Analysis of multicenter clinical trials with very low event rates.
Binary outcomes
GEE
Low event rate
Mantel–Haenszel
Multicenter trial
Random effects
Randomized clinical trial
Small sample adjustment
Stratified randomization
Journal
Trials
ISSN: 1745-6215
Titre abrégé: Trials
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101263253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Nov 2020
09 Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
29
01
2020
accepted:
10
10
2020
entrez:
10
11
2020
pubmed:
11
11
2020
medline:
22
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In a five-arm randomized clinical trial (RCT) with stratified randomization across 54 sites, we encountered low primary outcome event proportions, resulting in multiple sites with zero events either overall or in one or more study arms. In this paper, we systematically evaluated different statistical methods of accounting for center in settings with low outcome event proportions. We conducted a simulation study and a reanalysis of a completed RCT to compare five popular methods of estimating an odds ratio for multicenter trials with stratified randomization by center: (i) no center adjustment, (ii) random intercept model, (iii) Mantel-Haenszel model, (iv) generalized estimating equation (GEE) with an exchangeable correlation structure, and (v) GEE with small sample correction (GEE-small sample correction). We varied the number of total participants (200, 500, 1000, 5000), number of centers (5, 50, 100), control group outcome percentage (2%, 5%, 10%), true odds ratio (1, > 1), intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) (0.025, 0.075), and distribution of participants across the centers (balanced, skewed). Mantel-Haenszel methods generally performed poorly in terms of power and bias and led to the exclusion of participants from the analysis because some centers had no events. Failure to account for center in the analysis generally led to lower power and type I error rates than other methods, particularly with ICC = 0.075. GEE had an inflated type I error rate except in some settings with a large number of centers. GEE-small sample correction maintained the type I error rate at the nominal level but suffered from reduced power and convergence issues in some settings when the number of centers was small. Random intercept models generally performed well in most scenarios, except with a low event rate (i.e., 2% scenario) and small total sample size (n ≤ 500), when all methods had issues. Random intercept models generally performed best across most scenarios. GEE-small sample correction performed well when the number of centers was large. We do not recommend the use of Mantel-Haenszel, GEE, or models that do not account for center. When the expected event rate is low, we suggest that the statistical analysis plan specify an alternative method in the case of non-convergence of the primary method.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33168073
doi: 10.1186/s13063-020-04801-5
pii: 10.1186/s13063-020-04801-5
pmc: PMC7654615
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
917Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MC_UU_12023/21
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : R00 HL141678
Pays : United States
Organisme : NHLBI NIH HHS
ID : K24 HL143289
Pays : United States
Références
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Aug 30;16(1):113
pubmed: 27576307
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jun 14;378(24):2302-2310
pubmed: 29791259
Control Clin Trials. 1998 Jun;19(3):249-56
pubmed: 9620808
Biometrics. 2001 Mar;57(1):126-34
pubmed: 11252587
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Feb 10;14:20
pubmed: 24512175
Stat Med. 2000 Apr 30;19(8):1115-39
pubmed: 10790684
Stat Med. 2015 Jan 30;34(2):281-96
pubmed: 25345738
Stat Med. 2012 Feb 20;31(4):328-40
pubmed: 22139891
Stat Med. 2002 Aug 30;21(16):2409-19
pubmed: 12210625
Trials. 2016 Sep 06;17(1):438
pubmed: 27600609
Biometrics. 2001 Dec;57(4):1198-206
pubmed: 11764261
Stat Med. 2019 May 20;38(11):2074-2102
pubmed: 30652356
Trials. 2017 Nov 2;18(1):512
pubmed: 29096682