CRTpowerdist: An R package to calculate attained power and construct the power distribution for cross-sectional stepped-wedge and parallel cluster randomized trials

Minimisation of dialysis risk in hospital patients with chronic kidney disease (MinDial): study protocol for a multicentre, stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Early identification of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and advancing kidney insufficiency, followed by specialist care, can decelerate the progression of the disease. However, awareness of the importance and possible consequences of kidney insufficiency is low among doctors and patients. Since kidney insufficiency can be asymptomatic even in higher stages, it is often not even known to those belonging to risk groups. This study aims to clarify whether, for hospitalised patients with advanced chronic kidney disease, a risk-based appointment with a nephrology specialist reduces disease progression.

METHODS

The target population of the study is hospitalised CKD patients with an increased risk of end-stage renal disease (ESRD), more specifically with an ESRD risk of at least 9% in the next 5 years. This risk is estimated by the internationally validated Kidney Failure Risk Equation (KFRE). The intervention consists of a specific appointment with a nephrology specialist after the hospital stay, while control patients are discharged from the hospital as usual. Eight medical centres include participants according to a stepped-wedge design, with randomised sequential centre-wise crossover from recruiting patients into the control group to recruitment to the intervention. The estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) is measured for each patient during the hospital stay and after 12 months within the regular care by the general practitioner. The difference in the change of the eGFR over this period is compared between the intervention and control groups and considered the primary endpoint.

DISCUSSION

This study is designed to evaluate the effect of risk-based appointments with nephrology specialists for hospitalised CKD patients with an increased risk of end-stage renal disease. If the intervention is proven to be beneficial, it may be implemented in routine care. Limitations will be examined and discussed. The evaluation will include further endpoints such as non-guideline-compliant medication, economic considerations and interviews with contributing physicians to assess the acceptance and feasibility of the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register DRKS00029691 . Registered on 12 September 2022.

Maintaining the validity of inference from linear mixed models in stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials under misspecified random-effects structures

Linear mixed models are commonly used in analyzing stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials. A key consideration for analyzing a stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial is accounting for the potentially complex correlation structure, which can be achieved by specifying random-effects. The simplest random effects structure is random intercept but more complex structures such as random cluster-by-period, discrete-time decay, and more recently, the random intervention structure, have been proposed. Specifying appropriate random effects in practice can be challenging: assuming more complex correlation structures may be reasonable but they are vulnerable to computational challenges. To circumvent these challenges, robust variance estimators may be applied to linear mixed models to provide consistent estimators of standard errors of fixed effect parameters in the presence of random-effects misspecification. However, there has been no empirical investigation of robust variance estimators for stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials. In this article, we review six robust variance estimators (both standard and small-sample bias-corrected robust variance estimators) that are available for linear mixed models in R, and then describe a comprehensive simulation study to examine the performance of these robust variance estimators for stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials with a continuous outcome under different data generators. For each data generator, we investigate whether the use of a robust variance estimator with either the random intercept model or the random cluster-by-period model is sufficient to provide valid statistical inference for fixed effect parameters, when these working models are subject to random-effect misspecification. Our results indicate that the random intercept and random cluster-by-period models with robust variance estimators performed adequately. The CR3 robust variance estimator (approximate jackknife) estimator, coupled with the number of clusters minus two degrees of freedom correction, consistently gave the best coverage results, but could be slightly conservative when the number of clusters was below 16. We summarize the implications of our results for the linear mixed model analysis of stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials and offer some practical recommendations on the choice of the analytic model.

Reconsidering stepped wedge cluster randomized trial designs with implementation periods: Fewer sequences or the parallel-group design with baseline and implementation periods are potentially more efficient

BACKGROUND/AIMS

When designing a cluster randomized trial, advantages and disadvantages of tentative designs must be weighed. The stepped wedge design is popular for multiple reasons, including its potential to increase power via improved efficiency relative to a parallel-group design. In many realistic settings, it will take time for clusters to fully implement the intervention. When designing the HEALing (Helping to End Addiction Long-termSM) Communities Study, implementation time was a major consideration, and we examined the efficiency and practicality of three designs. Specifically, a three-sequence stepped wedge design with implementation periods, a corresponding two-sequence modified design that is created by removing the middle sequence, and a parallel-group design with baseline and implementation periods. In this article, we study the relative efficiencies of these specific designs. More generally, we study the relative efficiencies of modified designs when the stepped wedge design with implementation periods has three or more sequences. We also consider different correlation structures.

METHODS

We compare efficiencies of stepped wedge designs with implementation periods consisting of three to nine sequences with a variety of corresponding designs. The three-sequence design is compared to the two-sequence modified design and to the parallel-group design with baseline and implementation periods analysed via analysis of covariance. Stepped wedge designs with implementation periods consisting of four or more sequences are compared to modified designs that remove all or a subset of 'middle' sequences. Efficiencies are based on the use of linear mixed effects models.

