Sample size estimation for comparing dynamic treatment regimens in a SMART: A Monte Carlo-based approach and case study with longitudinal overdispersed count outcomes

Abstract

Dynamic treatment regimens (DTRs), also known as treatment algorithms or adaptive interventions, play an increasingly important role in many health domains. DTRs are motivated to address the unique and changing needs of individuals by delivering the type of treatment needed, when needed, while minimizing unnecessary treatment. Practically, a DTR is a sequence of decision rules that specify, for each of several points in time, how available information about the individual's status and progress should be used in practice to decide which treatment (e.g. type or intensity) to deliver. The sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) is an experimental design widely used to empirically inform the development of DTRs. Sample size planning resources for SMARTs have been developed for continuous, binary, and survival outcomes. However, an important gap exists in sample size estimation methodology for SMARTs with longitudinal count outcomes. Furthermore, in many health domains, count data are overdispersed—having variance greater than their mean. We propose a Monte Carlo-based approach to sample size estimation applicable to many types of longitudinal outcomes and provide a case study with longitudinal overdispersed count outcomes. A SMART for engaging alcohol and cocaine-dependent patients in treatment is used as motivation.

Keywords

Adaptive intervention dynamic treatment regimen longitudinal outcome overdispersed count sample size estimation sequential multiple assignment randomized trial SMART

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Riley

Serrano

Nilsen

, et al. Mobile and wireless technologies in health behavior and the potential for intensively adaptive interventions. Curr Opin Psychol 2015; 5: 67–71.

Collins

Murphy

Bierman

. A conceptual framework for adaptive preventive interventions. Prev Sci 2004; 5: 185–196.

Nahum-Shani

Dziak

Wetter

. MCMTC: A pragmatic framework for selecting an experimental design to inform the development of digital interventions. Front Digit Health 2022; 4: 798025.

Nahum-Shani

Almirall

Yap

JRT

, et al. SMART Longitudinal analysis: A tutorial for using repeated outcome measures from SMART studies to compare adaptive interventions. Psychol Methods 2020; 25: 1–29.

Lavori

Dawson

. A design for testing clinical strategies: Biased adaptive within-subject randomization. J R Stat Soc: Ser A (Stat Soc) 2000; 163: 29–38.

Murphy

. An experimental design for the development of adaptive treatment strategies. Stat Med 2005; 24: 1455–1481.

Miller

Rollnick

. Motivational interviewing: Helping people change. 3rd ed. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 2013, p. xii, .

McKay

Drapkin

Van Horn

, et al. Effect of patient choice in an adaptive sequential randomization trial of treatment for alcohol and cocaine dependence. J Consult Clin Psychol 2015; 83: 1021–1032.

Murphy

. Sample size formulae for two-stage randomized trials with survival outcomes. Biometrika 2011; 98: 503–518.

10.

Dziak

Almirall

Dempsey

, et al. SMART binary: Sample size calculation for comparing adaptive interventions in SMART studies with longitudinal binary outcomes. Submitted to Multivariate Behav Res 2023. ArXiv [Preprint] 2023. Version 3. DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2110.05535.

11.

Kidwell

Seewald

Tran

, et al. Design and analysis considerations for comparing dynamic treatment regimens with binary outcomes from sequential multiple assignment randomized trials. J Appl Stat 2018; 45: 1628–1651.

12.

Seewald

Kidwell

Nahum-Shani

, et al. Sample size considerations for comparing dynamic treatment regimens in a sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial with a continuous longitudinal outcome. Stat Methods Med Res 2020; 29: 1891–1912.

13.

Dziak

Yap

JRT

Almirall

, et al. A data analysis method for using longitudinal binary outcome data from a SMART to compare adaptive interventions. Multivariate Behav Res 2019; 54: 613–636.

14.

Comi

. Is it clinically relevant to repair focal multiple sclerosis lesions? J Neurol Sci 2008; 265: 17–20.

15.

Vestbo

Anderson

Coxson

, et al. Evaluation of COPD longitudinally to identify predictive surrogate end-points (ECLIPSE). Eur Respir J 2008; 31: 869–873.

16.

Tan

Wright

Thummala

, et al. Trilaciclib plus chemotherapy versus chemotherapy alone in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: A multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial. Lancet Oncol 2019; 20: 1587–1601.

17.

Rubin

. Causal inference using potential outcomes. J Am Stat Assoc 2005; 100: 322–331.

18.

Artman

Nahum-Shani

, et al. Power analysis in a SMART design: Sample size estimation for determining the best embedded dynamic treatment regime. Biostatistics 2020; 21: 432–448.

19.

Nahum-Shani

Kasari

, et al. Comparing dynamic treatment regimes using repeated-measures outcomes: Modeling considerations in SMART studies. Stat Med 2016; 35: 1595–1615.

20.

Tsiatis

Davidian

Zhang

, et al. Covariate adjustment for two-sample treatment comparisons in randomized clinical trials: A principled yet flexible approach. Stat Med 2008; 27: 4658–4677.

21.

Famoye

. On the bivariate negative binomial regression model. J Appl Stat 2010; 37: 969–981.

22.

Albert

Nelson

. Generalized causal mediation analysis. Biometrics 2011; 67: 1028–1038.

23.

Song

PXK

. Multivariate dispersion models generated from Gaussian copula. Scand J Stat 2000; 27: 305–320.

24.

Frangakis

Rubin

, et al. Principal stratification designs to estimate input data missing due to death. Biometrics 2007; 63: 641–649; discussion 650–662.

25.

Asendorf

Henderson

Schmidli

, et al. Sample size re-estimation for clinical trials with longitudinal negative binomial counts including time trends. Stat Med 2019; 38: 1503–1528.

26.

Zhang

Cao

. Sample size calculation for clinical trials with correlated count measurements based on the negative binomial distribution. Stat Med 2019; 38: 5413–5427.

27.

Zhu

Lakkis

. Sample size calculation for comparing two negative binomial rates. Stat Med 2014; 33: 376–387.

28.

Diggle

. Analysis of longitudinal data. 2nd ed. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press, 2002, p. xv, 379 p.

29.

Fitzmaurice

Laird

Ware

. Applied longitudinal analysis. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2011.

30.

Madsen

Birkes

. Simulating dependent discrete data. J Stat Comput Simul 2013; 83: 677–691.

31.

Chakraborty

Laber

Zhao

. Inference for optimal dynamic treatment regimes using an adaptive m-out-of-n bootstrap scheme. Biometrics 2013; 69: 714–723.

32.

Lyhagen

Ornstein

. Robust polychoric correlation. Commun Stat – Theory and Methods 2023; 52: 3241–3261. DOI: 10.1080/03610926.2021.1970770

33.

Gribbin

Chi

Stewart

, et al. Confidence regions for repeated measures ANOVA power curves based on estimated covariance. BMC Med Res Methodol 2013; 13: 57.

34.

Kreidler

Muller

Grunwald

, et al. GLIMMPSE: Online power computation for linear models with and without a baseline covariate. J Stat Softw 2013; 54: i10.

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.

22.93 MB

0.00 MB

3.12 MB