The politics of CAP reform: Trade negotiations, institutional settings and blame avoidance

In this article we argue that the conclusion of the GATT Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture and the subsequent role of the WTO has changed the international context of CAP policy-making. However, comparing the three latest CAP reforms, we demonstrate that pressures on the CAP arising from international trade negotiations cannot alone account for the way in which the EU responds in terms of CAP reform. The institutional setting within which the reform package was determined also played a crucial role. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the CoAM seems to be a more conducive setting than the European Council for undertaking substantial reform of the CAP. We suggest that the choice of institutional setting is influenced by the desire of farm ministers and of heads of state or government to avoid blame for unpopular decisions. When CAP reform is an integral part of a broader package, farm ministers pass the final decision to the European Council and when CAP reform is defined as a separate issue the European Council avoids involvement.

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 practical approach to a multi-level analysis with a sparse binary outcome within a large surgical trial

Objectives: To assess the potential source of variation that surgeon may add to patient outcome in a clinical trial of surgical procedures. Methods: Two large (n = 1380) parallel multicentre randomized surgical trials were undertaken to compare laparoscopically assisted hysterectomy with conventional methods of abdominal and vaginal hysterectomy; involving 43 surgeons. The primary end point of the trial was the occurrence of at least one major complication. Patients were nested within surgeons giving the data set a hierarchical structure. A total of 10% of patients had at least one major complication, that is, a sparse binary outcome variable. A linear mixed logistic regression model (with logit link function) was used to model the probability of a major complication, with surgeon fitted as a random effect. Models were fitted using the method of maximum likelihood in SAS((R)). Results: There were many convergence problems. These were resolved using a variety of approaches including; treating all effects as fixed for the initial model building; modelling the variance of a parameter on a logarithmic scale and centring of continuous covariates. The initial model building process indicated no significant 'type of operation' across surgeon interaction effect in either trial, the 'type of operation' term was highly significant in the abdominal trial, and the 'surgeon' term was not significant in either trial. Conclusions: The analysis did not find a surgeon effect but it is difficult to conclude that there was not a difference between surgeons. The statistical test may have lacked sufficient power, the variance estimates were small with large standard errors, indicating that the precision of the variance estimates may be questionable.