RESULTS

In the studied settings, the modified design is more efficient than the three-sequence stepped wedge design with implementation periods. The parallel-group design with baseline and implementation periods with analysis of covariance-based analysis is often more efficient than the three-sequence design. With respect to stepped wedge designs with implementation periods that are comprised of more sequences, there are often corresponding modified designs that improve efficiency. However, use of only the first and last sequences has the potential to be either relatively efficient or inefficient. Relative efficiency is impacted by the strength of the statistical correlation among outcomes from the same cluster; for example, the relative efficiencies of modified designs tend to be greater for smaller cluster auto-correlation values.

CONCLUSION

If a three-sequence stepped wedge design with implementation periods is being considered for a future cluster randomized trial, then a corresponding modified design using only the first and last sequences should be considered if sole focus is on efficiency. However, a parallel-group design with baseline and implementation periods and analysis of covariance-based analysis can be a practical, efficient alternative. For stepped wedge designs with implementation periods and a larger number of sequences, modified versions that remove 'middle' sequences should be considered. Due to the potential sensitivity of design efficiencies, statistical correlation should be carefully considered.

Power calculation for detecting interaction effect in cross-sectional stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials: an important tool for disparity research

BACKGROUND

The stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) design has become popular in healthcare research. It is an appealing alternative to traditional cluster randomized trials (CRTs) since the burden of logistical issues and ethical problems can be reduced. Several approaches for sample size determination for the overall treatment effect in the SW-CRT have been proposed. However, in certain situations we are interested in examining the heterogeneity in treatment effect (HTE) between groups instead. This is equivalent to testing the interaction effect. An important example includes the aim to reduce racial disparities through healthcare delivery interventions, where the focus is the interaction between the intervention and race. Sample size determination and power calculation for detecting an interaction effect between the intervention status variable and a key covariate in the SW-CRT study has not been proposed yet for binary outcomes.

METHODS

We utilize the generalized estimating equation (GEE) method for detecting the heterogeneity in treatment effect (HTE). The variance of the estimated interaction effect is approximated based on the GEE method for the marginal models. The power is calculated based on the two-sided Wald test. The Kauermann and Carroll (KC) and the Mancl and DeRouen (MD) methods along with GEE (GEE-KC and GEE-MD) are considered as bias-correction methods.

RESULTS

Among three approaches, GEE has the largest simulated power and GEE-MD has the smallest simulated power. Given cluster size of 120, GEE has over 80% statistical power. When we have a balanced binary covariate (50%), simulated power increases compared to an unbalanced binary covariate (30%). With intermediate effect size of HTE, only cluster sizes of 100 and 120 have more than 80% power using GEE for both correlation structures. With large effect size of HTE, when cluster size is at least 60, all three approaches have more than 80% power. When we compare an increase in cluster size and increase in the number of clusters based on simulated power, the latter has a slight gain in power. When the cluster size changes from 20 to 40 with 20 clusters, power increases from 53.1% to 82.1% for GEE; 50.6% to 79.7% for GEE-KC; and 48.1% to 77.1% for GEE-MD. When the number of clusters changes from 20 to 40 with cluster size of 20, power increases from 53.1% to 82.1% for GEE; 50.6% to 81% for GEE-KC; and 48.1% to 79.8% for GEE-MD.

CONCLUSIONS

We propose three approaches for cluster size determination given the number of clusters for detecting the interaction effect in SW-CRT. GEE and GEE-KC have reasonable operating characteristics for both intermediate and large effect size of HTE.

Bayesian sequential designs in studies with multilevel data

In many studies in the social and behavioral sciences, the data have a multilevel structure, with subjects nested within clusters. In the design phase of such a study, the number of clusters to achieve a desired power level has to be calculated. This requires a priori estimates of the effect size and intraclass correlation coefficient. If these estimates are incorrect, the study may be under- or overpowered. This may be overcome by using a group-sequential design, where interim tests are done at various points in time of the study. Based on interim test results, a decision is made to either include additional clusters or to reject the null hypothesis and conclude the study. This contribution introduces Bayesian sequential designs as an alternative to group-sequential designs. This approach compares various hypotheses based on the support in the data for each of them. If neither hypothesis receives a sufficient degree of support, additional clusters are included in the study and the Bayes factor is recalculated. This procedure continues until one of the hypotheses receives sufficient support. This paper explains how the Bayes factor is used as a measure of support for a hypothesis and how a Bayesian sequential design is conducted. A simulation study in the setting of a two-group comparison was conducted to study the effects of the minimum and maximum number of clusters per group and the desired degree of support. It is concluded that Bayesian sequential designs are a flexible alternative to the group sequential design.

