Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The amount of data collected from patients involved in clinical trials is continuously growing. All baseline patient characteristics are potential covariates that could be used to improve clinical trial analysis and power. However, the limited number of patients in phases I and II studies restricts the possible number of covariates included in the analyses. In this paper, we investigate the cost/benefit ratio of including covariates in the analysis of clinical trials with a continuous outcome. Within this context, we address the long-running question “What is the optimum number of covariates to include in a clinical trial?” To further improve the benefit/cost ratio of covariates, historical data can be leveraged to pre-specify the covariate weights, which can be viewed as the definition of a new composite covariate. Here we analyze the use of a composite covariate to improve the estimated treatment effect in small clinical trials. A composite covariate limits the loss of degrees of freedom and the risk of overfitting.

Keywords

Clinical trial regression covariance analysis relative efficiency placebo effect

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Egbewale

Lewis

Bias

Sim J

. Bias, precision and statistical power of analysis of covariance in the analysis of randomized trials with baseline imbalance: A simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2014; 14: 1–12. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-49.

Maxwell

Delaney

Kelley

. Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. 3rd edition. Routledge, 2018.

Austin

Steyerberg

. The number of subjects per variable required in linear regression analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68: 627–636. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.014.

Schmidt

. The relative efficiency of regression and simple unit predictor weights in applied differential psychology. Educ Psychol Meas 1971; 31: 699–714. DOI: 10.1177/001316447103100310.

Galea

Blamey

Elston

et al. The nottingham prognostic index in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1992; 22: 207–219. URL http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1391987.

Moons

Royston

Vergouwe

et al. Prognosis and prognostic research: What, why, and how? BMJ (Online) 2009; 338: 1317–1320. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b375.

International Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma Prognostic Factors Project. A predictive model for aggressive non-hodgkin’s lymphoma. New England Journal of Medicine 1993; 329: 987–994. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199309303291402. URL http://www.nejm.org/doi/abs/10.1056/NEJM199309303291402. NIHMS150003.

Keys

Fidanza

Karvonen

et al. Indices of relative weight and obesity. J Chronic Dis 1972; 25: 329–343. DOI: 10.1016/0021-9681(72)90027-6. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0021968172900276.

Horing

Weimer

Muth

et al. Prediction of placebo responses: a systematic review of the literature. Front Psychol 2014; 5: 1079. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01079. URL http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=4181242&tool=pmcentrez&rendertype=abstract.

10.

Pereira

Duale

Clermont

et al. (171) characterization and prediction of placebo responders in peripheral neuropathic patients in a 4-week analgesic clinical trial. J Pain 2016; 17: S18. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2016.01.074. URL http://www.jpain.org/article/S1526590016001048/fulltext.

11.

Vachon-presseau

Berger

Abdullah

et al. Brain and psychological determinants of the placebo pill response in chronic pain patients. Nat Commun 2018; 9: 3397 DOI: 10.1038/s41467-018-05859-1. URL https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-05859-1.

12.

Shieh

. Power analysis and sample size planning in ANCOVA designs. Psychometrika 2020; 85: 101–120. DOI: 10.1007/s11336-019-09692-3.

13.

Olkin

Pratt

. Unbiased estimation of certain correlation coefficients. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics 1958; 29: 201–211. DOI: 10.1214/aoms/1177706717.

14.

Rasmussen

Williams

CKI

. Gaussian processes for machine learning. The MIT Press, 2006. ISBN 026218253X. URL http://www.gaussianprocess.org/gpml/chapters/RW.pdf http://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0129065704001899.

15.

Hastie

Tibshirani

Friedman

. The Elements of Statistical Learning, 2009; 18. ISBN 0387952845. DOI: 10.1007/b94608. URL http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/b94608 http://www.amazon.ca/exec/obidos/redirect?tag=citeulike09-20&path=ASIN/0387952845.

16.

Bishop

. Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning, volume 4. 2006. ISBN 9780387310732. DOI: 10.1117/1.2819119. URL http://www.library.wisc.edu/selectedtocs/bg0137.pdf. 0-387-31073-8.

