Evaluating prognostic score adjustment and information borrowing in randomized trials with binary endpoints
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 31, 2026

Inverse Probability of Treatment Weighting (Propensity Score) using the Military Health System Data Repository and National Death Index
Published on: January 8, 2020
Zhengfan Wang1, Craig S Parzynski1, Aaron Crowley1
1Genesis Research Group, Hoboken, NJ, USA.
Background/Aims:
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with binary endpoints often face limitations in statistical power due to small sample sizes. Two strategies to improve efficiency are covariate adjustment using prognostic scores and borrowing information from historical control data. This simulation study compares the performance of these approaches under varying trial conditions.
Methods:
We conducted simulations calibrated to parameters from three ulcerative colitis trials (QUASAR, UNIFI, VEGA). We assessed eight statistical methods: Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel (CMH); covariate-adjusted logistic regression model (Logit); prognostic score-adjusted linear probability model (PSA-LPM); prognostic score-adjusted G-computation (PSA-Gcomp); Two-Step frequentist dynamic borrowing; and three Bayesian borrowing approaches-normalized power prior (Bayes-NPP), empirical power prior (Bayes-EP), and robust meta-analytic predictive prior (Bayes-MAP). We varied treatment effect size; control response rate; prognostic score strength; and between-trial heterogeneity. The estimand was the marginal risk difference under a treatment-policy strategy.
Results:
Logit, PSA-Gcomp, and PSA-LPM consistently improved power relative to CMH while generally maintaining appropriate type I error. Their performance was broadly comparable across the evaluated scenarios. Bayesian borrowing methods provided substantial power gains under low heterogeneity but showed increased bias and inflated type I error as heterogeneity rose. Bayes-NPP and Two-Step were highly sensitive to discordance between current and historical data, reducing reliability under moderate-to-high heterogeneity. Bayes-MAP demonstrated greater robustness to these changes.
Conclusions:
Prognostic score adjustment provides a reliable and efficient alternative to historical borrowing, particularly when between-trial heterogeneity is present, that performs as well as other covariate adjustment methods. Bayesian borrowing methods can deliver large power gains when historical and current data are well-aligned, but require careful evaluation of prior compatibility and heterogeneity to preserve validity.
Related Concept Videos
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Comparing the Survival Analysis of Two or More Groups
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
Strategies for Assessing and Addressing Confounding
Confounding can be addressed at both the design phase of a study and through analytical methods after data...
