Performance of model-based vs. permutation tests in the HEALing (Helping to End Addiction Long-termSM) Communities Study, a covariate-constrained cluster randomized trial
Tóm tắt
The HEALing (Helping to End Addiction Long-termSM) Communities Study (HCS) is a multi-site parallel group cluster randomized wait-list comparison trial designed to evaluate the effect of the Communities That Heal (CTH) intervention compared to usual care on opioid overdose deaths. Covariate-constrained randomization (CCR) was applied to balance the community-level baseline covariates in the HCS. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate the performance of model-based tests and permutation tests in the HCS setting. We conducted a simulation study to evaluate type I error rates and power for model-based and permutation tests for the multi-site HCS as well as for a subgroup analysis of a single state (Massachusetts). We also investigated whether the maximum degree of imbalance in the CCR design has an impact on the performance of the tests. The primary outcome, the number of opioid overdose deaths, is count data assessed at the community level that will be analyzed using a negative binomial regression model. We conducted a simulation study to evaluate the type I error rates and power for 3 tests: (1) Wald-type t-test with small-sample corrected empirical standard error estimates, (2) Wald-type z-test with model-based standard error estimates, and (3) permutation test with test statistics calculated by the difference in average residuals for the two groups. Our simulation results demonstrated that Wald-type t-tests with small-sample corrected empirical standard error estimates from the negative binomial regression model maintained proper type I error. Wald-type z-tests with model-based standard error estimates were anti-conservative. Permutation tests preserved type I error rates if the constrained space was not too small. For all tests, the power was high to detect the hypothesized 40% reduction in opioid overdose deaths for the intervention vs. comparison group both for the overall HCS and the subgroup analysis of Massachusetts (MA). Based on the results of our simulation study, the Wald-type t-test with small-sample corrected empirical standard error estimates from a negative binomial regression model is a valid and appropriate approach for analyzing cluster-level count data from the HEALing Communities Study. ClinicalTrials.gov
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov
; Identifier: NCT04111939
Tài liệu tham khảo
Murray DM, Varnell SP, Blitstein JL. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials: a review of recent methodological developments. Am J Public Health. 2004;94(3):423–32.
Rosenberger W. Randomization in clinical trials. New York: Wiley; 2002.
Senn S. Testing for baseline balance in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1994;13(17):1715–26.
Martin DC, et al. The effect of matching on the power of randomized community intervention studies. Stat Med. 1993;12(3-4):329–38.
Kernan WN, et al. Stratified randomization for clinical trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(1):19–26.
Taves DR. Minimization: a new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1974;15(5):443–53.
Moulton LH. Covariate-based constrained randomization of group-randomized trials. Clin Trials. 2004;1(3):297–305.
Raab GM, Butcher I. Randomization inference for balanced cluster-randomized trials. Clin Trials. 2005;2(2):130–40.
Ludbrook J. Advantages of permutation (randomization) tests in clinical and experimental pharmacology and physiology. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol. 1994;21(9):673–86.
Fu D, Murray DM, Wong S. Comparison study of general linear mixed model and permutation tests in group-randomizwd trials under non-normal error distributions, in The Joint Statistical Meetings: Washington D.C; 2009.
Murray DM, et al. A comparison of permutation and mixed-model regression methods for the analysis of simulated data in the context of a group-randomized trial. Stat Med. 2006;25(3):375–88.
Li F, et al. An evaluation of constrained randomization for the design and analysis of group-randomized trials. Stat Med. 2016;35(10):1565–79.
Li F, et al. An evaluation of constrained randomization for the design and analysis of group-randomized trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med. 2017;36(24):3791–806.
El-Bassel N, et al. Introduction to the special issue on the HEALing Communities Study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;217:108327.
Chandler RK, et al. Addressing opioid overdose deaths: the vision for the HEALing communities study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2020;217:108329.
Walsh SL, El-Bassel N, Jackson RD. The HEALing (Helping to End Addiction Long-termsm) Communities Study: protocol for a cluster randomized trial at the community level to reduce opioid overdose deaths through implementation of an integrated set of evidence-based practices. Drug Alcohol Dependence. 2020;217:108335.
Westgate PM, et al. Marginal modeling in community randomized trials with rare events: utilization of the negative binomial regression model. Clin Trials. 2022;19(2):162–71.
Simon R. Restricted randomization designs in clinical trials. Biometrics. 1979;35(2):503–12.
Mancl LA, DeRouen TA. A covariance estimator for GEE with improved small-sample properties. Biometrics. 2001;57(1):126–34.
Kauermann G, Carrol R. A note on the efficiency of sandwich covariance matrix estimation. J Am Stat Assoc. 2001;96:1387–96.
Ford WP, Westgate PM. Improved standard error estimator for maintaining the validity of inference in cluster randomized trials with a small number of clusters. Biom J. 2017;59(3):478–95.
Good PI. Parametric and bootstrap tests of hypotheses: Springer; 2005.
Gail MH, et al. On design considerations and randomization-based inference for community intervention trials. Stat Med. 1996;15(11):1069–92.
Fay MP, Graubard BI. Small-sample adjustments for Wald-type tests using sandwich estimators. Biometrics. 2001;57(4):1198–206.