Sample size calculation in cost‐effectiveness cluster randomized trials: optimal and maximin approaches

In this paper, the optimal sample sizes at the cluster and person levels for each of two treatment arms are obtained for cluster randomized trials where the cost‐effectiveness of treatments on a continuous scale is studied. The optimal sample sizes maximize the efficiency or power for a given budget or minimize the budget for a given efficiency or power. Optimal sample sizes require information on the intra‐cluster correlations (ICCs) for effects and costs, the correlations between costs and effects at individual and cluster levels, the ratio of the variance of effects translated into costs to the variance of the costs (the variance ratio), sampling and measuring costs, and the budget. When planning, a study information on the model parameters usually is not available. To overcome this local optimality problem, the current paper also presents maximin sample sizes. The maximin sample sizes turn out to be rather robust against misspecifying the correlation between costs and effects at the cluster and individual levels but may lose much efficiency when misspecifying the variance ratio. The robustness of the maximin sample sizes against misspecifying the ICCs depends on the variance ratio. The maximin sample sizes are robust under misspecification of the ICC for costs for realistic values of the variance ratio greater than one but not robust under misspecification of the ICC for effects. Finally, we show how to calculate optimal or maximin sample sizes that yield sufficient power for a test on the cost‐effectiveness of an intervention. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sample size calculations for stepped wedge and cluster randomised trials: a unified approach

ObjectivesTo clarify and illustrate sample size calculations for the cross-sectional stepped wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) and to present a simple approach for comparing the efficiencies of competing designs within a unified framework.Study Design and SettingWe summarize design effects for the SW-CRT, the parallel cluster randomized trial (CRT), and the parallel cluster randomized trial with before and after observations (CRT-BA), assuming cross-sectional samples are selected over time. We present new formulas that enable trialists to determine the required cluster size for a given number of clusters. We illustrate by example how to implement the presented design effects and give practical guidance on the design of stepped wedge studies.ResultsFor a fixed total cluster size, the choice of study design that provides the greatest power depends on the intracluster correlation coefficient (ICC) and the cluster size. When the ICC is small, the CRT tends to be more efficient; when the ICC is large, the SW-CRT tends to be more efficient and can serve as an alternative design when the CRT is an infeasible design.ConclusionOur unified approach allows trialists to easily compare the efficiencies of three competing designs to inform the decision about the most efficient design in a given scenario.     

Power for <Emphasis Type="Italic">T</Emphasis>-test comparisons of unbalanced cluster exposure studies

Studies of individuals sampled in unbalanced clusters have become common in health services and epidemiological research, but available tools for power/sample size estimation and optimal design are currently limited. This paper presents and illustrates power estimation formulas for t-test comparisons of effect of an exposure at the cluster level on continuous outcomes in unbalanced studies with unequal numbers of clusters and/or unequal numbers of subjects per cluster in each exposure arm. Iterative application of these power formulas obtains minimal sample size needed and/or minimal detectable difference. SAS subroutines to implement these algorithms are given in the Appendices. When feasible, power is optimized by having the same number of clusters in each arm k _A =k _B and (irrespective of numbers of clusters in each arm) the same total number of subjects in each arm n _A k _A =n _B k _B . Cost beneficial upper limits for numbers of subjects per cluster may be approximately (5/ρ) −5 or less where ρ is the intraclass correlation. The methods presented here for simple cluster designs may be extended to some settings involving complex hierarchical weighted cluster samples.     

Sample size considerations for stratified cluster randomization design with binary outcomes and varying cluster size

Stratified cluster randomization trials (CRTs) have been frequently employed in clinical and healthcare research. Comparing with simple randomized CRTs, stratified CRTs reduce the imbalance of baseline prognostic factors among different intervention groups. Due to the popularity, there has been a growing interest in methodological development on sample size estimation and power analysis for stratified CRTs; however, existing work mostly assumes equal cluster size within each stratum and uses multilevel models. Clusters are often naturally formed with random sizes in CRTs. With varying cluster size, commonly used ad hoc approaches ignore the variability in cluster size, which may underestimate (overestimate) the required number of clusters for each group per stratum and lead to underpowered (overpowered) clinical trials. We propose closed-form sample size formulas for estimating the required total number of subjects and for estimating the number of clusters for each group per stratum, based on Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic for stratified cluster randomization design with binary outcomes, accounting for both clustering and varying cluster size. We investigate the impact of various design parameters on the relative change in the required number of clusters for each group per stratum due to varying cluster size. Simulation studies are conducted to evaluate the finite-sample performance of the proposed sample size method. A real application example of a pragmatic stratified CRT of a triad of chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and hypertension is presented for illustration.     

