Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Trials 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Methodology

Accounting for treatment by center interaction in sample size determinations and the use of surrogate outcomes in the pessary for the prevention of preterm birth trial: a simulation study

Author: Andrew R. Willan

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The Pessary for the Prevention of Preterm Birth Study (PS3) is an international, multicenter, randomized clinical trial designed to examine the effectiveness of the Arabin pessary in preventing preterm birth in pregnant women with a short cervix. During the design of the study two methodological issues regarding power and sample size were raised. Since treatment in the Standard Arm will vary between centers, it is anticipated that so too will the probability of preterm birth in that arm. This will likely result in a treatment by center interaction, and the issue of how this will affect the sample size requirements was raised. The sample size requirements to examine the effect of the pessary on the baby’s clinical outcome was prohibitively high, so the second issue is how best to examine the effect on clinical outcome. The approaches taken to address these issues are presented.

Results

Simulation and sensitivity analysis were used to address the sample size issue. The probability of preterm birth in the Standard Arm was assumed to vary between centers following a Beta distribution with a mean of 0.3 and a coefficient of variation of 0.3. To address the second issue a Bayesian decision model is proposed that combines the information regarding the between-treatment difference in the probability of preterm birth from PS3 with the data from the Multiple Courses of Antenatal Corticosteroids for Preterm Birth Study that relate preterm birth and perinatal mortality/morbidity. The approach provides a between-treatment comparison with respect to the probability of a bad clinical outcome. The performance of the approach was assessed using simulation and sensitivity analysis.
Accounting for a possible treatment by center interaction increased the sample size from 540 to 700 patients per arm for the base case. The sample size requirements increase with the coefficient of variation and decrease with the number of centers. Under the same assumptions used for determining the sample size requirements, the simulated mean probability that pessary reduces the risk of perinatal mortality/morbidity is 0.98. The simulated mean decreased with coefficient of variation and increased with the number of clinical sites.

