Posts

Andrew Vickers Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center vickersa@mskcc.org Introduction In a traditional decision analysis, the analyst creates a decision tree and then estimates probabilities and assigns utilities for each possible outcome.

This is a commentary on the paper by Benkeser, Díaz, Luedtke, Segal, Scharfstein, and Rosenblum

This article provides a demonstration that the perceived non-robustness of nonlinear models for covariate adjustment in randomized trials may be less of an issue than the non-transportability of marginal so-called robust estimators.

This article presents an argument that for RCTs with a binary outcome the primary result should be a distribution and not any single number summary. The GUSTO-I study is used to exemplify risk difference distributions.

Since the Wilcoxon test is a special case of the proportional odds (PO) model, if one likes the Wilcoxon test, one must like the PO model. This is made more convincing by showing examples of how one may accurately compute the Wilcoxon statistic from the PO model’s odds ratio.

The recent PATH (Predictive Approaches to Treatment effect Heterogeneity) Statement outlines principles, criteria, and key considerations for applying predictive approaches to clinical trials to provide patient-centered evidence in support of decision making. Here challenges in implementing the PATH Statement are addressed with the GUSTO-I trial as a case study.

Many researchers worry about violations of the proportional hazards assumption when comparing treatments in a randomized study. Besides the fact that this frequently makes them turn to a much worse approach, the harm done by violations of the proportional odds assumption usually do not prevent the proportional odds model from providing a reasonable treatment effect assessment.

This article discusses issues with unadjusted effect ratios such as odds ratios and hazard ratios, showing a simple example of non-generalizability of unadjusted odds ratios.

This article summarizes arguments for the claim that the primary analysis of treatment effect in a RCT should be with adjustment for baseline covariates. It reiterates some findings and statements from classic papers, with illustration on the GUSTO-I trial.

The COVID-19 pandemic has elevated the challenge for designing and executing clinical trials with vaccines and drug/device combinations within a substantially shortened time frame. Numerous challenges in designing COVID-19 trials include lack of prior data for candidate interventions / vaccines due to the novelty of the disease, evolving standard of care and sense of urgency to speed up development programmes. We propose sequential and adaptive Bayesian trial designs to help address the challenges inherent in COVID-19 trials. In the Bayesian framework, several methodologies can be implemented to address the complexity of the primary endpoint choice. Different options could be used for the primary analysis of the WHO Severity Scale, frequently used in COVID-19 trials. We propose the longitudinal proportional odds mixed effects model using the WHO Severity Scale ordinal scale. This enables efficient utilization of all clinical information to optimize sample sizes and maximize the rate of acquiring evidence about treatment effects and harms.