Recommendations for choosing an analysis method that controls Type I error for unbalanced cluster sample designs with Gaussian outcomes

We used theoretical and simulation‐based approaches to study Type I error rates for one‐stage and two‐stage analytic methods for cluster‐randomized designs. The one‐stage approach uses the observed data as outcomes and accounts for within‐cluster correlation using a general linear mixed model. The two‐stage model uses the cluster specific means as the outcomes in a general linear univariate model. We demonstrate analytically that both one‐stage and two‐stage models achieve exact Type I error rates when cluster sizes are equal. With unbalanced data, an exact size α test does not exist, and Type I error inflation may occur. Via simulation, we compare the Type I error rates for four one‐stage and six two‐stage hypothesis testing approaches for unbalanced data. With unbalanced data, the two‐stage model, weighted by the inverse of the estimated theoretical variance of the cluster means, and with variance constrained to be positive, provided the best Type I error control for studies having at least six clusters per arm. The one‐stage model with Kenward–Roger degrees of freedom and unconstrained variance performed well for studies having at least 14 clusters per arm. The popular analytic method of using a one‐stage model with denominator degrees of freedom appropriate for balanced data performed poorly for small sample sizes and low intracluster correlation. Because small sample sizes and low intracluster correlation are common features of cluster‐randomized trials, the Kenward–Roger method is the preferred one‐stage approach. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Repairing the efficiency loss due to varying cluster sizes in two‐level two‐armed randomized trials with heterogeneous clustering

In two‐armed trials with clustered observations the arms may differ in terms of (i) the intraclass correlation, (ii) the outcome variance, (iii) the average cluster size, and (iv) the number of clusters. For a linear mixed model analysis of the treatment effect, this paper examines the expected efficiency loss due to varying cluster sizes based upon the asymptotic relative efficiency of varying versus constant cluster sizes. Simple, but nearly cost‐optimal, correction factors are derived for the numbers of clusters to repair this efficiency loss. In an extensive Monte Carlo simulation, the accuracy of the asymptotic relative efficiency and its Taylor approximation are examined for small sample sizes. Practical guidelines are derived to correct the numbers of clusters calculated under constant cluster sizes (within each treatment) when planning a study. Because of the variety of simulation conditions, these guidelines can be considered conservative but safe in many realistic situations. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Relative efficiency of unequal versus equal cluster sizes in cluster randomized and multicentre trials

Cluster randomized and multicentre trials evaluate the effect of a treatment on persons nested within clusters, for instance, patients within clinics or pupils within schools. Optimal sample sizes at the cluster (centre) and person level have been derived under the restrictive assumption of equal sample sizes per cluster. This paper addresses the relative efficiency of unequal versus equal cluster sizes in case of cluster randomization and person randomization within clusters. Starting from maximum likelihood parameter estimation, the relative efficiency is investigated numerically for a range of cluster size distributions. An approximate formula is presented for computing the relative efficiency as a function of the mean and variance of cluster size and the intraclass correlation, which can be used for adjusting the sample size. The accuracy of this formula is checked against the numerical results and found to be quite good. It is concluded that the loss of efficiency due to variation of cluster sizes rarely exceeds 10 per cent and can be compensated by sampling 11 per cent more clusters.     

Sample size and robust marginal methods for cluster‐randomized trials with censored event times

In cluster‐randomized trials, intervention effects are often formulated by specifying marginal models, fitting them under a working independence assumption, and using robust variance estimates to address the association in the responses within clusters. We develop sample size criteria within this framework, with analyses based on semiparametric Cox regression models fitted with event times subject to right censoring. At the design stage, copula models are specified to enable derivation of the asymptotic variance of estimators from a marginal Cox regression model and to compute the number of clusters necessary to satisfy power requirements. Simulation studies demonstrate the validity of the sample size formula in finite samples for a range of cluster sizes, censoring rates, and degrees of within‐cluster association among event times. The power and relative efficiency implications of copula misspecification is studied, as well as the effect of within‐cluster dependence in the censoring times. Sample size criteria and other design issues are also addressed for the setting where the event status is only ascertained at periodic assessments and times are interval censored. Copyright © 2014 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Unequal cluster sizes for trials in English and Welsh general practice: implications for sample size calculations

