting (AIPTW) and targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE) offer improvement over the commonly used analysis of covariance (ANCOVA). Our simulations show that all adjustment methods are generally robust to model misspecification if adjusting for a few covariates, sample size is 100 or larger, and there are no covariate-treatment interactions. When there is a non-linear interaction of treatment with a skewed covariate and sample size is small, all adjustment methods can suffer from bias; however, methods that allow for interactions (such as G-computation with interaction and IPTW) show improved results compared to ANCOVA. When there are a high number of covariates to adjust for, ANCOVA retains good properties while other methods suffer from under- or over-coverage. An outstanding issue for G-computation, IPTW and AIPTW in small samples is that standard errors are underestimated; they should be used with caution without the availability of small-sample corrections, development of which is needed. These findings are relevant for covariate adjustment in interim analyses of larger trials.

Pragmatic clinical trial design in emergency medicine: Study considerations and design types

Pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) focus on correlation between treatment and outcomes in real-world clinical practice, yet a guide highlighting key study considerations and design types for emergency medicine investigators pursuing this important study type is not available. Investigators conducting emergency department (ED)-based PCTs face multiple decisions within the planning phase to ensure robust and meaningful study findings. The PRagmatic Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary 2 (PRECIS-2) tool allows trialists to consider both pragmatic and explanatory components across nine domains, shaping the trial design to the purpose intended by the investigators. Aside from the PRECIS-2 tool domains, ED-based investigators conducting PCTs should also consider randomization techniques, human subjects concerns, and integration of trial components within the electronic health record. The authors additionally highlight the advantages, disadvantages, and rationale for the use of four common randomized study design types to be considered in PCTs: parallel, crossover, factorial, and stepped-wedge. With increasing emphasis on the conduct of PCTs, emergency medicine investigators will benefit from a rigorous approach to clinical trial design.

Two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison

BACKGROUND

Anchored covariate-adjusted indirect comparisons inform reimbursement decisions where there are no head-to-head trials between the treatments of interest, there is a common comparator arm shared by the studies, and there are patient-level data limitations. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison (MAIC), based on propensity score weighting, is the most widely used covariate-adjusted indirect comparison method in health technology assessment. MAIC has poor precision and is inefficient when the effective sample size after weighting is small.

METHODS

A modular extension to MAIC, termed two-stage matching-adjusted indirect comparison (2SMAIC), is proposed. This uses two parametric models. One estimates the treatment assignment mechanism in the study with individual patient data (IPD), the other estimates the trial assignment mechanism. The first model produces inverse probability weights that are combined with the odds weights produced by the second model. The resulting weights seek to balance covariates between treatment arms and across studies. A simulation study provides proof-of-principle in an indirect comparison performed across two randomized trials. Nevertheless, 2SMAIC can be applied in situations where the IPD trial is observational, by including potential confounders in the treatment assignment model. The simulation study also explores the use of weight truncation in combination with MAIC for the first time.

RESULTS

Despite enforcing randomization and knowing the true treatment assignment mechanism in the IPD trial, 2SMAIC yields improved precision and efficiency with respect to MAIC in all scenarios, while maintaining similarly low levels of bias. The two-stage approach is effective when sample sizes in the IPD trial are low, as it controls for chance imbalances in prognostic baseline covariates between study arms. It is not as effective when overlap between the trials' target populations is poor and the extremity of the weights is high. In these scenarios, truncation leads to substantial precision and efficiency gains but induces considerable bias. The combination of a two-stage approach with truncation produces the highest precision and efficiency improvements.

CONCLUSIONS

Two-stage approaches to MAIC can increase precision and efficiency with respect to the standard approach by adjusting for empirical imbalances in prognostic covariates in the IPD trial. Further modules could be incorporated for additional variance reduction or to account for missingness and non-compliance in the IPD trial.

