Incorporating nonparametric methods for estimating causal excursion effects in mobile health with zero-inflated count outcomes.

In mobile health, tailoring interventions for real-time delivery is of paramount importance. Micro-randomized trials have emerged as the "gold-standard" methodology for developing such interventions. Analyzing data from these trials provides insights into the efficacy of interventions and the potential moderation by specific covariates. The "causal excursion effect," a novel class of causal estimand, addresses these inquiries. Yet, existing research mainly focuses on continuous or binary data, leaving count data largely unexplored. The current work is motivated by the Drink Less micro-randomized trial from the UK, which focuses on a zero-inflated proximal outcome, i.e., the number of screen views in the subsequent hour following the intervention decision point. To be specific, we revisit the concept of causal excursion effect, specifically for zero-inflated count outcomes, and introduce novel estimation approaches that incorporate nonparametric techniques. Bidirectional asymptotics are established for the proposed estimators. Simulation studies are conducted to evaluate the performance of the proposed methods. As an illustration, we also implement these methods to the Drink Less trial data.

A simulation study of the performance of statistical models for count outcomes with excessive zeros.

BACKGROUND: Outcome measures that are count variables with excessive zeros are common in health behaviors research. Examples include the number of standard drinks consumed or alcohol-related problems experienced over time. There is a lack of empirical data about the relative performance of prevailing statistical models for assessing the efficacy of interventions when outcomes are zero-inflated, particularly compared with recently developed marginalized count regression approaches for such data. METHODS: The current simulation study examined five commonly used approaches for analyzing count outcomes, including two linear models (with outcomes on raw and log-transformed scales, respectively) and three prevailing count distribution-based models (ie, Poisson, negative binomial, and zero-inflated Poisson (ZIP) models). We also considered the marginalized zero-inflated Poisson (MZIP) model, a novel alternative that estimates the overall effects on the population mean while adjusting for zero-inflation. Motivated by alcohol misuse prevention trials, extensive simulations were conducted to evaluate and compare the statistical power and Type I error rate of the statistical models and approaches across data conditions that varied in sample size ( N = 100 $$ N=100 $$ to 500), zero rate (0.2 to 0.8), and intervention effect sizes. RESULTS: Under zero-inflation, the Poisson model failed to control the Type I error rate, resulting in higher than expected false positive results. When the intervention effects on the zero (vs. non-zero) and count parts were in the same direction, the MZIP model had the highest statistical power, followed by the linear model with outcomes on the raw scale, negative binomial model, and ZIP model. The performance of the linear model with a log-transformed outcome variable was unsatisfactory. CONCLUSIONS: The MZIP model demonstrated better statistical properties in detecting true intervention effects and controlling false positive results for zero-inflated count outcomes. This MZIP model may serve as an appealing analytical approach to evaluating overall intervention effects in studies with count outcomes marked by excessive zeros.

New approaches for testing non-inferiority for three-arm trials with Poisson distributed outcomes.

With the availability of limited resources, innovation for improved statistical method for the design and analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is of paramount importance for newer and better treatment discovery for any therapeutic area. Although clinical efficacy is almost always the primary evaluating criteria to measure any beneficial effect of a treatment, there are several important other factors (e.g., side effects, cost burden, less debilitating, less intensive, etc.), which can permit some less efficacious treatment options favorable to a subgroup of patients. This leads to non-inferiority (NI) testing. The objective of NI trial is to show that an experimental treatment is not worse than an active reference treatment by more than a pre-specified margin. Traditional NI trials do not include a placebo arm for ethical reason; however, this necessitates stringent and often unverifiable assumptions. On the other hand, three-arm NI trials consisting of placebo, reference, and experimental treatment, can simultaneously test the superiority of the reference over placebo and NI of experimental treatment over the reference. In this article, we proposed both novel Frequentist and Bayesian procedures for testing NI in the three-arm trial with Poisson distributed count outcome. RCTs with count data as the primary outcome are quite common in various disease areas such as lesion count in cancer trials, relapses in multiple sclerosis, dermatology, neurology, cardiovascular research, adverse event count, etc. We first propose an improved Frequentist approach, which is then followed by it's Bayesian version. Bayesian methods have natural advantage in any active-control trials, including NI trial when substantial historical information is available for placebo and established reference treatment. In addition, we discuss sample size calculation and draw an interesting connection between the two paradigms.