Cluster randomized trials are often used in primary care settings. In the U.K., general practices are usually the unit of allocation. The effect of variability in practice list size on sample size calculations is demonstrated using the General Medical Services Statistics for England and Wales, 1997. Summary statistics and tables are given to help design such trials assuming that a fixed proportion of patients are to be recruited from each cluster. Three different weightings of the cluster means are compared: uniform, cluster size and minimum variance weights. Minimum variance weights are shown to be superior to uniform, particularly when clusters are small, and to cluster size weights, particularly when clusters are large. Where there are large numbers of participants per cluster and cluster size weights are used, the power actually falls as more patients are recruited to large clusters. When minimum variance weights are used the increase in the design effect due to variation in list size is small, regardless of the size of intracluster correlation coefficient or the number of participants per cluster, provided there is no loss of randomized units. When the expected number of participants per practice is low a greater loss in power comes from practices which fail to recruit patients. A method to estimate the likely effect and allow for it is presented.     

Sample size calculations for clustered binary data.

In this paper we propose a sample size calculation method for testing on a binomial proportion when binary observations are dependent within clusters. In estimating the binomial proportion in clustered binary data, two weighting systems have been popular: equal weights to clusters and equal weights to units within clusters. When the number of units varies cluster by cluster, performance of these two weighting systems depends on the extent of correlation among units within each cluster. In addition to them, we will also use an optimal weighting method that minimizes the variance of the estimator. A sample size formula is derived for each of the estimators with different weighting schemes. We apply these methods to the sample size calculation for the sensitivity of a periodontal diagnostic test. Simulation studies are conducted to evaluate a finite sample performance of the three estimators. We also assess the influence of misspecified input parameter values on the calculated sample size. The optimal estimator requires equal or smaller sample sizes and is more robust to the misspecification of an input parameter than those assigning equal weights to units or clusters.     

Optimal designs in three-level cluster randomized trials with a binary outcome

Cluster randomized trials (CRTs) were originally proposed for use when randomization at the subject level is practically infeasible or may lead to a severe estimation bias of the treatment effect. However, recruiting an additional cluster costs more than enrolling an additional subject in an individually randomized trial. Under budget constraints, researchers have proposed the optimal sample sizes in two-level CRTs. CRTs may have a three-level structure, in which two levels of clustering should be considered. In this paper, we propose optimal designs in three-level CRTs with a binary outcome, assuming a nested exchangeable correlation structure in generalized estimating equation models. We provide the variance of estimators of three commonly used measures: risk difference, risk ratio, and odds ratio. For a given sampling budget, we discuss how many clusters and how many subjects per cluster are necessary to minimize the variance of each measure estimator. For known association parameters, the locally optimal design is proposed. When association parameters are unknown but within predetermined ranges, the MaxiMin design is proposed to maximize the minimum of relative efficiency over the possible ranges, that is, to minimize the risk of the worst scenario.     

Cluster randomized controlled trials in primary care: An introduction

Background: Cluster randomized trials occur when groups or clusters of individuals, rather than the individuals themselves, are randomized to intervention and control groups and outcomes are measured on individuals within those clusters. Within primary care, between 1997 and 2000, there has been a virtual doubling in the number of published cluster randomized trials. A recent systematic review, specifically within primary care, found study quality to be both generally lower than that reported elsewhere and not to have shown any recent quality improvement. Objective: To discuss the design, conduct and analysis of cluster randomized trials within primary care in terms of the appropriate expertise required, potential bias, ethical considerations and expense. Discussion: Compared with trials that involve the randomization of individual participants, cluster randomized trials are more complex to design and analyse and, for a given sample size, have decreased power and a broadening of confidence intervals. Cluster randomized trials are specifically prone to potential bias at two levels—the cluster and individual. Regarding the former, it is recommended that cluster allocation be undertaken by a party independent to the research team and careful consideration be given to ensure minimal cluster attrition. Bias at the individual level can be overcome by identifying trial participants before randomization and at this time obtaining consent for intervention, data collection or both. A unique ethical aspect to cluster randomized trials is that cluster leaders may consent to the trial on behalf of potential cluster members. Additional costs of cluster randomized trials include the increased number of patients required, the complexity in their design and conduct and, usually, the need to recruit clusters de novo.

