arXiv subjects

Pavla Krotka

Publications and source records attributed to Pavla Krotka.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Finite-sample correction for the covariate-adjusted log-rank test

The covariate-adjusted log-rank test is a novel method for covariate adjustment in randomized trials with time-to-event endpoints, offering guaranteed efficiency gains compared to the standard log-rank test. However, it has been noted that, in small samples, this method may lead to type I error rate inflation. This issue is particularly pronounced in trials with imbalanced allocation and settings where the number of adjustment covariates is large relative to the sample size. We propose a finite-sample correction for the denominator of the covariate-adjusted log-rank test statistic that accounts for the loss of the residual degrees of freedom as well as the uncertainty in the unknown regression coefficients. In simulations, we show that applying this correction leads to a substantial reduction in the type I error rate inflation across multiple scenarios.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2026

On the inclusion of non-concurrent controls in platform trials with an interim analysis

The analysis of platform trials can be enhanced by utilizing non-concurrent controls. Since including this data might also introduce bias in the treatment effect estimators if time trends are present, methods for incorporating non-concurrent controls adjusting for time have been proposed. However, so far their behavior has not been systematically investigated in platform trials that include interim analyses. To evaluate the impact of an interim analysis in trials utilizing non-concurrent controls, we consider a platform trial featuring two experimental arms and a shared control, with the second experimental arm entering later. We focus on a frequentist regression model that uses non-concurrent controls to estimate the treatment effect of the second arm and adjusts for time using a step function to account for temporal changes. We show that performing an interim analysis in Arm 1 may introduce bias in the point estimation of the effect in Arm 2, if the regression model is used without adjustment, and investigate how the marginal bias and bias conditional on the first arm continuing after the interim depend on different trial design parameters. Moreover, we propose a new estimator of the treatment effect in Arm 2, aiming to eliminate the bias introduced by both the interim analysis in Arm 1 and the time trends, and evaluate its performance in a simulation study. The newly proposed estimator is shown to substantially reduce the bias and type I error rate inflation while leading to power gains compared to an analysis using only concurrent controls.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2025

Statistical modeling to adjust for time trends in adaptive platform trials utilizing non-concurrent controls

Utilizing non-concurrent control data (NCC) in the analysis of late-entering arms in platform trials has recently received considerable attention. While incorporating NCC can lead to increased power and lower sample sizes, it might introduce bias to the effect estimators if temporal drifts are present. Aiming to mitigate this potential bias, we propose various frequentist model-based approaches that leverage the NCC, while adjusting for time. One of the currently available models incorporates time as a categorical fixed effect, separating the trial duration into periods, defined as time intervals bounded by any arm entering or leaving the platform. In this work, we propose two extensions of this model. First, we consider an alternative definition of time by dividing the trial into fixed-length calendar time intervals. Second, we propose alternative model-based time adjustments. Specifically, we investigate adjusting for random effects and employing splines to model time with a polynomial function. We evaluate the performance of the proposed approaches in a simulation study and illustrate their use through a case study. We show that adjusting for time via a spline function controls the type I error in trials with a sufficiently smooth time trend pattern and may lead to power gains compared to the standard fixed effect model. However, the fixed effect model with period adjustment is the most robust model for arbitrary time trends, provided that the trend is equal across all arms. Especially, in trials with sudden changes in the time trend, the period-adjustment model is preferred if NCC are included.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2024

Treatment-control comparisons in platform trials including non-concurrent controls

Shared controls in platform trials comprise concurrent and non-concurrent controls. For a given experimental arm, non-concurrent controls refer to data from patients allocated to the control arm before the arm enters the trial. The use of non-concurrent controls in the analysis is attractive because it may increase the trial's power of testing treatment differences while decreasing the sample size. However, since arms are added sequentially in the trial, randomization occurs at different times, which can introduce bias in the estimates due to time trends. In this article, we present methods to incorporate non-concurrent control data in treatment-control comparisons, allowing for time trends. We focus mainly on frequentist approaches that model the time trend and Bayesian strategies that limit the borrowing level depending on the heterogeneity between concurrent and non-concurrent controls. We examine the impact of time trends, overlap between experimental treatment arms and entry times of arms in the trial on the operating characteristics of treatment effect estimators for each method under different patterns for the time trends. We argue under which conditions the methods lead to type 1 error control and discuss the gain in power compared to trials only using concurrent controls by means of a simulation study in which methods are compared.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2023

NCC: An R-package for analysis and simulation of platform trials with non-concurrent controls

Platform trials evaluate the efficacy of multiple treatments, allowing for late entry of the experimental arms and enabling efficiency gains by sharing controls. The power of individual treatment-control comparisons in such trials can be improved by utilizing non-concurrent controls (NCC) in the analysis. We present the R-package NCC for the design and analysis of platform trials using non-concurrent controls. NCC allows for simulating platform trials and evaluating the properties of analysis methods that make use of non-concurrent controls in a variety of settings. We describe the main NCC functions and show how to use the package to simulate and analyse platform trials by means of specific examples.

stat.ME↗

arXiv2022

On model-based time trend adjustments in platform trials with non-concurrent controls

Platform trials can evaluate the efficacy of several treatments compared to a control. The number of treatments is not fixed, as arms may be added or removed as the trial progresses. Platform trials are more efficient than independent parallel-group trials because of using shared control groups. For arms entering the trial later, not all patients in the control group are randomised concurrently. The control group is then divided into concurrent and non-concurrent controls. Using non-concurrent controls (NCC) can improve the trial's efficiency, but can introduce bias due to time trends. We focus on a platform trial with two treatment arms and a common control arm. Assuming that the second treatment arm is added later, we assess the robustness of model-based approaches to adjust for time trends when using NCC. We consider approaches where time trends are modeled as linear or as a step function, with steps at times where arms enter or leave the trial. For trials with continuous or binary outcomes, we investigate the type 1 error (t1e) rate and power of testing the efficacy of the newly added arm under a range of scenarios. In addition to scenarios where time trends are equal across arms, we investigate settings with trends that are different or not additive in the model scale. A step function model fitted on data from all arms gives increased power while controlling the t1e, as long as the time trends are equal for the different arms and additive on the model scale. This holds even if the trend's shape deviates from a step function if block randomisation is used. But if trends differ between arms or are not additive on the model scale, t1e control may be lost. The efficiency gained by using step function models to incorporate NCC can outweigh potential biases. However, the specifics of the trial, plausibility of different time trends, and robustness of results should be considered

stat.ME↗