Selection of Matching Variables in Community Health Intervention Trials

In a matched experimental design, the effectiveness of matching in reducing bias and increasing power depends on the strength of the association between the matching variable and the outcome of interest. In particular, in the design of a community health intervention trial, the effectiveness of a matched design, where communities are matched according to some community characteristic, depends on the strength of the correlation between the matching characteristic and the change in the health behavior being measured. We attempt to estimate the correlation between community characteristics and changes in health behaviors in four datasets from community intervention trials and observational studies. Community characteristics that are highly correlated with changes in health behaviors would potentially be effective matching variables in studies of health intervention programs designed to change those behaviors. Among the community characteristics considered, the urban-rural character of the community was the most highly correlated with changes in health behaviors. The correlations between Per Capita Income, Percent Low Income & Percent aged over 65 and changes in health behaviors were marginally statistically significant (p < 0.08).

Sensitivity Analysis for the Assessment of Causal Vaccine Effects on Viral Load in HIV Vaccine Trials

Vaccines with limited ability to prevent HIV infection may positively impact the HIV/AIDS pandemic by preventing secondary transmission and disease in vaccine recipients who become infected. To evaluate the impact of vaccination on secondary transmission and disease, efficacy trials assess vaccine effects on HIV viral load and other surrogate endpoints measured after infection. A standard test that compares the distribution of viral load between the infected subgroups of vaccine and placebo recipients does not assess a causal effect of vaccine, because the comparison groups are selected after randomization. To address this problem, we formulate clinically relevant causal estimands using the principal stratification framework developed by Frangakis and Rubin (2002), and propose a class of logistic selection bias models whose members identify the estimands. Given a selection model in the class, procedures are developed for testing and estimation of the causal effect of vaccination on viral load in the principal stratum of subjects who would be infected regardless of randomization assignment. We show how the procedures can be used for a sensitivity analysis that quantifies how the causal effect of vaccination varies with the presumed magnitude of selection bias.

Designed Extension of Survival Studies: Application to Clinical Trials with Unrecognized Heterogeneity

It is well known that unrecognized heterogeneity among patients, such as is conferred by genetic subtype, can undermine the power of randomized trial, designed under the assumption of homogeneity, to detect a truly beneficial treatment. We consider the conditional power approach to allow for recovery of power under unexplained heterogeneity. While Proschan and Hunsberger (1995) confined the application of conditional power design to normally distributed observations, we consider more general and difficult settings in which the data are in the framework of continuous time and are subject to censoring. In particular, we derive a procedure appropriate for the analysis of the weighted log rank test under the assumption of a proportional hazards frailty model. The proposed method is illustrated through application to a brain tumor trial.

A SURVEY OF THE LIKELIHOOD APPROACH TO BIOEQUIVALENCE TRIALS

Bioequivalence trials are abbreviated clinical trials whereby a generic drug or new formulation is evaluated to determine if it is "equivalent" to a corresponding previously approved brand-name drug or formulation. In this manuscript, we survey the process of testing bioequivalence and advocate the likelihood paradigm for representing the resulting data as evidence. We emphasize the unique conflicts between hypothesis testing and confidence intervals in this area - which we believe are indicative of the existence of the systemic defects in the frequentist approach - that the likelihood paradigm avoids. We suggest the direct use of profile likelihoods for evaluating bioequivalence and examine the main properties of profile likelihoods and estimated likelihoods under simulation. This simulation study shows that profile likelihoods are a reasonable alternative to the (unknown) true likelihood for a range of parameters commensurate with bioequivalence research. Our study also shows that the standard methods in the current practice of bioequivalence trials offers only weak evidence from the evidential point of view.