The analysis of terminal endpoint events in stepped wedge designs

Adapting SIMEX to correct for bias due to interval-censored outcomes in survival analysis with time-varying exposure

Many clinical and epidemiological applications of survival analysis focus on interval-censored events that can be ascertained only at discrete times of clinic visits. This implies that the values of time-varying covariates are not correctly aligned with the true, unknown event times, inducing a bias in the estimated associations. To address this issue, we adapted the simulation-extrapolation (SIMEX) methodology, based on assessing how the estimates change with the artificially increased time between clinic visits. We propose diagnostics to choose the extrapolating function. In simulations, the SIMEX-corrected estimates reduced considerably the bias to the null and generally yielded a better bias/variance trade-off than conventional estimates. In a real-life pharmacoepidemiological application, the proposed method increased by 27% the excess hazard of the estimated association between a time-varying exposure, representing the 2-year cumulative duration of past use of a hypertensive medication, and the hazard of nonmelanoma skin cancer (interval-censored events). These simulation-based and real-life results suggest that the proposed SIMEX-based correction may help improve the accuracy of estimated associations between time-varying exposures and the hazard of interval-censored events in large cohort studies where the events are recorded only at relatively sparse times of clinic visits/assessments. However, these advantages may be less certain for smaller studies and/or weak associations.

Comparison of statistical models for estimating intervention effects based on time-to-recurrent-event in stepped wedge cluster randomized trial using open cohort design

Background

There are currently no methodological studies on the performance of the statistical models for estimating intervention effects based on the time-to-recurrent-event (TTRE) in stepped wedge cluster randomised trial (SWCRT) using an open cohort design. This study aims to address this by evaluating the performance of these statistical models using an open cohort design with the Monte Carlo simulation in various settings and their application using an actual example.

Methods

Using Monte Carlo simulations, we evaluated the performance of the existing extended Cox proportional hazard models, i.e., the Andersen-Gill (AG), Prentice-Williams-Peterson Total-Time (PWP-TT), and Prentice-Williams-Peterson Gap-time (PWP-GT) models, using the settings of several event generation models and true intervention effects, with and without stratification by clusters. Unidirectional switching in SWCRT was represented using time-dependent covariates.

Results

Using Monte Carlo simulations with the various described settings, in situations where inter-individual variability do not exist, the PWP-GT model with stratification by clusters showed the best performance in most settings and reasonable performance in the others. The only situation in which the performance of the PWP-TT model with stratification by clusters was not inferior to that of the PWP-GT model with stratification by clusters was when there was a certain amount of follow-up period, and the timing of the trial entry was random within the trial period, including the follow-up period. In situations where inter-individual variability existed, the PWP-GT model consistently underperformed compared to the PWP-TT model. The AG model performed well only in a specific setting. By analysing actual examples, it was found that almost all the statistical models suggested that the risk of events during the intervention condition may be somewhat higher than in the control, although the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusions

When estimating the TTRE-based intervention effects of SWCRT in various settings using an open cohort design, the PWP-GT model with stratification by clusters performed most reasonably in situations where inter-individual variability was not present. However, if inter-individual variability was present, the PWP-TT model with stratification by clusters performed best.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01552-6.

Mixed-effects models for the design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials: An overview

The stepped wedge cluster randomized design has received increasing attention in pragmatic clinical trials and implementation science research. The key feature of the design is the unidirectional crossover of clusters from the control to intervention conditions on a staggered schedule, which induces confounding of the intervention effect by time. The stepped wedge design first appeared in the Gambia hepatitis study in the 1980s. However, the statistical model used for the design and analysis was not formally introduced until 2007 in an article by Hussey and Hughes. Since then, a variety of mixed-effects model extensions have been proposed for the design and analysis of these trials. In this article, we explore these extensions under a unified perspective. We provide a general model representation and regard various model extensions as alternative ways to characterize the secular trend, intervention effect, as well as sources of heterogeneity. We review the key model ingredients and clarify their implications for the design and analysis. The article serves as an entry point to the evolving statistical literatures on stepped wedge designs.

Review of Recent Methodological Developments in Group-Randomized Trials: Part 2-Analysis

In 2004, Murray et al. reviewed methodological developments in the design and analysis of group-randomized trials (GRTs). We have updated that review with developments in analysis of the past 13 years, with a companion article to focus on developments in design. We discuss developments in the topics of the earlier review (e.g., methods for parallel-arm GRTs, individually randomized group-treatment trials, and missing data) and in new topics, including methods to account for multiple-level clustering and alternative estimation methods (e.g., augmented generalized estimating equations, targeted maximum likelihood, and quadratic inference functions). In addition, we describe developments in analysis of alternative group designs (including stepped-wedge GRTs, network-randomized trials, and pseudocluster randomized trials), which require clustering to be accounted for in their design and analysis.

Statistical methods for unidirectional switch designs: Past, present, and future

Clinical trials may apply or use a sequential introduction of a new treatment to determine its efficacy or effectiveness with respect to a control treatment. The reasons for choosing a particular switch design have different origins. For instance, they may be implemented for ethical or logistic reasons or for studying disease-modifying effects. Large-scale pragmatic trials with complex interventions often use stepped wedge designs (SWDs), where all participants start at the control group, and during the trial, the control treatment is switched to the new intervention at different moments. They typically use cross-sectional data and cluster randomization. On the other hand, new drugs for inhibition of cognitive decline in Alzheimer's or Parkinson's disease typically use delayed start designs (DSDs). Here, participants start in a parallel group design and at a certain moment in the trial, (part of) the control group switches to the new treatment. The studies are longitudinal in nature, and individuals are being randomized. Statistical methods for these unidirectional switch designs (USD) are quite complex and incomparable, and they have been developed by various authors under different terminologies, model specifications, and assumptions. This imposes unnecessary barriers for researchers to compare results or choose the most appropriate method for their own needs. This paper provides an overview of past and current statistical developments for the USDs (SWD and DSD). All designs are formulated in a unified framework of treatment patterns to make comparisons between switch designs easier. The focus is primarily on statistical models, methods of estimation, sample size calculation, and optimal designs for estimation of the treatment effect. Other relevant open issues are being discussed as well to provide suggestions for future research in USDs.