1. Design and analysis of a 2-year parallel follow-up of repeated ivermectin mass drug administrations for control of malaria: Small sample considerations for cluster-randomized trials with count data
- Author
-
Kathryn L. Colborn, Sangeeta Rao, Dexiang Gao, Sunil Parikh, John Kittelson, Brian D. Foy, Conner L. Jackson, and Hannah C Slater
- Subjects
Drug ,Pediatrics ,medicine.medical_specialty ,media_common.quotation_subject ,Disease cluster ,01 natural sciences ,Article ,law.invention ,010104 statistics & probability ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Ivermectin ,Randomized controlled trial ,law ,Intervention (counseling) ,medicine ,Cluster Analysis ,Humans ,030212 general & internal medicine ,0101 mathematics ,Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic ,media_common ,Pharmacology ,business.industry ,Small sample ,General Medicine ,medicine.disease ,Malaria ,Research Design ,Sample Size ,Mass Drug Administration ,business ,Follow-Up Studies ,Count data ,medicine.drug - Abstract
Background: Cluster-randomized trials allow for the evaluation of a community-level or group-/cluster-level intervention. For studies that require a cluster-randomized trial design to evaluate cluster-level interventions aimed at controlling vector-borne diseases, it may be difficult to assess a large number of clusters while performing the additional work needed to monitor participants, vectors, and environmental factors associated with the disease. One such example of a cluster-randomized trial with few clusters was the “efficacy and risk of harms of repeated ivermectin mass drug administrations for control of malaria” trial. Although previous work has provided recommendations for analyzing trials like repeated ivermectin mass drug administrations for control of malaria, additional evaluation of the multiple approaches for analysis is needed for study designs with count outcomes. Methods: Using a simulation study, we applied three analysis frameworks to three cluster-randomized trial designs (single-year, 2-year parallel, and 2-year crossover) in the context of a 2-year parallel follow-up of repeated ivermectin mass drug administrations for control of malaria. Mixed-effects models, generalized estimating equations, and cluster-level analyses were evaluated. Additional 2-year parallel designs with different numbers of clusters and different cluster correlations were also explored. Results: Mixed-effects models with a small sample correction and unweighted cluster-level summaries yielded both high power and control of the Type I error rate. Generalized estimating equation approaches that utilized small sample corrections controlled the Type I error rate but did not confer greater power when compared to a mixed model approach with small sample correction. The crossover design generally yielded higher power relative to the parallel equivalent. Differences in power between analysis methods became less pronounced as the number of clusters increased. The strength of within-cluster correlation impacted the relative differences in power. Conclusion: Regardless of study design, cluster-level analyses as well as individual-level analyses like mixed-effects models or generalized estimating equations with small sample size corrections can both provide reliable results in small cluster settings. For 2-year parallel follow-up of repeated ivermectin mass drug administrations for control of malaria, we recommend a mixed-effects model with a pseudo-likelihood approximation method and Kenward–Roger correction. Similarly designed studies with small sample sizes and count outcomes should consider adjustments for small sample sizes when using a mixed-effects model or generalized estimating equation for analysis. Although the 2-year parallel follow-up of repeated ivermectin mass drug administrations for control of malaria is already underway as a parallel trial, applying the simulation parameters to a crossover design yielded improved power, suggesting that crossover designs may be valuable in settings where the number of available clusters is limited. Finally, the sensitivity of the analysis approach to the strength of within-cluster correlation should be carefully considered when selecting the primary analysis for a cluster-randomized trial.
- Published
- 2021