IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0237441.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effect size estimates from umbrella designs: Handling patients with a positive test result for multiple biomarkers using random or pragmatic subtrial allocation

Author

Listed:
  • Miriam Kesselmeier
  • Norbert Benda
  • André Scherag

Abstract

Umbrella trials have been suggested to increase trial conduct efficiency when investigating different biomarker-driven experimental therapies. An overarching platform is used for patient screening and subsequent subtrial allocation according to patients’ biomarker status. Two subtrial allocation schemes for patients with a positive test result for multiple biomarkers are (i) the pragmatic allocation to the eligible subtrial with the currently fewest included patients and (ii) the random allocation to one of the eligible subtrials. Obviously, the subtrials compete for such patients which are consequently underrepresented in the subtrials. To address questions of the impact of an umbrella design in general as well as with respect to subtrial allocation and analysis method, we investigate an umbrella trial with two parallel group subtrials and discuss generalisations. First, we analytically quantify the impact of the umbrella design with random allocation on the number of patients needed to be screened, the biomarker status distribution and treatment effect estimates compared to the corresponding gold standard of an independent parallel group design. Using simulations and real data, we subsequently compare both allocation schemes and investigate weighted linear regression modelling as possible analysis method for the umbrella design. Our results show that umbrella designs are more efficient than the gold standard. However, depending on the biomarker status distribution in the disease population, an umbrella design can introduce differences in estimated treatment effects in the presence of an interaction between treatment and biomarker status. In principle, weighted linear regression together with the random allocation scheme can address this difference though it is difficult to assess if such an approach is applicable in practice. In any case, caution is required when using treatment effect estimates derived from umbrella designs for e.g. future trial planning or meta-analyses.

Suggested Citation

  • Miriam Kesselmeier & Norbert Benda & André Scherag, 2020. "Effect size estimates from umbrella designs: Handling patients with a positive test result for multiple biomarkers using random or pragmatic subtrial allocation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-24, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0237441
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0237441
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237441
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0237441&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0237441?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Edward L. Korn & Barry I. Graubard, 1995. "Analysis of Large Health Surveys: Accounting for the Sampling Design," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 158(2), pages 263-295, March.
    2. Lonnie Magee, 1998. "Improving survey‐weighted least squares regression," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 60(1), pages 115-126.
    3. Magee, L. & Robb, A. L. & Burbidge, J. B., 1998. "On the use of sampling weights when estimating regression models with survey data," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 84(2), pages 251-271, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Luc Clair, 2022. "Nonparametric Instrumental Variable Estimation using Complex Survey Data," Departmental Working Papers 2022-01, The University of Winnipeg, Department of Economics.
    2. Robert Kaestner & Elizabeth Tarlov, 2006. "Changes in the welfare caseload and the health of low-educated mothers," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(3), pages 623-643.
    3. Ehrmann, Michael & Ziegelmeyer, Michael, 2014. "Household Risk Management and Actual Mortgage Choice in the Euro Area," MEA discussion paper series 201406, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
    4. Becker, Jan-Michael & Ismail, Ida Rosnita, 2016. "Accounting for sampling weights in PLS path modeling: Simulations and empirical examples," European Management Journal, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 606-617.
    5. Nianbo Dong & Elizabeth A. Stuart & David Lenis & Trang Quynh Nguyen, 2020. "Using Propensity Score Analysis of Survey Data to Estimate Population Average Treatment Effects: A Case Study Comparing Different Methods," Evaluation Review, , vol. 44(1), pages 84-108, February.
    6. Carin van der Cruijsen & David-Jan Jansen & Jakob de Haan, 2015. "How Much Does the Public Know about the ECB’s Monetary Policy? Evidence from a Survey of Dutch Households," International Journal of Central Banking, International Journal of Central Banking, vol. 11(4), pages 169-218, December.
    7. Barry I. Graubard & Edward L. Korn, 1999. "Predictive Margins with Survey Data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 55(2), pages 652-659, June.
    8. Lionel Page & Daniel G. Goldstein, 2016. "Subjective beliefs about the income distribution and preferences for redistribution," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 47(1), pages 25-61, June.
    9. Julia Le Blanc & Alessandro Porpiglia & Federica Teppa & Junyi Zhu & Michael Ziegelmeyer, 2016. "Household Saving Behavior in the Euro Area," International Journal of Central Banking, International Journal of Central Banking, vol. 12(2), pages 15-69, June.
    10. Ampudia, Miguel & Ehrmann, Michael, 2017. "Macroeconomic experiences and risk taking of euro area households," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 146-156.
    11. Uche M. Ozughalu & Fidelis O. Ogwumike, 2013. "Vulnerability to Food Poverty in Nigeria," African Development Review, African Development Bank, vol. 25(3), pages 243-255, September.
    12. Ivan Faiella, 2010. "The use of survey weights in regression analysis," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 739, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.
    13. Julia Le Blanc & Alessandro Porpiglia & Federica Teppa & Junyi Zhu & Michael Ziegelmeyer, 2014. "Household saving behaviour and credit constraints in the euro area," BCL working papers 93, Central Bank of Luxembourg.
    14. Stanislav Kolenikov, 2010. "Resampling variance estimation for complex survey data," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 10(2), pages 165-199, June.
    15. Masako Horino & Salwa Massad & Saifuddin Ahmed & Khalid Abu Khalid & Yehia Abed, 2024. "Understanding coverage of antenatal care in Palestine: Cross-sectional analysis of Palestinian Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey, 2019–2020," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(2), pages 1-14, February.
    16. Nathan Berg & Todd Gabel, 2013. "Effects of New Welfare Reform Strategies on Welfare Participation: Microdata Estimates from Canada," Working Papers 1304, University of Otago, Department of Economics, revised Feb 2013.
    17. Aragon, Fernando & Rud, Juan, 2009. "The Blessing of Natural Resources: Evidence from a Peruvian Gold Mine," Working Papers 2009-014, Banco Central de Reserva del Perú.
    18. Dietz, Brian, 2001. "An Analysis Of Statistical Errors In Contingent Valuation Surveys," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20462, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    19. Archer, Kellie J. & Lemeshow, Stanley & Hosmer, David W., 2007. "Goodness-of-fit tests for logistic regression models when data are collected using a complex sampling design," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 51(9), pages 4450-4464, May.
    20. Daniel F. Martinez & Oscar A. Mitnik & Edgar Salgado & Lynn Scholl & Patricia Yañez-Pagans, 2020. "Connecting to Economic Opportunity: the Role of Public Transport in Promoting Women’s Employment in Lima," Journal of Economics, Race, and Policy, Springer, vol. 3(1), pages 1-23, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0237441. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.