17.

Scornet

Biau

Vert

. Consistency of random forests. Ann Stat 2015; 43: 1716–1741. DOI: 10.1214/15-AOS1321. 1405.2881.

18.

Huang

Horowitz

. Asymptotic properties of bridge estimators in sparse high-dimensional regression models. Ann Stat 2008; 36: 587–613. DOI: 10.1214/009053607000000875.

19.

Farrell

Liang

Misra

. Deep neural networks for estimation and inference. Econometrica 2021; 89: 181–213. DOI: 10.3982/ecta16901. 1809.09953.

20.

Dobriban

Wager

. High-dimensional asymptotics of prediction: Ridge regression and classification. Ann Stat 2018; 46: 247–279. DOI: 10.1214/17-AOS1549. 1507.03003.

21.

Morris

White

Crowther

. Using simulation studies to evaluate statistical methods. Stat Med 2019; 38: 2074–2102. DOI: 10.1002/sim.8086.

22.

Hoerl

Kennard

. Ridge regression: Biased estimation for nonorthogonal problems. Technometrics 1970; 12: 55–67. DOI: 10.1080/00401706.1970.10488634.

23.

Lane

Hsu

Visich

et al. A phase 2, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study of senolytic molecule UBX0101 in the treatment of painful knee osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2021; 29: S52–S53. DOI: 10.1016/j.joca.2021.02.077. URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S106345842100114X.

24.

Branders

Dananberg

Clermont

et al. Predicting the placebo response in oa to improve the precision of the treatment effect estimation. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage 2021; 29: S18–S19.

25.

Previtali

Merli

Di Laura Frattura

et al. The Long-Lasting Effects of “Placebo Injections” in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Meta-Analysis. Cartilage. Epub ahead of print 18 March 2020. DOI: 10.1177/1947603520906597. PMID: 32186401.

26.

Tuttle

Tohyama

Ramsay

et al. Increasing placebo responses over time in U.S. clinical trials of neuropathic pain. 2015. ISBN 0000000000000. DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000000333. URL http://content.wkhealth.com/linkback/openurl?sid=WKPTLP:landingpage&an=00006396-900000000-99737.

27.

Enck

Bingel

Schedlowski

et al. The placebo response in medicine: minimize, maximize or personalize. Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 2013; 12: 191–204. DOI: 10.1038/nrd3923. URL http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/nrd3923.

28.

Zhang

Robertson

Jones

et al. The placebo effect and its determinants in osteoarthritis: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Ann Rheum Dis 2008; 67: 1716–1723. DOI: 10.1136/ard.2008.092015. URL https://ard.bmj.com/lookup/doi/10.1136/ard.2008.092015.

29.

Kern

Kramm

Witt

et al. The influence of personality traits on the placebo/nocebo response: A systematic review. J Psychosom Res 2020; 128: 109866. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2019.109866. URL https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2019.109866.

30.

Peciña

Azhar

Love

et al. Personality trait predictors of placebo analgesia and neurobiological correlates. Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology 2013; 38: 639–646. DOI: 10.1038/npp.2012.227.

31.

Branders

Pereira

Smith

et al. Modeling of peripheral neuropathic pain and osteoarthritis placebo response: working towards a unique model of the placebo response in chronic pain. International Society for CNS Clinical Trials and Methodology (ISCTM), Washington DC, US, 19–21 Feb 2020.

32.

EMA. Guideline on adjustment for baseline covariates in clinical trials, 2015.

33.

van Rosmalen

Dejardin

van Norden

, et al. Including historical data in the analysis of clinical trials: Is it worth the effort? Stat Methods Med Res 2018; 27: 3167–3182. DOI: 10.1177/0962280217694506.

34.

Food and Drug Administration. Adjusting for Covariates in Randomized Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biologics with Continuous Outcomes Guidance for Industry, 2021. URL https://www.fda.gov/media/148910/download.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.01 MB

0.00 MB

Leveraging historical data to optimize the number of covariates and their explained variance in the analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material