Conclusion

Employing simulation and sensitivity analysis is a useful approach for determining sample size requirements while accounting for the additional uncertainty due to a treatment by center interaction. Using a surrogate outcome in conjunction with a Bayesian decision model is an efficient way to compare important clinical outcomes in a randomized clinical trial in situations where the direct approach requires a prohibitively high sample size.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
2.
go back to reference Kallen A. Treatment-by-center interaction: what is the issue? Drug Inf J. 1997;31(3):927–36. Kallen A. Treatment-by-center interaction: what is the issue? Drug Inf J. 1997;31(3):927–36.
3.
go back to reference Senn S. Some controversies in planning and analysing multi-centre trials. Stat Med. 1998;17(15–16):1753–65.CrossRefPubMed Senn S. Some controversies in planning and analysing multi-centre trials. Stat Med. 1998;17(15–16):1753–65.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Jones B, Teather D, Wang J, Lewis J. A comparison of various estimators of a treatment difference for a multi-centre clinical trial. Stat Med. 1998;17(15–16):1767–77.CrossRefPubMed Jones B, Teather D, Wang J, Lewis J. A comparison of various estimators of a treatment difference for a multi-centre clinical trial. Stat Med. 1998;17(15–16):1767–77.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Agresti A, Hartzel J. Strategies for comparing treatments on a binary response with multi‐centre data. Stat Med. 2000;19(8):1115–39.CrossRefPubMed Agresti A, Hartzel J. Strategies for comparing treatments on a binary response with multi‐centre data. Stat Med. 2000;19(8):1115–39.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Lin Z. The number of centers in a multicenter clinical study: effects on statistical power. Drug Inf J. 2000;34(2):379–86. Lin Z. The number of centers in a multicenter clinical study: effects on statistical power. Drug Inf J. 2000;34(2):379–86.
8.
go back to reference Raudenbush SW, Liu X. Statistical power and optimal design for multisite randomized trials. Psychol Methods. 2000;5(2):199–213.CrossRefPubMed Raudenbush SW, Liu X. Statistical power and optimal design for multisite randomized trials. Psychol Methods. 2000;5(2):199–213.CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Localio AR, Berlin JA, Ten Have TR, Kimmel SE. Adjustments for center in multicenter studies: an overview. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(2):112–23.CrossRefPubMed Localio AR, Berlin JA, Ten Have TR, Kimmel SE. Adjustments for center in multicenter studies: an overview. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(2):112–23.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Moerbeek M, van Breukelen GJ, Berger MP. A comparison between traditional methods and multilevel regression for the analysis of multicenter intervention studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(4):341–50.CrossRefPubMed Moerbeek M, van Breukelen GJ, Berger MP. A comparison between traditional methods and multilevel regression for the analysis of multicenter intervention studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(4):341–50.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Dragalin V, Fedorov V. Design of multi-centre trials with binary response. Stat Med. 2006;25(16):2701–19.CrossRefPubMed Dragalin V, Fedorov V. Design of multi-centre trials with binary response. Stat Med. 2006;25(16):2701–19.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Nixon RM, Thompson SG. Methods for incorporating covariate adjustment, subgroup analysis and between-centre differences into cost-effectiveness evaluations. Health Econ. 2005;14(12):1217–29.CrossRefPubMed Nixon RM, Thompson SG. Methods for incorporating covariate adjustment, subgroup analysis and between-centre differences into cost-effectiveness evaluations. Health Econ. 2005;14(12):1217–29.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Feaster DJ, Mikulich-Gilbertson S, Brincks AM. Modeling site effects in the design and analysis of multi-site trials. Am J Drug Alcohol Ab. 2011;37(5):383–91.CrossRef Feaster DJ, Mikulich-Gilbertson S, Brincks AM. Modeling site effects in the design and analysis of multi-site trials. Am J Drug Alcohol Ab. 2011;37(5):383–91.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Morris C. Parametric empirical Bayes inference: theory and applications. J Am Stat Assoc. 1983;78(1):47–55.CrossRef Morris C. Parametric empirical Bayes inference: theory and applications. J Am Stat Assoc. 1983;78(1):47–55.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Murphy KE, Hannah ME, Willan AR, et al. Multiple courses of antenatal corticosteroids for preterm birth study (MACS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;372(9656):2143–51.CrossRefPubMed Murphy KE, Hannah ME, Willan AR, et al. Multiple courses of antenatal corticosteroids for preterm birth study (MACS): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;372(9656):2143–51.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Ellenberg SS, Hamilton JM. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: cancer. Stat Med. 1989;8(4):405–13.CrossRefPubMed Ellenberg SS, Hamilton JM. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: cancer. Stat Med. 1989;8(4):405–13.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Wittes J, Lakatos E, Probstfield J. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: cardiovascular diseases. Stat Med. 1989;8(4):415–25.CrossRefPubMed Wittes J, Lakatos E, Probstfield J. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: cardiovascular diseases. Stat Med. 1989;8(4):415–25.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med. 1998;8(4):431–40.CrossRef Prentice RL. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: definition and operational criteria. Stat Med. 1998;8(4):431–40.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat Med. 1992;11(2):167–78.CrossRefPubMed Freedman LS, Graubard BI, Schatzkin A. Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Stat Med. 1992;11(2):167–78.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Fleming TR, Prentice RL, Pepe MS, Glidden D. Surrogate and auxiliary endpoints in clinical trials, with potential applications in cancer and AIDS research. Stat Med. 1994;13(9):955–68.CrossRefPubMed Fleming TR, Prentice RL, Pepe MS, Glidden D. Surrogate and auxiliary endpoints in clinical trials, with potential applications in cancer and AIDS research. Stat Med. 1994;13(9):955–68.