This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (1) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Lavori, P. W Articles by Dawson, R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lavori, P. W Articles by Dawson, R. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Improving the efficiency of estimation in randomized trials of adaptive treatment strategies

Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Mail Code 5405, Stanford, CA, USA, Lavori{at}stanford.edu

Ree Dawson

Frontier Science Technology and Research Foundation, 900 Commonwealth Ave., Boston MA 02215

Background Given the history of treatments to date, and the responses of the patient, what is the best treatment to try next? An ensemble of sequential, multistage rules guiding such adaptive decision making can be described as an `adaptive treatment strategy (ATS)'. Robins' G-computation can be used for estimation of the mean outcome of an ATS from a `sequential multiple assignment randomized (SMAR)' trial.

Purpose To develop a variance estimate for the G-computation formula, based on a sequential analysis of the states and treatments observed in the trial, and compare its properties with those of the `marginal mean' method described by Murphy, which is based on an estimating equation.

Methods We use both mathematical calculation and simulation studies to demonstrate the properties of the G-computation and its sequential variance estimate, including finite-sample bias and coverage.

Results The sequential method is unbiased and more efficient when the variation in intervening states contributes substantially to the variation in final outcome, and when the study can be designed to guarantee full observation of the ATS under study. The method extends to the comparison of two or more ATS.

Limitations If full observation cannot be guaranteed, the method may have poor finite-sample properties.

Conclusions When the states used to adapt treatment contribute substantially to the outcome, and good design technique can be applied, the sequential method provides more efficient estimation. Clinical Trials 2007; 4: 297—308. http://ctj.sagepub.com

Clinical Trials, Vol. 4, No. 4, 297-308 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/1740774507081327


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. Rohatagi, H. Zahir, J. B. Moberly, K. E. Truitt, S.-i. Inaba, T. Shimozato, and T. J. Carrothers Use of an Exposure-Response Model to Aid Early Drug Development of an Oral Sphingosine 1-Phosphate Receptor Modulator J. Clin. Pharmacol., January 1, 2009; 49(1): 50 - 62. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]