125 research outputs found
Power formulas for mixed effects models with random slope and intercept comparing rate of change across groups
No full textWe have previously derived power calculation formulas for cohort studies and clinical trials using the longitudinal mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts to compare rate of change across groups [Ard & Edland, Power calculations for clinical trials in Alzheimer’s disease. J Alzheim Dis 2011;21:369–77]. We here generalize these power formulas to accommodate 1) missing data due to study subject attrition common to longitudinal studies, 2) unequal sample size across groups, and 3) unequal variance parameters across groups. We demonstrate how these formulas can be used to power a future study even when the design of available pilot study data (i.e., number and interval between longitudinal observations) does not match the design of the planned future study. We demonstrate how differences in variance parameters across groups, typically overlooked in power calculations, can have a dramatic effect on statistical power. This is especially relevant to clinical trials, where changes over time in the treatment arm reflect background variability in progression observed in the placebo control arm plus variability in response to treatment, meaning that power calculations based only on the placebo arm covariance structure may be anticonservative. These more general power formulas are a useful resource for understanding the relative influence of these multiple factors on the efficiency of cohort studies and clinical trials, and for designing future trials under the random slopes and intercepts model
Recommended from our members
α-Synuclein Seed Amplification Assay Amplification Parameters and the Risk of Progression in Prodromal Parkinson Disease.
No full textOBJECTIVES: Tools are needed to evaluate the risk of developing Parkinson disease (PD) in at-risk populations. In this study, we examine differences in alpha-synuclein seed amplification assay (αSyn-SAA) qualitative results and amplification parameters between nonmanifesting carriers (NMCs) of PD-related pathogenic variants, prodromal PD, and PD and the risk of developing a synucleinopathy in participants with prodromal PD. METHODS: Cross-sectional and longitudinal CSF αSyn-SAA results from participants in the Parkinsons Progression Markers Initiative were analyzed. αSyn-SAA positivity and amplification parameters (maximum fluorescence [Fmax], time-to-threshold [TTT], time-to-50% Fmax [T50], and area under the curve [AUC]) were compared between NMCs, participants with prodromal PD, and participants with PD, and their relationship with the likelihood of phenoconversion in participants with prodromal PD was investigated. RESULTS: Samples from 1,027 participants were analyzed (159 healthy controls [HCs], 247 NMCs, 96 participants with prodromal PD, and 525 participants with PD). TTT and T50 were faster, and AUC was higher in αSyn-SAA+ participants with prodromal PD and PD than αSyn-SAA+ NMCs and HC participants (Kruskal-Wallis χ2 = 4.15-13.96, p < 0.0002-0.04). Participants with prodromal PD with positive αSyn-SAA tests and faster TTT had higher rates of phenoconversion (log-rank p = 0.001 and log-rank test-for-trend p < 0.0001). There were no changes in 48 participants with prodromal PD with longitudinal assays. DISCUSSION: αSyn-SAA positivity and faster seed amplification are associated with a greater risk of developing PD in at-risk individuals and may aid in predicting phenoconversion
The Chronic Progressive Repeated Measures (CPRM) Model for Clinical Trials Comparing Change Over Time in Quantitative Trait Outcomes
No full textRepeated measures analysis is a common analysis plan for clinical trials comparing change over time in quantitative trait outcomes in treatment versus control. Mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) assuming an unstructured covariance of repeated measures is the default statistical analysis plan, with alternative covariance structures specified in the event that the MMRM model with unstructured covariance does not converge. We here describe a parsimonious covariance structure for repeated measures analysis that is specifically appropriate for longitudinal repeated measures of chronic progressive conditions. This model has the parsimonious features of the mixed effects model with random slopes and intercepts, but without restricting the repeated measure means to be linear with time. We demonstrate with data from completed trials that this pattern of longitudinal trajectories spreading apart over time is typical of Alzheimer’s disease. We further demonstrate that alternative covariance structures typically specified in statistical analysis plans using MMRM perform poorly for chronic progressive conditions, with the compound symmetry model being anticonservative, and the autoregressive model being poorly powered. Finally, we derive power calculation formulas for the chronic progressive repeated measures model that have the advantage of being independent of the design of the pilot studies informing the power calculations. When data follow the pattern of a chronic progressive condition. These power formulas are also appropriate for sizing clinical trials using MMRM analysis with unstructured covariance of repeated measures
