Dataset Information

Preference-adaptive randomization in comparative effectiveness studies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Determination of comparative effectiveness in a randomized controlled trial requires consideration of an intervention's comparative uptake (or acceptance) among randomized participants and the intervention's comparative efficacy among participants who use their assigned intervention. If acceptance differs across interventions, then simple randomization of participants can result in post-randomization losses that introduce bias and limit statistical power.

Methods

We develop a novel preference-adaptive randomization procedure in which the allocation probabilities are updated based on the inverse of the relative acceptance rates among randomized participants in each arm. In simulation studies, we determine the optimal frequency with which to update the allocation probabilities based on the number of participants randomized. We illustrate the development and application of preference-adaptive randomization using a randomized controlled trial comparing the effectiveness of different financial incentive structures on prolonged smoking cessation.

Results

Simulation studies indicated that preference-adaptive randomization performed best with frequent updating, accommodated differences in acceptance across arms, and performed well even if the initial values for the allocation probabilities were not equal to their true values. Updating the allocation probabilities after randomizing each participant minimized imbalances in the number of accepting participants across arms over time. In the smoking cessation trial, unexpectedly large differences in acceptance among arms required us to limit the allocation of participants to less acceptable interventions. Nonetheless, the procedure achieved equal numbers of accepting participants in the more acceptable arms, and balanced the characteristics of participants across assigned interventions.

Conclusions

Preference-adaptive randomization, coupled with analysis methods based on instrumental variables, can enhance the validity and generalizability of comparative effectiveness studies. In particular, preference-adaptive randomization augments statistical power by maintaining balanced sample sizes in efficacy analyses, while retaining the ability of randomization to balance covariates across arms in effectiveness analyses.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01526265; 31 January 2012.

SUBMITTER: French B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4387665 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Comparative effectiveness research trials in real-world settings may require participants to choose between preferred intervention options. A randomized clinical trial with parallel experimental and control arms is straightforward and regarded as a gold standard design, but by design it forces and anticipates the participants to comply with a randomly assigned intervention regardless of their preference. Therefore, the randomized clinical trial may impose impractical limitations when planning comparative effectiveness research trials. To accommodate participants' preference if they are expressed, and to maintain randomization, we propose an alternative design that allows participants' preference after randomization, which we call a "preference option randomized design (PORD)". In contrast to other preference designs, which ask whether or not participants consent to the assigned intervention after randomization, the crucial feature of preference option randomized design is its unique informed consent process before randomization. Specifically, the preference option randomized design consent process informs participants that they can opt out and switch to the other intervention only if after randomization they actively express the desire to do so. Participants who do not independently express explicit alternate preference or assent to the randomly assigned intervention are considered to not have an alternate preference. In sum, preference option randomized design intends to maximize retention, minimize possibility of forced assignment for any participants, and to maintain randomization by allowing participants with no or equal preference to represent random assignments. This design scheme enables to define five effects that are interconnected with each other through common design parameters-comparative, preference, selection, intent-to-treat, and overall/as-treated-to collectively guide decision making between interventions. Statistical power functions for testing all these effects are derived, and simulations verified the validity of the power functions under normal and binomial distributions.

Project description:This paper studies inference for the average treatment effect in randomized controlled trials with covariate-adaptive randomization. Here, by covariate-adaptive randomization, we mean randomization schemes that first stratify according to baseline covariates and then assign treatment status so as to achieve "balance" within each stratum. Our main requirement is that the randomization scheme assigns treatment status within each stratum so that the fraction of units being assigned to treatment within each stratum has a well behaved distribution centered around a proportion ? as the sample size tends to infinity. Such schemes include, for example, Efron's biased-coin design and stratified block randomization. When testing the null hypothesis that the average treatment effect equals a pre-specified value in such settings, we first show the usual two-sample t-test is conservative in the sense that it has limiting rejection probability under the null hypothesis no greater than and typically strictly less than the nominal level. We show, however, that a simple adjustment to the usual standard error of the two-sample t-test leads to a test that is exact in the sense that its limiting rejection probability under the null hypothesis equals the nominal level. Next, we consider the usual t-test (on the coefficient on treatment assignment) in a linear regression of outcomes on treatment assignment and indicators for each of the strata. We show that this test is exact for the important special case of randomization schemes with ?=12 , but is otherwise conservative. We again provide a simple adjustment to the standard errors that yields an exact test more generally. Finally, we study the behavior of a modified version of a permutation test, which we refer to as the covariate-adaptive permutation test, that only permutes treatment status for units within the same stratum. When applied to the usual two-sample t-statistic, we show that this test is exact for randomization schemes with ?=12 and that additionally achieve what we refer to as "strong balance." For randomization schemes with ??12 , this test may have limiting rejection probability under the null hypothesis strictly greater than the nominal level. When applied to a suitably adjusted version of the two-sample t-statistic, however, we show that this test is exact for all randomization schemes that achieve "strong balance," including those with ??12 . A simulation study confirms the practical relevance of our theoretical results. We conclude with recommendations for empirical practice and an empirical illustration·.

Project description:BackgroundPoor dietary choices may underlie known associations between having an evening diurnal preference and cardiometabolic diseases. Assessing causal links between diurnal preference and food intake is now possible in Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses.ObjectivesWe aimed to use a 2-sample MR to determine potential causal effects of genetic liability to a morning preference on food intake. We also examined potential causal effects of a morning preference on objectively captured response performances to email-administered 24-h diet recalls.MethodsWe used genetic variants associated with a morning preference from a published genome-wide association meta-analysis. Our outcomes included 61 food items with estimates from a food-frequency questionnaire in the UK Biobank (n = 361,194). For significant findings, we repeated the analysis using intake estimates from modified 24-h diet recalls in a subset of overlapping participants (n = 146,086). In addition, we examined 7 response performance outcomes, including the time and duration of responses to 24-h diet recalls (n = 123,035). MR effects were estimated using an inverse-variance weighted analysis.ResultsGenetic liability to a morning preference was associated with increased intake of 6 food items (fresh fruit, alcohol with meals, bran cereal, cereals, dried fruit, and water), decreased intake of 4 food items (beer plus cider, processed meat, other cereals [e.g., corn or frosted flakes], and full cream milk), increased temperature of hot drinks, and decreased variation in diet (PFalse Discovery Rate < 0.05). There was no evidence for an effect on coffee or tea intake. Findings for fresh fruit, beer plus cider, bran cereal, and cereal were consistent when intakes were estimated by 24-h diet recalls (P < 0.05). We also identified potential causal links between a morning preference with earlier timing and a shorter duration for completing email-administered 24-h diet recalls.ConclusionsOur findings provide evidence for a potentially causal effect of a morning preference with the increased intake of foods known to constitute a healthy diet, suggesting possible health benefits of adopting a more morning diurnal preference.