Rebecca K. Metcalfe | Searcharxiv

arXiv2025

Comparison of Simulation-Guided Design to Closed-Form Power Calculations in Planning a Cluster Randomized Trial with Covariate-Constrained Randomization: A Case Study in Rural Chad

Current practices for designing cluster-randomized trials (cRCTs) typically rely on closed-form formulas for power calculations. For cRCTs using covariate-constrained randomization, the utility of conventional calculations might be limited, particularly when data is nested. We compared simulation-based planning of a nested cRCT using covariate-constrained randomization to conventional power calculations using OptiMAx-Chad as a case study. OptiMAx-Chad will examine the impact of embedding mass distribution of small-quantity lipid-based nutrient supplements within an expanded programme on immunization on first-dose measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) coverage among children aged 12-24 months in rural villages in Ngouri. Within the 12 health areas to be randomized, a random subset of villages will be selected for outcome collection. 1,000,000 assignments of health areas with different possible village selections were generated using covariate-constrained randomization to balance baseline village characteristics. The empirically estimated intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) recommended values of 1/3 and 1/6 were considered. The desired operating characteristics were 80% power at 0.05 one-sided type I error rate. Using conventional calculations target power for a realistic treatment effect could not be achieved with the WHO recommended values. Conventional calculations also showed a plateau in power after a certain cluster size. Our simulations matched the design of OptiMAx-Chad with covariate adjustment and random selection, and showed that power did not plateau. Instead, power increased with increasing cluster size. Planning complex cRCTs with covariate constrained randomization and a multi-nested data structure with conventional closed-form formulas can be misleading. Simulations can improve the planning of cRCTs.

stat.AP↗

arXiv2025

Estimands and Their Implications for Evidence Synthesis for Oncology: A Simulation Study of Treatment Switching in Meta-Analysis

The ICH E9(R1) addendum provides guidelines on accounting for intercurrent events in clinical trials using the estimands framework. However, there has been limited attention to the estimands framework for meta-analysis. Using treatment switching, a well-known intercurrent event that occurs frequently in oncology, we conducted a simulation study to explore the bias introduced by pooling together estimates targeting different estimands in a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that allowed treatment switching. We simulated overall survival data of a collection of RCTs that allowed patients in the control group to switch to the intervention treatment after disease progression under fixed-effects and random-effects models. For each RCT, we calculated effect estimates for a treatment policy estimand that ignored treatment switching, and a hypothetical estimand that accounted for treatment switching either by fitting rank-preserving structural failure time models or by censoring switchers. Then, we performed random-effects and fixed-effects meta-analyses to pool together RCT effect estimates while varying the proportions of trials providing treatment policy and hypothetical effect estimates. We compared the results of meta-analyses that pooled different types of effect estimates with those that pooled only treatment policy or hypothetical estimates. We found that pooling estimates targeting different estimands results in pooled estimators that do not target any estimand of interest, and that pooling estimates of varying estimands can generate misleading results, even under a random-effects model. Adopting the estimands framework for meta-analysis may improve alignment between meta-analytic results and the clinical research question of interest.

stat.ME↗