Bootstrap vs asymptotic variance estimation when using propensity score weighting with continuous and binary outcomes

We used Monte Carlo simulations to compare the performance of asymptotic variance estimators to that of the bootstrap when estimating standard errors of differences in means, risk differences, and relative risks using propensity score weighting. We considered four different sets of weights: conventional inverse probability of treatment weights with the average treatment effect (ATE) as the target estimand, weights for estimating the average treatment effect in the treated (ATT), matching weights, and overlap weights. We considered sample sizes ranging from 250 to 10 000 and allowed the prevalence of treatment to range from 0.1 to 0.9. We found that, when using ATE weights and sample sizes were ≤ 1000, then the use of the bootstrap resulted in estimates of SE that were more accurate than the asymptotic estimates. A similar finding was observed when using ATT weights and sample sizes were ≤ 1000 and the prevalence of treatment was moderate to high. When using matching weights and overlap weights, both the asymptotic estimator and the bootstrap resulted in accurate estimates of SE across all sample sizes and prevalences of treatment. Even when using the bootstrap with ATE weights, empirical coverage rates of confidence intervals were suboptimal when sample sizes were low to moderate and the prevalence of treatment was either very low or very high. A similar finding was observed when using the bootstrap with ATT weights when sample sizes were low to moderate and the prevalence of treatment was very high.

Generalizing trial evidence to target populations in non-nested designs: Applications to AIDS clinical trials

Comparative effectiveness evidence from randomized trials may not be directly generalizable to a target population of substantive interest when, as in most cases, trial participants are not randomly sampled from the target population. Motivated by the need to generalize evidence from two trials conducted in the AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG), we consider weighting, regression and doubly robust estimators to estimate the causal effects of HIV interventions in a specified population of people living with HIV in the USA. We focus on a non-nested trial design and discuss strategies for both point and variance estimation of the target population average treatment effect. Specifically in the generalizability context, we demonstrate both analytically and empirically that estimating the known propensity score in trials does not increase the variance for each of the weighting, regression and doubly robust estimators. We apply these methods to generalize the average treatment effects from two ACTG trials to specified target populations and operationalize key practical considerations. Finally, we report on a simulation study that investigates the finite-sample operating characteristics of the generalizability estimators and their sandwich variance estimators.

Propensity Score Matching Underestimates Real Treatment Effect, in a Simulated Theoretical Multivariate Model

Propensity Score Matching (PSM) is a useful method to reduce the impact of Treatment-Selection Bias in the estimation of causal effects in observational studies. After matching, the PSM significantly reduces the sample under investigation, which may lead to other possible biases (due to overfitting, excess of covariation or a reduced number of observations). In this sense, we wanted to analyze the behavior of this PSM compared with other widely used methods to deal with non-comparable groups, such as the Multivariate Regression Model (MRM). Monte Carlo Simulations are made to construct groups with different effects in order to compare the behavior of PSM and MRM estimating these effects. In addition, the Treatment Selection Bias reduction for the PSM is calculated. With the PSM a reduction in the Treatment Selection Bias is achieved (0.983 [0.982, 0.984]), with a reduction in the Relative Real Treatment Effect Estimation Error (0.216 [0.2, 0.232]), but despite this bias reduction and estimation error reduction, the MRM reduces this estimation error significantly more than the PSM (0.539 [0.522, 0.556], p < 0.001). In addition, the PSM leads to a 30% reduction in the sample. This loss of information derived from the matching process may lead to another not known bias and thus to the inaccuracy of the effect estimation compared with the MRM.

Planning a method for covariate adjustment in individually randomised trials: a practical guide

BACKGROUND

It has long been advised to account for baseline covariates in the analysis of confirmatory randomised trials, with the main statistical justifications being that this increases power and, when a randomisation scheme balanced covariates, permits a valid estimate of experimental error. There are various methods available to account for covariates but it is not clear how to choose among them.

METHODS

Taking the perspective of writing a statistical analysis plan, we consider how to choose between the three most promising broad approaches: direct adjustment, standardisation and inverse-probability-of-treatment weighting.

RESULTS

The three approaches are similar in being asymptotically efficient, in losing efficiency with mis-specified covariate functions and in handling designed balance. If a marginal estimand is targeted (for example, a risk difference or survival difference), then direct adjustment should be avoided because it involves fitting non-standard models that are subject to convergence issues. Convergence is most likely with IPTW. Robust standard errors used by IPTW are anti-conservative at small sample sizes. All approaches can use similar methods to handle missing covariate data. With missing outcome data, each method has its own way to estimate a treatment effect in the all-randomised population. We illustrate some issues in a reanalysis of GetTested, a randomised trial designed to assess the effectiveness of an electonic sexually transmitted infection testing and results service.

