Randomized clinical trials are considered the gold standard for researchers seeking to identify effective new treatments for illness and disease. But these trials require rigorous and highly nuanced statistical analysis that can be challenging in the face of large, complex data sets and multiple endpoints. Done properly, such trials can lead to life-saving advances in science and medicine. Done poorly, they can lead to years of misguided research and costly delays.
Dr. Fan Li, PhD, an Associate Professor in the Department of Biostatistics at the Yale School of Public Health (YSPH) and a leading expert in causal inference and clinical trial methodology, was recently awarded a $2.6 million R01 grant from the National Institutes of Health to develop innovative solutions to help address these challenges. Dr. Li is also a faculty member in the Center for Methods in Implementation Science, and Yale Center for Analytical Sciences. He holds a secondary appointment in the Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, at the Yale School of Medicine.
Over the next four years, Dr. Li and his team will develop new causal inference methods to strengthen the design and analysis of cluster-randomized trials (CRTs). For these types of trials, treatments are randomized across institutions, such as hospitals or clinics, rather than a pool of individuals. So, a new intervention involving 20 hospitals might see 10 receive the intervention while the other 10 serve as controls. Every qualifying patient within an intervention hospital would receive the new treatment, and their outcomes would then be compared to patients in the 10 control hospitals. These studies tend to be complex and require non-conventional methods for causal inference.
CRTs that evaluate multiple clinical outcomes and complex composite endpoints can be challenging to conduct. These situations arise frequently in cardiovascular clinical studies, which often span multiple institutions and involve multiple outcomes such as stroke, heart attack, and death, along with patient-reported quality-of-life measures. However, current analytic strategies often fail to capture the full clinical picture or provide clear guidance for statistically efficient analysis.