Frailty models with missing covariates.

Amy H Herring; Joseph G Ibrahim; Stuart R Lipsitz

doi:10.1111/j.0006-341x.2002.00098.x

Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11890332

Frailty models with missing covariates.

Amy H Herring·Joseph G Ibrahim·Stuart R Lipsitz

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We present a method for estimating the parameters in random effects models for survival data when covariates are subject to missingness. Our method is more general than the usual frailty model as it accommodates a wide range of distributions for the random effects, which are included as an offset in the linear predictor in a manner analogous to that used in generalized linear mixed models. We propose using a Monte Carlo EM algorithm along with the Gibbs sampler to obtain parameter estimates. This method is useful in reducing the bias that may be incurred using complete-case methods in this setting. The methodology is applied to data from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group melanoma clinical trials in which observations were believed to be clustered and several tumor characteristics were not always observed.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic Cluster Analysis Computer Simulation Disease-Free Survival Humans Interferon-alpha Likelihood Functions Melanoma Models, Statistical Monte Carlo Method Multivariate Analysis Survival Analysis Comparative Study Journal Article Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Amy H Herring, Joseph G Ibrahim, Stuart R Lipsitz. 2002. Frailty models with missing covariates.. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-341x.2002.00098.x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

[Clinical trials on medical products for human use in the case of acutely incapacitated patients within the fields of neurology and neurosurgery; implications of the new European legislation].

To comply with the European directive on clinical trials on medical products for human use, an amendment to the Dutch Medical Research Involving Human Beings Act was formally submitted in the Netherlands on the 27th February 2003. The objective is harmonisation of legislation and the protection of patients participating in clinical trials within the European Union. An important element of the directive is additional protection for incapacitated patients. In the fields of neurology and neurosurgery much research, mainly phase III, is conducted into the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products in emergency situations such as traumatic skull-brain injury or an acute cerebral infarct. Future emergency research in patients with acute cerebral disorders will be hindered by the (shortly legal) requirement that prior proxy consent is mandatory and the fact that individual patients must directly benefit as a result of their participation. This unintended negative effect may be considered contrary to the ethical principals for conducting good scientific research to improve treatment results. Also, it may lead to a scientific backlog compared to countries outside of the European Union. In the case of emergency phase-III research among acutely incapacitated patients we recommend that the Central Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects [Dutch acronym: CCMO] tests the research, that trials have an independent committee to monitor the data and safety, that an independent physician may grant consent for the patient to participate and that the consent of the patient's representative(s) is obtained within 24 hours of the patient being included in the trial.

Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic↗

PubMed2003

Mid-course sample size modification in clinical trials based on the observed treatment effect.

It is not uncommon to set the sample size in a clinical trial to attain specified power at a value for the treatment effect deemed likely by the experimenters, even though a smaller treatment effect would still be clinically important. Recent papers have addressed the situation where such a study produces only weak evidence of a positive treatment effect at an interim stage and the organizers wish to modify the design in order to increase the power to detect a smaller treatment effect than originally expected. Raising the power at a small treatment effect usually leads to considerably higher power than was first specified at the original alternative. Several authors have proposed methods which are not based on sufficient statistics of the data after the adaptive redesign of the trial. We discuss these proposals and show in an example how the same objectives can be met while maintaining the sufficiency principle, as long as the eventuality that the treatment effect may be small is considered at the design stage. The group sequential designs we suggest are quite standard in many ways but unusual in that they place emphasis on reducing the expected sample size at a parameter value under which extremely high power is to be achieved. Comparisons of power and expected sample size show that our proposed methods can out-perform L. Fisher's 'variance spending' procedure. Although the flexibility to redesign an experiment in mid-course may be appealing, the cost in terms of the number of observations needed to correct an initial design may be substantial.

Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic↗

PubMed2003

Controlling type I error rate for fast track drug development programmes.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Modernization Act of 1997 has a Section (No. 112) entitled 'Expediting Study and Approval of Fast Track Drugs' (the Act). In 1998, the FDA issued a 'Guidance for Industry: the Fast Track Drug Development Programs' (the FTDD programmes) to meet the requirement of the Act. The purpose of FTDD programmes is to 'facilitate the development and expedite the review of new drugs that are intended to treat serious or life-threatening conditions and that demonstrate the potential to address unmet medical needs'. Since then many health products have reached patients who suffered from AIDS, cancer, osteoporosis, and many other diseases, sooner by utilizing the Fast Track Act and the FTDD programmes. In the meantime several scientific issues have also surfaced when following the FTDD programmes. In this paper we will discuss the concept of two kinds of type I errors, namely, the 'conditional approval' and the 'final approval' type I errors, and propose statistical methods for controlling them in a new drug submission process.

Clinical Trials, Phase III as Topic↗