A comparison of analytical strategies for cluster randomized trials with survival outcomes in the presence of competing risks

Abstract

While statistical methods for analyzing cluster randomized trials with continuous and binary outcomes have been extensively studied and compared, little comparative evidence has been provided for analyzing cluster randomized trials with survival outcomes in the presence of competing risks. Motivated by the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders trial, we carried out a simulation study to compare the operating characteristics of several existing population-averaged survival models, including the marginal Cox, marginal Fine and Gray, and marginal multi-state models. For each model, we found that adjusting for the intraclass correlations through the sandwich variance estimator effectively maintained the type I error rate when the number of clusters is large. With no more than 30 clusters, however, the sandwich variance estimator can exhibit notable negative bias, and a permutation test provides better control of type I error inflation. Under the alternative, the power for each model is differentially affected by two types of intraclass correlations—the within-individual and between-individual correlations. Furthermore, the marginal Fine and Gray model occasionally leads to higher power than the marginal Cox model or the marginal multi-state model, especially when the competing event rate is high. Finally, we provide an illustrative analysis of Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders trial using each analytical strategy considered.

Keywords

Multivariate survival analysis competing risks time-to-event outcomes Fine and Gray model sandwich variance estimator permutation test

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Murray

. Design and Analysis of Group-Randomized Trials. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Turner

Gallis

et al. Review of recent methodological developments in group-randomized trials: Part 1—design. Am J Public Health 2017; 107: 907–915.

Turner

Prague

Gallis

et al. Review of recent methodological developments in group-randomized trials: Part 2—analysis. Am J Public Health 2017; 107: 1078–1086.

Fine

Gray

. A proportional hazards model for the subdistribution of a competing risk. J Am Stat Assoc 1999; 94: 496–509.

Stedman

Lew

Losina

et al. A comparison of statistical approaches for physician-randomized trials with survival outcomes. Contemp Clin Trials 2012; 33: 104–115.

Bhasin

Gill

Reuben

et al. A randomized trial of a multifactorial fall injury prevention strategy. N Engl J Med 2020; 383: 129–140.

Bhasin

Gill

Reuben

et al. Strategies to reduce injuries and develop confidence in elders (STRIDE): A cluster-randomized pragmatic trial of a multifactorial fall injury prevention strategy: Design and methods. The Journals of Gerontology: Series A 2018; 73: 1053–1061.

Ganz

Siu

Magaziner

et al. Protocol for serious fall injury adjudication in the strategies to reduce injuries and develop confidence in elders (STRIDE) study. Inj Epidemiol 2019; 6: 1–8.

Caille

Tavernier

Taljaard

et al. Methodological review showed that time-to-event outcomes are often inadequately handled in cluster randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 134: 125–137.

10.

Manatunga

Chen

. Sample size estimation for survival outcomes in cluster-randomized studies with small cluster sizes. Biometrics 2000; 56: 616–621.

11.

Xie

Waksman

. Design and sample size estimation in clinical trials with clustered survival times as the primary endpoint. Stat Med 2003; 22: 2835–2846.

12.

Jahn-Eimermacher

Ingel

Schneider

. Sample size in cluster-randomized trials with time to event as the primary endpoint. Stat Med 2013; 32: 739–751.

13.

Zhong

Cook

. Sample size and robust marginal methods for cluster-randomized trials with censored event times. Stat Med 2015; 34: 901–923.

14.

Jung

. Sample size calculation for cluster randomization trials with a time-to-event endpoint. Stat Med 2020; 39: 3608–3623.

15.

Vaida

. Proportional hazards model with random effects. Stat Med 2000; 19: 3309–3324.

16.

Wei

Lin

Weissfeld

. Regression analysis of multivariate incomplete failure time data by modeling marginal distributions. J Am Stat Assoc 1989; 84: 1065–1073.

17.

Lin

Wei

. The robust inference for the Cox proportional hazards model. J Am Stat Assoc 1989; 84: 1074–1078.

18.

Preisser

Young

Zaccaro

et al. An integrated population-averaged approach to the design, analysis and sample size determination of cluster-unit trials. Stat Med 2003; 22: 1235–1254.

19.

Turner

Preisser

. Sample size determination for GEE analyses of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. Biometrics 2018; 74: 1450–1458.

20.

Lau

Cole

Gange

. Competing risk regression models for epidemiologic data. Am J Epidemiol 2009; 170: 244–256.

21.

Liang

Zeger

. Longitudinal data analysis using generalized linear models. Biometrika 1986; 73: 13–22.

22.

Spiekerman

Lin

. Marginal regression models for multivariate failure time data. J Am Stat Assoc 1998; 93: 1164–1175.

23.