Incorporating pragmatic features into power analysis for cluster randomized trials with a count outcome.

Cluster randomized designs are frequently employed in pragmatic clinical trials which test interventions in the full spectrum of everyday clinical settings in order to maximize applicability and generalizability. In this study, we propose to directly incorporate pragmatic features into power analysis for cluster randomized trials with count outcomes. The pragmatic features considered include arbitrary randomization ratio, overdispersion, random variability in cluster size, and unequal lengths of follow-up over which the count outcome is measured. The proposed method is developed based on generalized estimating equation (GEE) and it is advantageous in that the sample size formula retains a closed form, facilitating its implementation in pragmatic trials. We theoretically explore the impact of various pragmatic features on sample size requirements. An efficient Jackknife algorithm is presented to address the problem of underestimated variance by the GEE sandwich estimator when the number of clusters is small. We assess the performance of the proposed sample size method through extensive simulation and an application example to a real clinical trial is presented.

Two-stage randomized trial design for testing treatment, preference, and self-selection effects for count outcomes.

While the traditional clinical trial design lays emphasis on testing the treatment effect between randomly assigned groups, it ignores the role of patient preference for a particular treatment in the trial. Yet, for healthcare providers who seek to optimize the patient-centered treatment strategy, the evaluation of a patient's psychology toward each treatment could be a key consideration. The two-stage randomized trial design allows researchers to test patient's preference and selection effects, in addition to the treatment effect. The current methodology for the two-stage design is limited to continuous and binary outcomes; this article extends the model to include count outcomes. The test statistics for preference, selection, and treatment effects are derived. Closed-form sample size formulae are presented for each effect. Simulations are presented to demonstrate the properties of the unstratified and stratified designs. Finally, we apply methods to the use of antimicrobials at the end of life to demonstrate the applicability of the methods.

Sample Size Calculation for Count Outcomes in Cluster Randomization Trials with Varying Cluster Sizes.

In many cluster randomization studies, cluster sizes are not fixed and may be highly variable. For those studies, sample size estimation assuming a constant cluster size may lead to under-powered studies. Sample size formulas have been developed to incorporate the variability in cluster size for clinical trials with continuous and binary outcomes. Count outcomes frequently occur in cluster randomized studies. In this paper, we derive a closed-form sample size formula for count outcomes accounting for the variability in cluster size. We compare the performance of the proposed method with the average cluster size method through simulation. The simulation study shows that the proposed method has a better performance with empirical powers and type I errors closer to the nominal levels.

Bias away from the null due to miscounted outcomes? A case study on the TORCH trial.

Count outcomes occur in virtually all disciplines, such as medicine, epidemiology or biology, but they often contain error. Recently, it has been shown that self-reported numbers of exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients can be considerably miscounted. Motivated by this result, we reanalysed data from the Towards a Revolution in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Health trial, a large randomized controlled trial with the self-reported number of exacerbations of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease patients as outcome. To adjust for miscounting error in the response of Poisson and (zero-inflated) negative binomial models, we introduce novel, general methodology. The key idea is to formulate a zero-inflated negative binomial model to capture the error mechanism. This parametric approach automatically circumvents drawbacks of previously suggested methodology that treats miscounted outcomes in the misclassification framework. Prior information for the response error model parameters was elicited from validation data of an external study and adaptively weighted to account for potential prior-data conflict. The results of the Bayesian hierarchical modelling approach indicated that the treatment effect has been overestimated in the original study. However, closer inspection revealed that this unexpected result was an artefact of an unaccounted time dependency of the treatment effect.