Sample size considerations in active-control non-inferiority trials with binary data based on the odds ratio

This paper presents an approximate closed form sample size formula for determining non-inferiority in active-control trials with binary data. We use the odds-ratio as the measure of the relative treatment effect, derive the sample size formula based on the score test and compare it with a second, well-known formula based on the Wald test. Both closed form formulae are compared with simulations based on the likelihood ratio test. Within the range of parameter values investigated, the score test closed form formula is reasonably accurate when non-inferiority margins are based on odds-ratios of about 0.5 or above and when the magnitude of the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis lies between about 1 and 2.5. The accuracy generally decreases as the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis moves upwards from 1. As the non-inferiority margin odds ratio decreases from 0.5, the score test closed form formula increasingly overestimates the sample size irrespective of the magnitude of the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis. The Wald test closed form formula is also reasonably accurate in the cases where the score test closed form formula works well. Outside these scenarios, the Wald test closed form formula can either underestimate or overestimate the sample size, depending on the magnitude of the non-inferiority margin odds ratio and the odds ratio under the alternative hypothesis. Although neither approximation is accurate for all cases, both approaches lead to satisfactory sample size calculation for non-inferiority trials with binary data where the odds ratio is the parameter of interest.

Bayesian sample size for exploratory clinical trials incorporating historical data

This paper presents a simple Bayesian approach to sample size determination in clinical trials. It is required that the trial should be large enough to ensure that the data collected will provide convincing evidence either that an experimental treatment is better than a control or that it fails to improve upon control by some clinically relevant difference. The method resembles standard frequentist formulations of the problem, and indeed in certain circumstances involving 'non-informative' prior information it leads to identical answers. In particular, unlike many Bayesian approaches to sample size determination, use is made of an alternative hypothesis that an experimental treatment is better than a control treatment by some specified magnitude. The approach is introduced in the context of testing whether a single stream of binary observations are consistent with a given success rate p(0). Next the case of comparing two independent streams of normally distributed responses is considered, first under the assumption that their common variance is known and then for unknown variance. Finally, the more general situation in which a large sample is to be collected and analysed according to the asymptotic properties of the score statistic is explored. Copyright (C) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Comparison of sample size formulae for 2x2 cross-over designs applied to bioequivalence studies

We consider the comparison of two formulations in terms of average bioequivalence using the 2 × 2 cross-over design. In a bioequivalence study, the primary outcome is a pharmacokinetic measure, such as the area under the plasma concentration by time curve, which is usually assumed to have a lognormal distribution. The criterion typically used for claiming bioequivalence is that the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the means should lie within the interval (0.80, 1.25), or equivalently the 90% confidence interval for the differences in the means on the natural log scale should be within the interval (-0.2231, 0.2231). We compare the gold standard method for calculation of the sample size based on the non-central t distribution with those based on the central t and normal distributions. In practice, the differences between the various approaches are likely to be small. Further approximations to the power function are sometimes used to simplify the calculations. These approximations should be used with caution, because the sample size required for a desirable level of power might be under- or overestimated compared to the gold standard method. However, in some situations the approximate methods produce very similar sample sizes to the gold standard method. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Variable step-size LMS blind CDMA multiuser detectors

Adaptive least mean square (LMS) filters with or without training sequences, which are known as training-based and blind detectors respectively, have been formulated to counter interference in CDMA systems. The convergence characteristics of these two LMS detectors are analyzed and compared in this paper. We show that the blind detector is superior to the training-based detector with respect to convergence rate. On the other hand, the training-based detector performs better in the steady state, giving a lower excess mean-square error (MSE) for a given adaptation step size. A novel decision-directed LMS detector which achieves the low excess MSE of the training-based detector and the superior convergence performance of the blind detector is proposed.

A practical comparison of blinded methods for sample size reviews in survival data clinical trials.