Conclusion: Cluster randomized trials are a powerful and increasingly popular research tool. They are uniquely placed for the conduct of research within primary-care clusters where intracluster contamination can occur. Associated methodological issues are straightforward and surmountable and just need careful consideration and management.     

Small sample performance of bias‐corrected sandwich estimators for cluster‐randomized trials with binary outcomes

The sandwich estimator in generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach underestimates the true variance in small samples and consequently results in inflated type I error rates in hypothesis testing. This fact limits the application of the GEE in cluster‐randomized trials (CRTs) with few clusters. Under various CRT scenarios with correlated binary outcomes, we evaluate the small sample properties of the GEE Wald tests using bias‐corrected sandwich estimators. Our results suggest that the GEE Wald z‐test should be avoided in the analyses of CRTs with few clusters even when bias‐corrected sandwich estimators are used. With t‐distribution approximation, the Kauermann and Carroll (KC)‐correction can keep the test size to nominal levels even when the number of clusters is as low as 10 and is robust to the moderate variation of the cluster sizes. However, in cases with large variations in cluster sizes, the Fay and Graubard (FG)‐correction should be used instead. Furthermore, we derive a formula to calculate the power and minimum total number of clusters one needs using the t‐test and KC‐correction for the CRTs with binary outcomes. The power levels as predicted by the proposed formula agree well with the empirical powers from the simulations. The proposed methods are illustrated using real CRT data. We conclude that with appropriate control of type I error rates under small sample sizes, we recommend the use of GEE approach in CRTs with binary outcomes because of fewer assumptions and robustness to the misspecification of the covariance structure. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Use of surveillance data to calculate the sample size and the statistical power of randomized clinical trials testing Staphylococcus aureus vaccine efficacy in orthopedic surgery

BackgroundPatients undergoing primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) would be a worthy population for anti-staphylococcal vaccines. The objective is to assess sample size for significant vaccine efficacy (VE) in a randomized clinical trial (RCT).MethodsData from a surveillance network of surgical site infection in France between 2008 and 2011 were used. The outcome was S. aureus SSI (SASSI) within 30 days after surgery. Statistical power was estimated by simulations repeated for theoretical VE ranging from 20% to 100% and for sample sizes from 250 to 8000 individuals per arm.Results18,688 patients undergoing THA were included; 66 (0.35%) SASSI occurred. For a 1% SASSI rate, the sample size would be at least 1316 patients per arm to detect significant VE of 80% with 80% power.ConclusionSimulations with real-life data from surveillance of hospital acquired infections allow estimation of power for RCT and sample size to reach the required power.     

Stepped wedge designs could reduce the required sample size in cluster randomized trials

ObjectiveThe stepped wedge design is increasingly being used in cluster randomized trials (CRTs). However, there is not much information available about the design and analysis strategies for these kinds of trials. Approaches to sample size and power calculations have been provided, but a simple sample size formula is lacking. Therefore, our aim is to provide a sample size formula for cluster randomized stepped wedge designs.Study Design and SettingWe derived a design effect (sample size correction factor) that can be used to estimate the required sample size for stepped wedge designs. Furthermore, we compared the required sample size for the stepped wedge design with a parallel group and analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) design.ResultsOur formula corrects for clustering as well as for the design. Apart from the cluster size and intracluster correlation, the design effect depends on choices of the number of steps, the number of baseline measurements, and the number of measurements between steps. The stepped wedge design requires a substantial smaller sample size than a parallel group and ANCOVA design.ConclusionFor CRTs, the stepped wedge design is far more efficient than the parallel group and ANCOVA design in terms of sample size.     

Within-center matching performed better when using propensity score matching to analyze multicenter survival data: empirical and Monte Carlo studies

ObjectivePropensity score (PS) methods are applied frequently to multicenter data. To date, methods for handling cluster effect when analyzing PS-matched data have not been assessed for survival data. Accordingly, the objective of the present study was to determine the optimal PS-model to account for a potential cluster effect when analysing multicenter observational data.Study Design and SettingIn the current study, five strategies were compared. One analyzed the original sample and four used global or within-cluster matching using a global or a cluster-specific PS. All were applied to simulated data sets and to two cohorts.ResultsFailing to account for clustering in the PS model led to a biased estimate of the treatment effect and to an inflated test size. Within-cluster matching using either a global or a cluster-specific PS led to the lowest mean squared error and to a test size close to its nominal value. However, the cluster-specific approach led to a drastic reduction of sample size compared with the global PS one. Analyses of the cohorts confirmed that the latter model led to the smallest sample size, but also necessitated the discard of a high number of clusters from the matched sample.ConclusionIn the considered simulation scenarios, within-cluster matching using a global PS presented the best balance between sample size and bias reduction, and it should be used when applying PS methods to clustered observational survival data.     