Power formulas for mixed effects models with random slope and intercept comparing rate of change across groups
No full textThe MAX Statistic is Less Powerful for Genome Wide Association Studies Under Most Alternative Hypotheses
No full textGenotypic association studies are prone to inflated type I error rates if multiple hypothesis testing is performed, e.g., sequentially testing for recessive, multiplicative, and dominant risk. Alternatives to multiple hypothesis testing include the model independent genotypic c2 test, the efficiency robust MAX statistic, which corrects for multiple comparisons but with some loss of power, or a single Armitage test for multiplicative trend, which has optimal power when the multiplicative model holds but with some loss of power when dominant or recessive models underlie the genetic association. We used Monte Carlo simulations to describe the relative performance of these three approaches under a range of scenarios. All three approaches maintained their nominal type I error rates. The genotypic c2 and MAX statistics were more powerful when testing a strictly recessive genetic effect or when testing a dominant effect when the allele frequency was high. The Armitage test for multiplicative trend was most powerful for the broad range of scenarios where heterozygote risk is intermediate between recessive and dominant risk. Moreover, all tests had limited power to detect recessive genetic risk unless the sample size was large, and conversely all tests were relatively well powered to detect dominant risk. Taken together, these results suggest the general utility of the multiplicative trend test when the underlying genetic model is unknown
Genetic association studies in Alzheimer's disease research: challenges and opportunities
No full text
F3‐02‐03: OPTIMALLY WEIGHTED ENDPOINTS FOR CLINICAL TRIALS IN MILD COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT AND PRE‐CLINICAL ALZHEIMER'S DISEASE
No full textDesign of pilot studies to inform the construction of composite outcome measures
No full textBACKGROUND: Composite scales have recently been proposed as outcome measures for clinical trials. For example, the Prodromal Alzheimer's Cognitive Composite (PACC) is the sum of z-score normed component measures assessing episodic memory, timed executive function, and global cognition. Alternative methods of calculating composite total scores using the weighted sum of the component measures that maximize signal-to-noise of the resulting composite score have been proposed. Optimal weights can be estimated from pilot data, but it is an open question how large a pilot trial is required to calculate reliably optimal weights.
METHODS: In this manuscript, we describe the calculation of optimal weights, and use large-scale computer simulations to investigate the question of how large a pilot study sample is required to inform the calculation of optimal weights. The simulations are informed by the pattern of decline observed in cognitively normal subjects enrolled in the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study (ADCS) Prevention Instrument cohort study, restricting to n=75 subjects age 75 and over with an ApoE E4 risk allele and therefore likely to have an underlying Alzheimer neurodegenerative process.
RESULTS: In the context of secondary prevention trials in Alzheimer's disease, and using the components of the PACC, we found that pilot studies as small as 100 are sufficient to meaningfully inform weighting parameters. Regardless of the pilot study sample size used to inform weights, the optimally weighted PACC consistently outperformed the standard PACC in terms of statistical power to detect treatment effects in a clinical trial. Pilot studies of size 300 produced weights that achieved near-optimal statistical power, and reduced required sample size relative to the standard PACC by more than half.
CONCLUSIONS: These simulations suggest that modestly sized pilot studies, comparable to that of a phase 2 clinical trial, are sufficient to inform the construction of composite outcome measures. Although these findings apply only to the PACC in the context of prodromal AD, the observation that weights only have to approximate the optimal weights to achieve near-optimal performance should generalize. Performing a pilot study or phase 2 trial to inform the weighting of proposed composite outcome measures is highly cost-effective. The net effect of more efficient outcome measures is that smaller trials will be required to test novel treatments. Alternatively, second generation trials can use prior clinical trial data to inform weighting, so that greater efficiency can be achieved as we move forward
- …