This paper presents practical approaches to the problem of sample size re-estimation in the case of clinical trials with survival data when proportional hazards can be assumed. When data are readily available at the time of the review, on a full range of survival experiences across the recruited patients, it is shown that, as expected, performing a blinded re-estimation procedure is straightforward and can help to maintain the trial's pre-specified error rates. Two alternative methods for dealing with the situation where limited survival experiences are available at the time of the sample size review are then presented and compared. In this instance, extrapolation is required in order to undertake the sample size re-estimation. Worked examples, together with results from a simulation study are described. It is concluded that, as in the standard case, use of either extrapolation approach successfully protects the trial error rates. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The effects of maternal social phobia on mother-infant interactions and infant social responsiveness

Background: Social phobia aggregates in families. The genetic contribution to intergenerational transmission is modest, and parenting is considered important. Research on the effects of social phobia on parenting has been subject to problems of small sample size, heterogeneity of samples and lack of specificity of observational frameworks. We addressed these problems in the current study.Methods: We assessed mothers with social phobia (N = 84) and control mothers (N = 89) at 10 weeks in face-to-face interactions with their infants, and during a social challenge, namely, engaging with a stranger. We also assessed mothers with generalised anxiety disorder (GAD) (N = 50). We examined the contribution to infant social responsiveness of early infant characteristics (neonatal irritability), as well as maternal behaviour. Results: Mothers with social phobia were no less sensitive to their infants during face-to-face interactions than control mothers, but when interacting with the stranger they appeared more anxious, engaged less with the stranger themselves, and were less encouraging of the infant's interaction with the stranger; infants of index mothers also showed reduced social responsiveness to the stranger. These differences did not apply to mothers with GAD and their infants. Regression analyses showed that the reduction in social responsiveness in infants of mothers with social phobia was predicted by neonatal irritability and the degree to which the mother encouraged the infant to interact with the stranger.Conclusions: Mothers with social phobia show specific parenting difficulties, and their infants show early signs of reduced social responsiveness that are related to both individual infant differences and a lack of maternal encouragement to engage in social interactions.

The Representative Soil Sampling Scheme of England and Wales: the spatial variation of topsoil nutrient status and pH between 1971 and 2001

The Representative Soil Sampling Scheme (RSSS) has monitored the soil of agricultural land in England and Wales since 1969. Here we describe the first spatial analysis of the data from these surveys using geostatistics. Four years of data (1971, 1981, 1991 and 2001) were chosen to examine the nutrient (available K, Mg and P) and pH status of the soil. At each farm, four fields were sampled; however, for the earlier years, coordinates were available for the farm only and not for each field. The averaged data for each farm were used for spatial analysis and the variograms showed spatial structure even with the smaller sample size. These variograms provide a reasonable summary of the larger scale of variation identified from the data of the more intensively sampled National Soil Inventory. Maps of kriged predictions of K generally show larger values in the central and southeastern areas (above 200 mg L-1) and an increase in values in the west over time, whereas Mg is fairly stable over time. The kriged predictions of P show a decline over time, particularly in the east, and those of pH show an increase in the east over time. Disjunctive kriging was used to examine temporal changes in available P using probabilities less than given thresholds of this element. The RSSS was not designed for spatial analysis, but the results show that the data from these surveys are suitable for this purpose. The results of the spatial analysis, together with those of the statistical analyses, provide a comprehensive view of the RSSS database as a basis for monitoring the soil. These data should be taken into account when future national soil monitoring schemes are designed.

A simple variance formula for population size estimators by conditioning

This note considers the variance estimation for population size estimators based on capture–recapture experiments. Whereas a diversity of estimators of the population size has been suggested, the question of estimating the associated variances is less frequently addressed. This note points out that the technique of conditioning can be applied here successfully which also allows us to identify sources of variation: the variance due to estimation of the model parameters and the binomial variance due to sampling n units from a population of size N. It is applied to estimators typically used in capture–recapture experiments in continuous time including the estimators of Zelterman and Chao and improves upon previously used variance estimators. In addition, knowledge of the variances associated with the estimators by Zelterman and Chao allows the suggestion of a new estimator as the weighted sum of the two. The decomposition of the variance into the two sources allows also a new understanding of how resampling techniques like the Bootstrap could be used appropriately. Finally, the sample size question for capture–recapture experiments is addressed. Since the variance of population size estimators increases with the sample size, it is suggested to use relative measures such as the observed-to-hidden ratio or the completeness of identification proportion for approaching the question of sample size choice.