CONCLUSIONS

No single approach is always best: the choice will depend on the trial context. We encourage trialists to consider all three methods more routinely.

Red blood cell transfusions post diagnosis of necrotizing enterocolitis and the deterioration of necrotizing enterocolitis in full-term and near-term infants: a propensity score adjustment retrospective cohort study

Background

Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is one of serious gastrointestinal inflammatory diseases in newborn infants, with a high morbidity and mortality. Red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) plays a controversial and doubtful role in the treatment of NEC. In present study, we aim to analyze the association between RBCT and the deterioration of NEC.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of near-term and full-term infants with a confirmed diagnosis of Bell’s stage II NEC between Jan 1, 2010 and Jan 31, 2020. The maternal and infant baseline characteristics, treatment information and laboratory test for each case were collected. The eligible subjects were divided into two groups based on receiving RBCT post NEC diagnosis or not. The propensity score was used to eliminate potential bias and baseline differences. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to adjust the propensity score and calculate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidential interval (CI) of RBCT for the deterioration of NEC.

Results

A total of 242 infants were included in this study, 60 infants had a history of RBCT post NEC diagnosis, and 40 infants deteriorated from Bell’s stage II to stage III. By adjusting the propensity score, RBCT post NEC diagnosis was associated with an increased risk for NEC deteriorating from stage II to III (adjusted OR 6.06, 95%CI 2.94–12.50, P = 0.000).

Conclusions

NEC infants who required RBCT post NEC diagnosis were more likely to deteriorate from stage II to III in full-term and near-term infants.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12887-022-03276-4.

Sensitivity analysis for calibrated inverse probability-of-censoring weighted estimators under non-ignorable dropout

Inverse probability of censoring weighting is a popular approach to handling dropout in longitudinal studies. However, inverse probability-of-censoring weighted estimators (IPCWEs) can be inefficient and unstable if the weights are estimated by maximum likelihood. To alleviate these problems, calibrated IPCWEs have been proposed, which use calibrated weights that directly optimize covariate balance in finite samples rather than the weights from maximum likelihood. However, the existing calibrated IPCWEs are all based on the unverifiable assumption of sequential ignorability and sensitivity analysis strategies under non-ignorable dropout are lacking. In this paper, we fill this gap by developing an approach to sensitivity analysis for calibrated IPCWEs under non-ignorable dropout. A simple technique is proposed to speed up the computation of bootstrap and jackknife confidence intervals and thus facilitate sensitivity analyses. We evaluate the finite-sample performance of the proposed methods using simulations and apply our methods to data from an international inception cohort study of systemic lupus erythematosus. An R Markdown tutorial to demonstrate the implementation of the proposed methods is provided.

Constrained randomization and statistical inference for multi‐arm parallel cluster randomized controlled trials

A practical limitation of cluster randomized controlled trials (cRCTs) is that the number of available clusters may be small, resulting in an increased risk of baseline imbalance under simple randomization. Constrained randomization overcomes this issue by restricting the allocation to a subset of randomization schemes where sufficient overall covariate balance across comparison arms is achieved. However, for multi-arm cRCTs, several design and analysis issues pertaining to constrained randomization have not been fully investigated. Motivated by an ongoing multi-arm cRCT, we elaborate the method of constrained randomization and provide a comprehensive evaluation of the statistical properties of model-based and randomization-based tests under both simple and constrained randomization designs in multi-arm cRCTs, with varying combinations of design and analysis-based covariate adjustment strategies. In particular, as randomization-based tests have not been extensively studied in multi-arm cRCTs, we additionally develop most-powerful randomization tests under the linear mixed model framework for our comparisons. Our results indicate that under constrained randomization, both model-based and randomization-based analyses could gain power while preserving nominal type I error rate, given proper analysis-based adjustment for the baseline covariates. Randomization-based analyses, however, are more robust against violations of distributional assumptions. The choice of balance metrics and candidate set sizes and their implications on the testing of the pairwise and global hypotheses are also discussed. Finally, we caution against the design and analysis of multi-arm cRCTs with an extremely small number of clusters, due to insufficient degrees of freedom and the tendency to obtain an overly restricted randomization space.