Sample size adjustments for varying cluster sizes in cluster randomized trials with binary outcomes analyzed with second‐order PQL mixed logistic regression

Adjustments of sample size formulas are given for varying cluster sizes in cluster randomized trials with a binary outcome when testing the treatment effect with mixed effects logistic regression using second‐order penalized quasi‐likelihood estimation (PQL). Starting from first‐order marginal quasi‐likelihood (MQL) estimation of the treatment effect, the asymptotic relative efficiency of unequal versus equal cluster sizes is derived. A Monte Carlo simulation study shows this asymptotic relative efficiency to be rather accurate for realistic sample sizes, when employing second‐order PQL. An approximate, simpler formula is presented to estimate the efficiency loss due to varying cluster sizes when planning a trial. In many cases sampling 14 per cent more clusters is sufficient to repair the efficiency loss due to varying cluster sizes. Since current closed‐form formulas for sample size calculation are based on first‐order MQL, planning a trial also requires a conversion factor to obtain the variance of the second‐order PQL estimator. In a second Monte Carlo study, this conversion factor turned out to be 1.25 at most. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Randomizing patients by family practice: sample size estimation,intracluster correlation and data analysis

BACKGROUND: Cluster randomized controlled trials increasingly are used to evaluate health interventions where patients are nested within larger clusters such as practices, hospitals or communities. Patients within a cluster may be similar to each other relative to patients in other clusters on key variables; therefore, sample size calculations and analyses of results require special statistical methods. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to illustrate the calculations used for sample size estimation and data analysis and to provide estimates of the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for several variables using data from the Seniors Medication Assessment Research Trial (SMART), a community-based trial of pharmacists consulting to family physicians to optimize the drug therapy of older patients. METHODS: The study was a paired cluster randomized trial, where the family physician's practice was the cluster. The sample size calculation was based on a hypothesized reduction of 15% in mean daily units of medication in the intervention group compared with the control group, using an alpha of 0.05 (one-tailed) with 80% power, and an ICC from pilot data of 0.08. ICCs were estimated from the data for several variables. The analyses comparing the two groups used a random effects model for a meta-analysis over pairs. RESULTS: The design effect due to clustering was 2.12, resulting in an inflation in sample size from 340 patients required using individual randomization, to 720 patients using randomization of practices, with 15 patients from each of 48 practices. ICCs for medication use, health care utilization and general health were <0.1; however, the ICC for mean systolic blood pressure over the trial period was 0.199. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with individual randomization, cluster randomization may substantially increase the sample size required to maintain adequate statistical power. The differences in ICCs among potential outcome variables reinforce the need for valid estimates to ensure proper study design.     

Sample size requirement for repeated measurements in continuous data.

In this paper we extend Bloch's discussion on the usefulness and the limitations in the application of repeated measurements per subject in study designs. We derive general sample size formulae for any finite number of comparison groups to calculate the required number of subjects with repeated measurements, that do not have to be conditionally independent. For fixed total cost, we discuss the optimal sample allocation for repeated measurements needed to maximize the power and the underestimation when using Bloch's sample size formula if in the hypothesis testing procedure the variance parameters are unknown. We have also included a quantitative investigation of the effectiveness of taking repeated measurements per subjects to reduced the required number of subjects for a given power at a given alpha-level.     

Sample size formulae for intervention studies with the cluster as unit of randomization

This paper presents sample size formulae for both continuous and dichotomous endpoints obtained from intervention studies that use the cluster as the unit of randomization. The formulae provide the required number of clusters or the required number of individuals per cluster when the other number is given. The proposed formulae derive from Student's t-test with use of cluster summary measures and a variance that consists of within and between cluster components. Power contours are provided to help in the design of intervention studies that use cluster randomization. Sample size formulae for designs with and without stratification of clusters appear separately.