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Hillis A, Seigel D. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: ophthalmologic disorders. Stat Med. 1989;8(4):427–30.CrossRefPubMed Hillis A, Seigel D. Surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: ophthalmologic disorders. Stat Med. 1989;8(4):427–30.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Day NE, Duffy SW. Trial design based on surrogate end points—application to comparison of different breast screening frequencies. 1996. J R Stat Soc Ser A. 1996;159(1):49–60.CrossRef Day NE, Duffy SW. Trial design based on surrogate end points—application to comparison of different breast screening frequencies. 1996. J R Stat Soc Ser A. 1996;159(1):49–60.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med. 1996;125(7):605–13.CrossRefPubMed Fleming TR, DeMets DL. Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled? Ann Intern Med. 1996;125(7):605–13.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Daniels MJ, Hughes MD. Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Stat Med. 1997;16(17):1965–82.CrossRefPubMed Daniels MJ, Hughes MD. Meta-analysis for the evaluation of potential surrogate markers. Stat Med. 1997;16(17):1965–82.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Buyse M, Molenberghs G. Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics. 1998;54(3):1014–29.CrossRefPubMed Buyse M, Molenberghs G. Criteria for the validation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments. Biometrics. 1998;54(3):1014–29.CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Begg CB, Leung DHY. On the use of surrogate endpoints in randomized trials. J R Stat Soc Ser A-G. 2000;163(1):15–28.CrossRef Begg CB, Leung DHY. On the use of surrogate endpoints in randomized trials. J R Stat Soc Ser A-G. 2000;163(1):15–28.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Atkinson AJ, Colburn WA, DeGruttola VG, DeMets DL, Downing GJ, Hoth DF, et al. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmaco Ther. 2001;69(3):89–95.CrossRef Atkinson AJ, Colburn WA, DeGruttola VG, DeMets DL, Downing GJ, Hoth DF, et al. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: preferred definitions and conceptual framework. Clin Pharmaco Ther. 2001;69(3):89–95.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference De Gruttola VG, Clax P, DeMets DL, Downing GJ, Ellenburg SS, Friedman L, et al. Considerations in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: summary of a National Institutes of Health workshop. Control Clin Trials. 2001;22(5):485–502.CrossRefPubMed De Gruttola VG, Clax P, DeMets DL, Downing GJ, Ellenburg SS, Friedman L, et al. Considerations in the evaluation of surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: summary of a National Institutes of Health workshop. Control Clin Trials. 2001;22(5):485–502.CrossRefPubMed
29.
go back to reference Molenberghs G, Geys H, Buyse M. Evaluation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments with mixed discrete and continuous outcomes. Stat Med. 2001;20(20):3023–38.CrossRefPubMed Molenberghs G, Geys H, Buyse M. Evaluation of surrogate endpoints in randomized experiments with mixed discrete and continuous outcomes. Stat Med. 2001;20(20):3023–38.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Baker SG, Izmirlian G, Kipnis V. Resolving paradoxes involving surrogate endpoints. J R Stat Soc Ser A-G. 2005;168(4):753–62.CrossRef Baker SG, Izmirlian G, Kipnis V. Resolving paradoxes involving surrogate endpoints. J R Stat Soc Ser A-G. 2005;168(4):753–62.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Goya M, Pratcorona L, Merced C, et al. Cervical pessary in pregnant women with a short cervix (PECEP): an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9828):1800–06.CrossRefPubMed Goya M, Pratcorona L, Merced C, et al. Cervical pessary in pregnant women with a short cervix (PECEP): an open-label randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012;379(9828):1800–06.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Gellman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, Rubin DB, Bayesian Data Analysis, 3rd edition. Boca Raton, FL, USA: Chapman Hall/CRC; 2014 Gellman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, Rubin DB, Bayesian Data Analysis, 3rd edition. Boca Raton, FL, USA: Chapman Hall/CRC; 2014
33.
go back to reference Kirkby S, Greenspan JS, Kornhauser M, Schneiderman R. Clinical outcomes and cost of the moderately preterm infant. Adv Neonatal Care. 2007;7(2):80–7.CrossRefPubMed Kirkby S, Greenspan JS, Kornhauser M, Schneiderman R. Clinical outcomes and cost of the moderately preterm infant. Adv Neonatal Care. 2007;7(2):80–7.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Liu L, Oza S, Hogan D, Perin J, Rudan I, Lawn JE, et al. Global, regional, and national causes of child mortality in 2000–13, with projections to inform post-2015 priorities: an updated systematic analysis. Lancet. 2015;385(9966):430–40.CrossRefPubMed Liu L, Oza S, Hogan D, Perin J, Rudan I, Lawn JE, et al. Global, regional, and national causes of child mortality in 2000–13, with projections to inform post-2015 priorities: an updated systematic analysis. Lancet. 2015;385(9966):430–40.CrossRefPubMed
36.
go back to reference Petitti DB. Meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis: methods for quantitative synthesis in medicine. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press; 1999. Petitti DB. Meta-analysis, decision analysis, and cost-effectiveness analysis: methods for quantitative synthesis in medicine. Oxford UK: Oxford University Press; 1999.
37.
go back to reference Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(5):461–77.CrossRefPubMed Sculpher M, Fenwick E, Claxton K. Assessing quality in decision analytic cost-effectiveness models. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000;17(5):461–77.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Accounting for treatment by center interaction in sample size determinations and the use of surrogate outcomes in the pessary for the prevention of preterm birth trial: a simulation study
Author
Andrew R. Willan
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1433-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Trials 1/2016 Go to the issue