Estimating intra-cluster correlation coefficients for planning longitudinal cluster randomized trials: a tutorial

It is well-known that designing a cluster randomized trial (CRT) requires an advance estimate of the intra-cluster correlation coefficient (ICC). In the case of longitudinal CRTs, where outcomes are assessed repeatedly in each cluster over time, estimates for more complex correlation structures are required. Three common types of correlation structures for longitudinal CRTs are exchangeable, nested/block exchangeable and exponential decay correlations-the latter two allow the strength of the correlation to weaken over time. Determining sample sizes under these latter two structures requires advance specification of the within-period ICC and cluster autocorrelation coefficient as well as the intra-individual autocorrelation coefficient in the case of a cohort design. How to estimate these coefficients is a common challenge for investigators. When appropriate estimates from previously published longitudinal CRTs are not available, one possibility is to re-analyse data from an available trial dataset or to access observational data to estimate these parameters in advance of a trial. In this tutorial, we demonstrate how to estimate correlation parameters under these correlation structures for continuous and binary outcomes. We first introduce the correlation structures and their underlying model assumptions under a mixed-effects regression framework. With practical advice for implementation, we then demonstrate how the correlation parameters can be estimated using examples and we provide programming code in R, SAS, and Stata. An Rshiny app is available that allows investigators to upload an existing dataset and obtain the estimated correlation parameters. We conclude by identifying some gaps in the literature.

Sample size calculators for planning stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials: a review and comparison

Recent years have seen a surge of interest in stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials (SW-CRTs). SW-CRTs include several design variations and methodology is rapidly developing. Accordingly, a variety of power and sample size calculation software for SW-CRTs has been developed. However, each calculator may support only a selected set of design features and may not be appropriate for all scenarios. Currently, there is no resource to assist researchers in selecting the most appropriate calculator for planning their trials. In this paper, we review and classify 18 existing calculators that can be implemented in major platforms, such as R, SAS, Stata, Microsoft Excel, PASS and nQuery. After reviewing the main sample size considerations for SW-CRTs, we summarize the features supported by the available calculators, including the types of designs, outcomes, correlation structures and treatment effects; whether incomplete designs, cluster-size variation or secular trends are accommodated; and the analytical approach used. We then discuss in more detail four main calculators and identify their strengths and limitations. We illustrate how to use these four calculators to compute power for two real SW-CRTs with a continuous and binary outcome and compare the results. We show that the choice of calculator can make a substantial difference in the calculated power and explain these differences. Finally, we make recommendations for implementing sample size or power calculations using the available calculators. An R Shiny app is available for users to select the calculator that meets their requirements (https://douyang.shinyapps.io/swcrtcalculator/).

swdpwr: A SAS macro and an R package for power calculations in stepped wedge cluster randomized trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The stepped wedge cluster randomized trial is a study design increasingly used in a wide variety of settings, including public health intervention evaluations, clinical and health service research. Previous studies presenting power calculation methods for stepped wedge designs have focused on continuous outcomes and relied on normal approximations for binary outcomes. These approximations for binary outcomes may or may not be accurate, depending on whether or not the normal approximation to the binomial distribution is reasonable. Although not always accurate, such approximation methods have been widely used for binary outcomes. To improve the approximations for binary outcomes, two new methods for stepped wedge designs (SWDs) of binary outcomes have recently been published. However, these new methods have not been implemented in publicly available software. The objective of this paper is to present power calculation software for SWDs in various settings for both continuous and binary outcomes.

METHODS

We have developed a SAS macro %swdpwr, an R package swdpwr and a Shiny app for power calculations in SWDs. Different scenarios including cross-sectional and cohort designs, binary and continuous outcomes, marginal and conditional models, three link functions, with and without time effects under exchangeable, nested exchangeable and block exchangeable correlation structures are accommodated in this software. Unequal numbers of clusters per sequence are also allowed. Power calculations for a closed cohort employ a block exchangeable within-cluster correlation structure that accounts for three intracluster (intraclass) correlations: the within-period, between-period, and within-individual correlations. Cross-sectional cohorts allow for nested exchangeable or exchangeable correlation structures defined by the within-period and the between-period intracluster correlations only. Our software assumes a complete design and equal cluster-period sizes. While the methods accommodate correlation structures of constant within-period intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) as well as a different within- and between-period ICC, it does not allow the between-period ICC to decay.

RESULTS

swdpwr provides an efficient tool to support investigators in the design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. swdpwr addresses the implementation gap between newly proposed methodology and their application to obtain more accurate power calculations in SWDs.

CONCLUSIONS

In an effort to make computationally efficient (and non-simulation-based) power methods under both the cross-sectional and closed-cohort designs for continuous and binary outcomes more accessible, we have developed this user-friendly software. swdpwr is implemented under two platforms: SAS and R, satisfying the needs of investigators from various backgrounds. Additionally, the Shiny app enables users who are not able to use SAS or R to implement these methods online straightforwardly.