Statistical power considerations in genotype-based recall randomized controlled trials

View/ Open
Author
Atabaki-Pasdar, Naeimeh
Ohlsson, Mattias
Shungin, Dmitry
Kurbasic, Azra
Ingelsson, Erik
Pearson, Ewan R.
Ali, Ashfaq
Published Version
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37307Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Atabaki-Pasdar, Naeimeh, Mattias Ohlsson, Dmitry Shungin, Azra Kurbasic, Erik Ingelsson, Ewan R. Pearson, Ashfaq Ali, and Paul W. Franks. 2016. “Statistical power considerations in genotype-based recall randomized controlled trials.” Scientific Reports 6 (1): 37307. doi:10.1038/srep37307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/srep37307.Abstract
Randomized controlled trials (RCT) are often underpowered for validating gene-treatment interactions. Using published data from the Diabetes Prevention Program (DPP), we examined power in conventional and genotype-based recall (GBR) trials. We calculated sample size and statistical power for gene-metformin interactions (vs. placebo) using incidence rates, gene-drug interaction effect estimates and allele frequencies reported in the DPP for the rs8065082 SLC47A1 variant, a metformin transported encoding locus. We then calculated statistical power for interactions between genetic risk scores (GRS), metformin treatment and intensive lifestyle intervention (ILI) given a range of sampling frames, clinical trial sample sizes, interaction effect estimates, and allele frequencies; outcomes were type 2 diabetes incidence (time-to-event) and change in small LDL particles (continuous outcome). Thereafter, we compared two recruitment frameworks: GBR (participants recruited from the extremes of a GRS distribution) and conventional sampling (participants recruited without explicit emphasis on genetic characteristics). We further examined the influence of outcome measurement error on statistical power. Under most simulated scenarios, GBR trials have substantially higher power to observe gene-drug and gene-lifestyle interactions than same-sized conventional RCTs. GBR trials are becoming popular for validation of gene-treatment interactions; our analyses illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of this design.Other Sources
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5122840/pdf/Terms of Use
This article is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of-use#LAACitable link to this page
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:29626156
Collections
- SPH Scholarly Articles [6329]
Contact administrator regarding this item (to report mistakes or request changes)