Clarifying selection bias in cluster randomized trials

BACKGROUND

In cluster randomized trials, patients are typically recruited after clusters are randomized, and the recruiters and patients may not be blinded to the assignment. This often leads to differential recruitment and consequently systematic differences in baseline characteristics of the recruited patients between intervention and control arms, inducing post-randomization selection bias. We aim to rigorously define causal estimands in the presence of selection bias. We elucidate the conditions under which standard covariate adjustment methods can validly estimate these estimands. We further discuss the additional data and assumptions necessary for estimating causal effects when such conditions are not met.

METHODS

Adopting the principal stratification framework in causal inference, we clarify there are two average treatment effect (ATE) estimands in cluster randomized trials: one for the overall population and one for the recruited population. We derive analytical formula of the two estimands in terms of principal-stratum-specific causal effects. Furthermore, using simulation studies, we assess the empirical performance of the multivariable regression adjustment method under different data generating processes leading to selection bias.

RESULTS

When treatment effects are heterogeneous across principal strata, the average treatment effect on the overall population generally differs from the average treatment effect on the recruited population. A naïve intention-to-treat analysis of the recruited sample leads to biased estimates of both average treatment effects. In the presence of post-randomization selection and without additional data on the non-recruited subjects, the average treatment effect on the recruited population is estimable only when the treatment effects are homogeneous between principal strata, and the average treatment effect on the overall population is generally not estimable. The extent to which covariate adjustment can remove selection bias depends on the degree of effect heterogeneity across principal strata.

CONCLUSION

There is a need and opportunity to improve the analysis of cluster randomized trials that are subject to post-randomization selection bias. For studies prone to selection bias, it is important to explicitly specify the target population that the causal estimands are defined on and adopt design and estimation strategies accordingly. To draw valid inferences about treatment effects, investigators should (1) assess the possibility of heterogeneous treatment effects, and (2) consider collecting data on covariates that are predictive of the recruitment process, and on the non-recruited population from external sources such as electronic health records.

Covariate adjustment in subgroup analyses of randomized clinical trials: A propensity score approach

BACKGROUND

Subgroup analyses are frequently conducted in randomized clinical trials to assess evidence of heterogeneous treatment effect across patient subpopulations. Although randomization balances covariates within subgroups in expectation, chance imbalance may be amplified in small subgroups and adversely impact the precision of subgroup analyses. Covariate adjustment in overall analysis of randomized clinical trial is often conducted, via either analysis of covariance or propensity score weighting, but covariate adjustment for subgroup analysis has been rarely discussed. In this article, we develop propensity score weighting methodology for covariate adjustment to improve the precision and power of subgroup analyses in randomized clinical trials.

METHODS

We extend the propensity score weighting methodology to subgroup analyses by fitting a logistic regression propensity model with pre-specified covariate-subgroup interactions. We show that, by construction, overlap weighting exactly balances the covariates with interaction terms in each subgroup. Extensive simulations were performed to compare the operating characteristics of unadjusted estimator, different propensity score weighting estimators and the analysis of covariance estimator. We apply these methods to the Heart Failure: A Controlled Trial Investigating Outcomes of Exercise Training trial to evaluate the effect of exercise training on 6-min walk test in several pre-specified subgroups.

RESULTS

Standard errors of the adjusted estimators are smaller than those of the unadjusted estimator. The propensity score weighting estimator is as efficient as analysis of covariance, and is often more efficient when subgroup sample size is small (e.g. <125), and/or when outcome model is misspecified. The weighting estimators with full-interaction propensity model consistently outperform the standard main-effect propensity model.

CONCLUSION

Propensity score weighting is a transparent and objective method to adjust chance imbalance of important covariates in subgroup analyses of randomized clinical trials. It is crucial to include the full covariate-subgroup interactions in the propensity score model.