Search

For a two-group comparative study, a stratified inference procedure is routinely used to estimate an overall group contrast to increase the precision of the simple two-sample estimator. Unfortunately, most commonly used methods including the Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel statistic for a binary outcome and the stratified Cox procedure for the event time endpoint do not serve this purpose well. In fact, these procedures may be worse than their two-sample counterparts even when the observed treatment allocations are imbalanced across strata. Various procedures beyond the conventional stratified methods have been proposed to increase the precision of estimation when the naive estimator is consistent. In this paper, we are interested in the case when the treatment allocation proportions vary markedly across strata. We study the stochastic properties of the two-sample naive estimator conditional on the ancillary statistics, the observed treatment allocation proportions and/or the stratum sizes, and present a biased-adjusted estimator. This adjusted estimator is asymptotically equivalent to the augmentation estimators proposed under the unconditional setting. Moreover, this consistent estimation procedure is also equivalent to a rather simple procedure, which estimates the mean response of each treatment group first via a stratum-size weighted average and then constructs the group contrast estimate. This simple procedure is flexible and readily applicable to any target patient population by choosing appropriate stratum weights. All the proposals are illustrated with the data from a cardiovascular clinical trial, whose treatment allocations are imbalanced. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In comparing two treatments via a randomized clinical trial, the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) technique is often utilized to estimate an overall treatment effect. The ANCOVA is generally perceived as a more efficient procedure than its simple two sample estimation counterpart. Unfortunately, when the ANCOVA model is nonlinear, the resulting estimator is generally not consistent. Recently, various nonparametric alternatives to the ANCOVA, such as the augmentation methods, have been proposed to estimate the treatment effect by adjusting the covariates. However, the properties of these alternatives have not been studied in the presence of treatment allocation imbalance. In this article, we take a different approach to explore how to improve the precision of the naive two-sample estimate even when the observed distributions of baseline covariates between two groups are dissimilar. Specifically, we derive a bias-adjusted estimation procedure constructed from a conditional inference principle via relevant ancillary statistics from the observed covariates. This estimator is shown to be asymptotically equivalent to an augmentation estimator under the unconditional setting. We utilize the data from a clinical trial for evaluating a combination treatment of cardiovascular diseases to illustrate our findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]