Prognostic Adjustment with Efficient Estimators to Unbiasedly Leverage Historical Data in Randomized Trials

Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a cornerstone of comparative effectiveness, they typically have much smaller sample size than observational studies because of financial and ethical considerations. Therefore there is interest in using plentiful historical data (either observational d...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inarXiv.org
Main Authors Liao, Lauren D, Højbjerre-Frandsen, Emilie, Hubbard, Alan E, Schuler, Alejandro
Format Paper
LanguageEnglish
Published Ithaca Cornell University Library, arXiv.org 15.11.2023
Subjects
Bias
Blood transfusion
Data analysis
Estimators
Observational studies
Regression models
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Although randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are a cornerstone of comparative effectiveness, they typically have much smaller sample size than observational studies because of financial and ethical considerations. Therefore there is interest in using plentiful historical data (either observational data or prior trials) to reduce trial sizes. Previous estimators developed for this purpose rely on unrealistic assumptions, without which the added data can bias the treatment effect estimate. Recent work proposed an alternative method (prognostic covariate adjustment) that imposes no additional assumptions and increases efficiency in trial analyses. The idea is to use historical data to learn a prognostic model: a regression of the outcome onto the covariates. The predictions from this model, generated from the RCT subjects' baseline variables, are then used as a covariate in a linear regression analysis of the trial data. In this work, we extend prognostic adjustment to trial analyses with nonparametric efficient estimators, which are more powerful than linear regression. We provide theory that explains why prognostic adjustment improves small-sample point estimation and inference without any possibility of bias. Simulations corroborate the theory: efficient estimators using prognostic adjustment compared to without provides greater power (i.e., smaller standard errors) when the trial is small. Population shifts between historical and trial data attenuate benefits but do not introduce bias. We showcase our estimator using clinical trial data provided by Novo Nordisk A/S that evaluates insulin therapy for individuals with type II diabetes.
ISSN:2331-8422