Putter

Fiocco

Geskus

. Tutorial in biostatistics: Competing risks and multi-state models. Stat Med 2007; 26: 2389–2430.

24.

Andersen

Keiding

. Multi-state models for event history analysis. Stat Methods Med Res 2002; 11: 91–115.

25.

Zhou

Fine

Latouche

et al. Competing risks regression for clustered data. Biostatistics 2012; 13: 371–383.

26.

Fiero

Huang

Oren

et al. Statistical analysis and handling of missing data in cluster randomized trials: A systematic review. Trials 2016; 17: 72.

27.

Murray

Pals

Blitstein

et al. Design and analysis of group-randomized trials in cancer: A review of current practices. J Natl Cancer Inst 2008; 100: 483–491.

28.

Ivers

Taljaard

Dixon

et al. Impact of consort extension for cluster randomised trials on quality of reporting and study methodology: Review of random sample of 300 trials, 2000-8. Bmj 2011; 343: d5886.

29.

Gail

Mark

Carroll

et al. On design considerations and randomization-based inference for community intervention trials. Stat Med 1996; 15: 1069–1092.

30.

Lokhnygina

Murray

et al. An evaluation of constrained randomization for the design and analysis of group-randomized trials. Stat Med 2015; 35: 1565–1579.

31.

Turner

Heagerty

et al. An evaluation of constrained randomization for the design and analysis of group-randomized trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med 2017; 36: 3791–3806.

32.

Cai

Shen

. Permutation tests for comparing marginal survival functions with clustered failure time data. Stat Med 2000; 19: 2963–2973.

33.

Wang

De Gruttola

. The use of permutation tests for the analysis of parallel and stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trials. Stat Med 2017; 36: 2831–2843.

34.

Fay

Graubard

. Small-sample adjustments for Wald-type tests using sandwich estimators. Biometrics 2001; 57: 1198–1206.

35.

Emura

Shih

et al. Comparison of the marginal hazard model and the sub-distribution hazard model for competing risks under an assumed copula. Stat Methods Med Res 2019; 29: 2307–2327.

36.

Nelsen

. An introduction to copulas. Springer, New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media, 2007.

37.

White

. Maximum likelihood estimation of misspecified models. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 1982; 50: 1–25.

38.

Redden

. Small sample performance of bias-corrected sandwich estimators for cluster-randomized trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med 2015; 34: 281–296.

39.

Preisser

Qaqish

et al. A comparison of two bias-corrected covariance estimators for generalized estimating equations. Biometrics 2007; 63: 935–941.

40.

Gill

McGloin

Shelton

et al. Optimizing retention in a pragmatic trial of community-living older persons: The STRIDE study. J Am Geriatr Soc 2020; 68: 2492–2499.

41.

Moulton

. Covariate-based constrained randomization of group-randomized trials. Clinical Trials 2004; 1: 297–305.

42.

Greene

. A SAS macro for covariate-constrained randomization of general cluster-randomized and unstratified designs. J Stat Softw 2017; 77: 1–20.

43.

Landau

Stahl

. Sample size and power calculations for medical studies by simulation when closed form expressions are not available. Stat Methods Med Res 2013; 22: 324–345.

44.

Hougaard

. Analysis of multivariate survival data. Springer, New York, NY: Springer Science & Business Media, 2012.

45.

Gangnon

Kosorok

. Sample-size formula for clustered survival data using weighted log-rank statistics. Biometrika 2004; 91: 263–275.

46.

Jung

. Sample size calculation for weighted rank tests comparing survival distributions under cluster randomization: A simulation method. J Biopharm Stat 2007; 17: 839–849.

47.

Kalia

Klar

Donner

. On the estimation of intracluster correlation for time-to-event outcomes in cluster randomized trials. Stat Med 2016; 35: 5551–5560.

48.

Lloyd

. Estimating test power adjusted for size. J Stat Comput Simul 2005; 75: 921–933.

49.

Heritier

Lloyd

. Accurate p-values for adaptive designs with binary endpoints. Stat Med 2017; 36: 2643–2655.

50.

Forbes

Turner

et al. Power and sample size requirements for GEE analyses of cluster randomized crossover trials. Stat Med 2019; 38: 636–649.

51.

Thompson

Hemming

Forbes

et al. Comparison of small-sample standard-error corrections for generalised estimating equations in stepped wedge cluster randomised trials with a binary outcome: A simulation study. Stat Methods Med Res 2021; 30: 425–439.

52.

Zhao

Tian

Cai

et al. (2022). Bayesian semi-parametric inference for clustered recurrent events with zero-inflation and a terminal event. arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.06636.

53.

Campbell

Piaggio

Elbourne

et al. Consort 2010 statement: Extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 2012; 345: 1–21.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

1.65 MB