When a clinical trial is conducted at more than one centre it is likely that the true treatment effect will not be identical at each centre. In other words there will be some degree of treatment-by-centre interaction. A number of alternative approaches for dealing with this have been suggested in the literature. These include frequentist approaches with a fixed or random effects model for the observed data and Bayesian approaches. In the fixed effects model, there are two common competing estimators of the treatment difference, based on weighted or unweighted estimates from individual centres. Which one of these should be used is the subject of some controversy and we do not intend to take a particular methodological position in this paper. Our intention is to provide some insight into the relative merits of the indicated range of possible estimators of the treatment effect. For the fixed effects model, we also look at the merits of using a preliminary test for interaction assuming a 10 per cent significance level for the test. In order to make comparisons we have simulated a 'typical' trial which compares an active drug with a placebo in the treatment of hypertension, using systolic blood pressure as the primary variable. As well as allowing the treatment effect to vary between centres, we have concentrated on the particular case where one centre is out of line with the others in terms of its true treatment difference. The various estimators that result from the different approaches are compared in terms of mean squared error and power to reject the null hypothesis of no treatment difference. Overall, the approach that uses the fixed effects weighted estimator of overall treatment difference is recommended as one that has much to offer.
Pharmacokinetic studies of drug and metabolite concentrations in the blood are usually conducted as crossover trials, especially in phases I and II. A longitudinal series of measurements is collected on each subject within each period. However, much of the dependence among such observations, within and between periods, is generally ignored in analyzing this type of data. Usually, only a random coefficient model is fitted for the parameters in the nonlinear mean function, along with allowing the variance to depend on the mean so that it changes over time. Here, we develop models to allow more fully for the structure of the crossover study. We introduce two levels of variance components, for the subjects and for the periods within subjects, and also an autocorrelation within periods. We also retain the time-varying variance, using a separate variance function for this, different from that for the mean. We apply this model to a phase I study of the drug flosequinan and its metabolite. This drug was developed for the treatment of heart failure. Because the metabolite also exhibits an active pharmacologic effect, study of both the parent drug and the metabolite is of interest. We find that the autocorrelation is the element in the covariance structure that most improves the fit of the model but that two levels of variance components can also be necessary.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.