arXiv subjects

A. Sarah Walker

Publications and source records attributed to A. Sarah Walker.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

Estimating the duration of RT-PCR positivity for SARS-CoV-2 from doubly interval censored data with undetected infections

Monitoring the incidence of new infections during a pandemic is critical for an effective public health response. General population prevalence surveys for SARS-CoV-2 can provide high-quality data to estimate incidence. However, estimation relies on understanding the distribution of the duration that infections remain detectable. This study addresses this need using data from the Coronavirus Infection Survey (CIS), a long-term, longitudinal, general population survey conducted in the UK. Analyzing these data presents unique challenges, such as doubly interval censoring, undetected infections, and false negatives. We propose a Bayesian nonparametric survival analysis approach, estimating a discrete-time distribution of durations and integrating prior information derived from a complementary study. Our methodology is validated through a simulation study, including its resilience to model misspecification, and then applied to the CIS dataset. This results in the first estimate of the full duration distribution in a general population, as well as methodology that could be transferred to new contexts.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2022

Improving clinical trial interpretation with ACCEPT analyses

Effective decision making from randomised controlled clinical trials relies on robust interpretation of the numerical results. However, the language we use to describe clinical trials can cause confusion both in trial design and in comparing results across trials. ACceptability Curve Estimation using Probability Above Threshold (ACCEPT) aids comparison between trials (even where of different designs) by harmonising reporting of results, acknowledging different interpretations of the results may be valid in different situations, and moving the focus from comparison to a pre-specified value to interpretation of the trial data. ACCEPT can be applied to historical trials or incorporated into statistical analysis plans for future analyses. An online tool enables ACCEPT on up to three trials simultaneously.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2021

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.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2021

Inferring Risks of Coronavirus Transmission from Community Household Data

The response of many governments to the COVID-19 pandemic has involved measures to control within- and between-household transmission, providing motivation to improve understanding of the absolute and relative risks in these contexts. Here, we perform exploratory, residual-based, and transmission-dynamic household analysis of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) COVID-19 Infection Survey (CIS) data from 26 April 2020 to 15 July 2021 in England. This provides evidence for: (i) temporally varying rates of introduction of infection into households broadly following the trajectory of the overall epidemic and vaccination programme; (ii) Susceptible-Infectious Transmission Probabilities (SITPs) of within-household transmission in the 15-35% range; (iii) the emergence of the Alpha and Delta variants, with the former being around 50% more infectious than wildtype and 35% less infectious than Delta within households; (iv) significantly (in the range 25-300%) more risk of bringing infection into the household for workers in patient-facing roles pre-vaccine; (v) increased risk for secondary school-age children of bringing the infection into the household when schools are open; (vi) increased risk for primary school-age children of bringing the infection into the household when schools were open since the emergence of new variants.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2021

Total Effect Analysis of Vaccination on Household Transmission in the Office for National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey

We investigate the distribution of numbers of secondary cases in households in the Office for National Statistics COVID-19 Infection Survey (ONS CIS), stratified by timing of vaccination and infection in the households. This shows a total effect of a statistically significant approximate halving of the secondary attack rate in households following vaccination.

q-bio.PE↗

arXiv2020

The DURATIONS randomised trial design: estimation targets, analysis methods and operating characteristics

Background. Designing trials to reduce treatment duration is important in several therapeutic areas, including TB and antibiotics. We recently proposed a new randomised trial design to overcome some of the limitations of standard two-arm non-inferiority trials. This DURATIONS design involves randomising patients to a number of duration arms, and modelling the so-called duration-response curve. This article investigates the operating characteristics (type-1 and type-2 errors) of different statistical methods of drawing inference from the estimated curve. Methods. Our first estimation target is the shortest duration non-inferior to the control (maximum) duration within a specific risk difference margin. We compare different methods of estimating this quantity, including using model confidence bands, the delta method and bootstrap. We then explore the generalisability of results to estimation targets which focus on absolute event rates, risk ratio and gradient of the curve. Results. We show through simulations that, in most scenarios and for most of the estimation targets, using the bootstrap to estimate variability around the target duration leads to good results for DURATIONS design-appropriate quantities analogous to power and type-1 error. Using model confidence bands is not recommended, while the delta method leads to inflated type-1 error in some scenarios, particularly when the optimal duration is very close to one of the randomised durations. Conclusions. Using the bootstrap to estimate the optimal duration in a DURATIONS design has good operating characteristics in a wide range of scenarios, and can be used with confidence by researchers wishing to design a DURATIONS trial to reduce treatment duration. Uncertainty around several different targets can be estimated with this bootstrap approach.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2019

Handling an uncertain control group event risk in non-inferiority trials: non-inferiority frontiers and the power-stabilising transformation

Background. Non-inferiority (NI) trials are increasingly used to evaluate new treatments expected to have secondary advantages over standard of care, but similar efficacy on the primary outcome. When designing a NI trial with a binary primary outcome, the choice of effect measure for the NI margin has an important effect on sample size calculations; furthermore, if the control event risk observed is markedly different from that assumed, the trial can quickly lose power or the results become difficult to interpret. Methods. We propose a new way of designing NI trials to overcome the issues raised by unexpected control event risks by specifying a NI frontier, i.e. a curve defining the most appropriate non-inferiority margin for each possible value of control event risk. We propose a fixed arcsine difference frontier, the power-stabilising transformation for binary outcomes. We propose and compare three ways of designing a trial using this frontier. Results. Testing and reporting on the arcsine scale leads to results which are challenging to interpret clinically. Working on the arcsine scale generally requires a larger sample size compared to the risk difference scale. Therefore, working on the risk difference scale, modifying the margin after observing the control event risk, might be preferable, as it requires a smaller sample size. However, this approach tends to slightly inflate type I error rate; a solution is to use a lower significance level for testing. When working on the risk ratio scale, the same approach leads to power levels above the nominal one, maintaining type I error under control. Conclusions. Our proposed methods of designing NI trials using power-stabilising frontiers make trial design more resilient to unexpected values of the control event risk, at the only cost of requiring larger sample sizes when the goal is to report results on the risk difference scale.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2018

Re-thinking non-inferiority: a practical trial design for optimising treatment duration

Background: trials to identify the minimal effective treatment duration are needed in different therapeutic areas, including bacterial infections, TB and Hepatitis--C. However, standard non-inferiority designs have several limitations, including arbitrariness of non-inferiority margins, choice of research arms and very large sample sizes. Methods: we recast the problem of finding an appropriate non-inferior treatment duration in terms of modelling the entire duration-response curve within a pre-specified range. We propose a multi-arm randomised trial design, allocating patients to different treatment durations. We use fractional polynomials and spline-based methods to flexibly model the duration-response curve. We compare different methods in terms of a scaled version of the area between true and estimated prediction curves. We evaluate sensitivity to key design parameters, including sample size, number and position of arms. Results: a total sample size of $\sim 500$ patients divided into a moderate number of equidistant arms (5-7) is sufficient to estimate the duration-response curve within a $5\%$ error margin in $95\%$ of the simulations. Fractional polynomials provide similar or better results than spline-based methods in most scenarios. Conclusions: our proposed practical randomised trial design is an alternative to standard non-inferiority designs, avoiding many of their limitations, and yet being fairly robust to different possible duration-response curves. The trial outcome is the whole duration-response curve, which could be used by clinicians and policy makers to make informed decisions, facilitating a move away from a forced binary hypothesis testing paradigm.

stat.ME↗