Sequential designs for phase III clinical trials incorporating treatment selection

Most statistical methodology for phase III clinical trials focuses on the comparison of a single experimental treatment with a control. An increasing desire to reduce the time before regulatory approval of a new drug is sought has led to development of two-stage or sequential designs for trials that combine the definitive analysis associated with phase III with the treatment selection element of a phase II study. In this paper we consider a trial in which the most promising of a number of experimental treatments is selected at the first interim analysis. This considerably reduces the computational load associated with the construction of stopping boundaries compared to the approach proposed by Follman, Proschan and Geller (Biometrics 1994; 50: 325-336). The computational requirement does not exceed that for the sequential comparison of a single experimental treatment with a control. Existing methods are extended in two ways. First, the use of the efficient score as a test statistic makes the analysis of binary, normal or failure-time data, as well as adjustment for covariates or stratification straightforward. Second, the question of trial power is also considered, enabling the determination of sample size required to give specified power. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A practical comparison of group-sequential and adaptive designs

Sequential methods provide a formal framework by which clinical trial data can be monitored as they accumulate. The results from interim analyses can be used either to modify the design of the remainder of the trial or to stop the trial as soon as sufficient evidence of either the presence or absence of a treatment effect is available. The circumstances under which the trial will be stopped with a claim of superiority for the experimental treatment, must, however, be determined in advance so as to control the overall type I error rate. One approach to calculating the stopping rule is the group-sequential method. A relatively recent alternative to group-sequential approaches is the adaptive design method. This latter approach provides considerable flexibility in changes to the design of a clinical trial at an interim point. However, a criticism is that the method by which evidence from different parts of the trial is combined means that a final comparison of treatments is not based on a sufficient statistic for the treatment difference, suggesting that the method may lack power. The aim of this paper is to compare two adaptive design approaches with the group-sequential approach. We first compare the form of the stopping boundaries obtained using the different methods. We then focus on a comparison of the power of the different trials when they are designed so as to be as similar as possible. We conclude that all methods acceptably control type I error rate and power when the sample size is modified based on a variance estimate, provided no interim analysis is so small that the asymptotic properties of the test statistic no longer hold. In the latter case, the group-sequential approach is to be preferred. Provided that asymptotic assumptions hold, the adaptive design approaches control the type I error rate even if the sample size is adjusted on the basis of an estimate of the treatment effect, showing that the adaptive designs allow more modifications than the group-sequential method.

A simple variance formula for population size estimators by conditioning

This note considers the variance estimation for population size estimators based on capture–recapture experiments. Whereas a diversity of estimators of the population size has been suggested, the question of estimating the associated variances is less frequently addressed. This note points out that the technique of conditioning can be applied here successfully which also allows us to identify sources of variation: the variance due to estimation of the model parameters and the binomial variance due to sampling n units from a population of size N. It is applied to estimators typically used in capture–recapture experiments in continuous time including the estimators of Zelterman and Chao and improves upon previously used variance estimators. In addition, knowledge of the variances associated with the estimators by Zelterman and Chao allows the suggestion of a new estimator as the weighted sum of the two. The decomposition of the variance into the two sources allows also a new understanding of how resampling techniques like the Bootstrap could be used appropriately. Finally, the sample size question for capture–recapture experiments is addressed. Since the variance of population size estimators increases with the sample size, it is suggested to use relative measures such as the observed-to-hidden ratio or the completeness of identification proportion for approaching the question of sample size choice.