Sample size calculation in multi-centre clinical trials

Markus Harden, Tim Friede, Markus Harden, Tim Friede

Abstract

Background: Multi-centre randomized controlled clinical trials play an important role in modern evidence-based medicine. Advantages of collecting data from more than one site are numerous, including accelerated recruitment and increased generalisability of results. Mixed models can be applied to account for potential clustering in the data, in particular when many small centres contribute patients to the study. Previously proposed methods on sample size calculation for mixed models only considered balanced treatment allocations which is an unlikely outcome in practice if block randomisation with reasonable choices of block length is used.

Methods: We propose a sample size determination procedure for multi-centre trials comparing two treatment groups for a continuous outcome, modelling centre differences using random effects and allowing for arbitrary sample sizes. It is assumed that block randomisation with fixed block length is used at each study site for subject allocation. Simulations are used to assess operation characteristics such as power of the sample size approach. The proposed method is illustrated by an example in disease management systems.

Results: A sample size formula as well as a lower and upper boundary for the required overall sample size are given. We demonstrate the superiority of the new sample size formula over the conventional approach of ignoring the multi-centre structure and show the influence of parameters such as block length or centre heterogeneity. The application of the procedure on the example data shows that large blocks require larger sample sizes, if centre heterogeneity is present.

Conclusion: Unbalanced treatment allocation can result in substantial power loss when centre heterogeneity is present but not considered at the planning stage. When only few patients by centre will be recruited, one has to weigh the risk of imbalance between treatment groups due to large blocks and the risk of unblinding due to small blocks. The proposed approach should be considered when planning multi-centre trials.

Keywords: Block randomisation; Linear mixed model; Random effects.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Probability distribution. Conditional probability distributions of Δ2|r for varying numbers of randomized subjects r=1,…,b=6
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Expectation of Δ2|r. Conditional expected imbalance between treatment groups for allocation parameter k=1,2,3 and various numbers of subjects r=1…,b and block lengths b
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Example: Block randomisation. Number of final randomisation blocks by centre with block length b=6 based on the COMPETE II trial [17]
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Example: Sample size based on NMC,U1. Derived for μ=1, σ=4, varying block length b, number of centres c and intra-class correlation ρ. Dashed grey line represents the planned sample size of the trial (N=508)
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Example: Power simulations. Simulated power based on the planned sample sizes for μ=1, σ=4, ρ=0.5, varying numbers of centres and varying block lengths. Dashed black line represents the targeted power of 0.8

References

    1. Ich: Ich harmonized tripartite guideline e9: Statistical principles for clinical trials. Stat Med. 1999; 18:1905–42.
    1. Julious SA, Owen RJ. Sample size calculations for clinical studies allowing for uncertainty about the variance. Pharm Stat. 2006;5(1):29–37. doi: 10.1002/pst.197.
    1. Gallo PP. Practical issues in linear models analyses in multicenter clinical trials. Biopharm Rep. 1998;6:2–9.
    1. Ruvuna F. Unequal center sizes, sample size, and power in multicenter clinical trials. Drug Inf J. 2004;38(4):387–94. doi: 10.1177/009286150403800409.
    1. van Breukelen GJ, Candel MJ, Berger MP. Relative efficiency of unequal versus equal cluster sizes in cluster randomized and multicentre trials. Stat Med. 2007;26(13):2589–603. doi: 10.1002/sim.2740.
    1. Fedorov V, Jones B. The design of multicentre trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2005;14(3):205–48. doi: 10.1191/0962280205sm399oa.
    1. Vierron E, Giraudeau B. Sample size calculation for multicenter randomized trial: taking the center effect into account. Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28(4):451–8. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2006.11.003.
    1. Vierron E, Giraudeau B. Design effect in multicenter studies: gain or loss of power? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009;9(1):39. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-9-39.
    1. Pickering RM, Weatherall M. The analysis of continuous outcomes in multi-centre trials with small centre sizes. Stat Med. 2007;26(30):5445–56. doi: 10.1002/sim.3068.
    1. Kahan BC, Morris TP. Analysis of multicentre trials with continuous outcomes: when and how should we account for centre effects? Stat Med. 2013;32(7):1136–49. doi: 10.1002/sim.5667.
    1. Matts JP, Lachin JM. Properties of permuted-block randomization in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1988;9(4):327–44. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(88)90047-5.
    1. Dumville J, Hahn S, Miles J, Torgerson D. The use of unequal randomisation ratios in clinical trials: a review. Contemp Clin Trials. 2006;27(1):1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2005.08.003.
    1. Snow G. Blockrand: Randomization for Block Random Clinical Trials. 2013. R package version 1.3. .
    1. Asghari-Jafarabadi M, Sadeghi-Bazargani H. Randomization: techniques and software-aided implementation in medical studies. J Clin Res & Governance. 2015;4(2).
    1. R Development Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2008. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. ISBN 3-900051-07-0. .
    1. Holbrook A, Thabane L, Keshavjee K, Dolovich L, Bernstein B, Chan D, Troyan S, Foster G, Gerstein H, Investigators CI, et al. Individualized electronic decision support and reminders to improve diabetes care in the community: Compete ii randomized trial. Can Med Assoc J. 2009;181(1-2):37–44. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.081272.
    1. Chu R, Thabane L, Ma J., Holbrook A, Pullenayegum E, Devereaux PJ. Comparing methods to estimate treatment effects on a continuous outcome in multicentre randomized controlled trials: a simulation study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;11(1):21. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-21.
    1. Yelland LN, Kahan BC, Dent E, Lee KJ, Voysey M, Forbes AB, Cook JA. Prevalence and reporting of recruitment, randomisation and treatment errors in clinical trials: a systematic review. Clin Trials. 2018; 15(3):278. .
    1. Yaxley JW, Coughlin GD, Chambers SK, Occhipinti S, Samaratunga H, Zajdlewicz L, Dunglison N, Carter R, Williams S, Payton DJ, et al. Robot-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomy versus open radical retropubic prostatectomy: early outcomes from a randomised controlled phase 3 study. The Lancet. 2016;388(10049):1057–66. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(16)30592-X.
    1. Döring G, Meisner C, Stern M, Group FVTS, et al. A double-blind randomized placebo-controlled phase iii study of a pseudomonas aeruginosa flagella vaccine in cystic fibrosis patients. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2007;104(26):11020–25. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0702403104.
    1. Teerenstra S, Moerbeek M. Power Analysis of Trials with Multilevel Data. Boca Raton: Chapman and Hall/CRC; 2015.
    1. Lake S, Kammann E, Klar N, Betensky R. Sample size re-estimation in cluster randomization trials. Stat Med. 2002;21(10):1337–50. doi: 10.1002/sim.1121.
    1. Jensen K, Kieser M. Blinded sample size recalculation in multicentre trials with normally distributed outcome. Biom J. 2010;52(3):377–99. doi: 10.1002/bimj.200900114.
    1. van Schie S, Moerbeek M. Re-estimating sample size in cluster randomised trials with active recruitment within clusters. Stat Med. 2014;33(19):3253–68. doi: 10.1002/sim.6172.
    1. Moerbeek M. Randomization of clusters versus randomization of persons within clusters: which is preferable? Am Stat. 2005;59(2):173–9. doi: 10.1198/000313005X43542.
    1. Torgerson DJ. Contamination in trials: is cluster randomisation the answer? Bmj. 2001;322(7282):355–7. doi: 10.1136/bmj.322.7282.355.

Source: PubMed

3
Subscribe