Dataset Information

A simulation study of outcome adaptive randomization in multi-arm clinical trials.

ABSTRACT: Randomizing patients among treatments with equal probabilities in clinical trials is the established method to obtain unbiased comparisons. In recent years, motivated by ethical considerations, many authors have proposed outcome adaptive randomization, wherein the randomization probabilities are unbalanced, based on interim data, to favor treatment arms having more favorable outcomes. While there has been substantial controversy regarding the merits and flaws of adaptive versus equal randomization, there has not yet been a systematic simulation study in the multi-arm setting. A simulation study was conducted to evaluate four different Bayesian adaptive randomization methods and compare them to equal randomization in five-arm clinical trials. All adaptive randomization methods included an initial burn-in with equal randomization and some combination of other modifications to avoid extreme randomization probabilities. Trials either with or without a control arm were evaluated, using designs that may terminate arms early for futility and select one or more experimental treatments at the end. The designs were evaluated under a range of scenarios and sample sizes. For trials with a control arm and maximum same size 250 or 500, several commonly used adaptive randomization methods have very low probabilities of correctly selecting a truly superior treatment. Of those studied, the only adaptive randomization method with desirable properties has a burn-in with equal randomization and thereafter randomization probabilities restricted to the interval 0.10-0.90. Compared to equal randomization, this method has a favorable sample size imbalance but lower probability of correctly selecting a superior treatment. In multi-arm trials, compared to equal randomization, several commonly used adaptive randomization methods give much lower probabilities of selecting superior treatments. Aside from randomization method, conducting a multi-arm trial without a control arm may lead to very low probabilities of selecting any superior treatments if differences between the treatment success probabilities are small.

SUBMITTER: Wathen JK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5634533 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A simulation study of outcome adaptive randomization in multi-arm clinical trials.

Wathen J Kyle JK Thall Peter F PF

Clinical trials (London, England) 20170201 5

Randomizing patients among treatments with equal probabilities in clinical trials is the established method to obtain unbiased comparisons. In recent years, motivated by ethical considerations, many authors have proposed outcome adaptive randomization, wherein the randomization probabilities are unbalanced, based on interim data, to favor treatment arms having more favorable outcomes. While there has been substantial controversy regarding the merits and flaws of adaptive versus equal randomizati ...[more]

PMID: 28982263

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundBayesian adaptive designs can be more efficient than traditional methods for multi-arm randomised controlled trials. The aim of this work was to demonstrate how Bayesian adaptive designs can be constructed for multi-arm phase III clinical trials and assess potential benefits that these designs offer.MethodsWe constructed several alternative Bayesian adaptive designs for the Collaborative Ankle Support Trial (CAST), which was a randomised controlled trial that compared four treatments for severe ankle sprain. These designs incorporated response adaptive randomisation (RAR), arm dropping, and early stopping for efficacy or futility. We studied the operating characteristics of the Bayesian designs via simulation. We then virtually re-executed the trial by implementing the Bayesian adaptive designs using patient data sampled from the CAST study to demonstrate the practical applicability of the designs.ResultsWe constructed five Bayesian adaptive designs, each of which had high power and recruited fewer patients on average than the original designs target sample size. The virtual executions showed that most of the Bayesian designs would have led to trials that declared superiority of one of the interventions over the control. Bayesian adaptive designs with RAR or arm dropping were more likely to allocate patients to better performing arms at each interim analysis. Similar estimates and conclusions were obtained from the Bayesian adaptive designs as from the original trial.ConclusionsUsing CAST as an example, this case study shows how Bayesian adaptive designs can be constructed for phase III multi-arm trials using clinically relevant decision criteria. These designs demonstrated that they can potentially generate earlier results and allocate more patients to better performing arms. We recommend the wider use of Bayesian adaptive approaches in phase III clinical trials.Trial registrationCAST study registration ISRCTN, ISRCTN37807450. Retrospectively registered on 25 April 2003.

Project description:Global health pandemics, such as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), require efficient and well-conducted trials to determine effective interventions, such as treatments and vaccinations. Early work focused on rapid sequencing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), subsequent in-vitro and in-silico work, along with greater understanding of the different clinical phases of the infection, have helped identify a catalogue of potential therapeutic agents requiring assessment. In a pandemic, there is a need to quickly identify efficacious treatments, and reject those that are non-beneficial or even harmful, using randomised clinical trials. Whilst each potential treatment could be investigated across multiple, separate, competing two-arm trials, this is a very inefficient process. Despite the very large numbers of interventional trials for COVID-19, the vast majority have not used efficient trial designs. Well conducted, adaptive platform trials utilising a multi-arm multi-stage (MAMS) approach provide a solution to overcome limitations of traditional designs. The multi-arm element allows multiple different treatments to be investigated simultaneously against a shared, standard-of-care control arm. The multi-stage element uses interim analyses to assess accumulating data from the trial and ensure that only treatments showing promise continue to recruitment during the next stage of the trial. The ability to test many treatments at once and drop insufficiently active interventions significantly speeds up the rate at which answers can be achieved. This article provides an overview of the benefits of MAMS designs and successes of trials, which have used this approach to COVID-19. We also discuss international collaboration between trial teams, including prospective agreement to synthesise trial results, and identify the most effective interventions. We believe that international collaboration will help provide faster answers for patients, clinicians, and health care systems around the world, including for each further wave of COVID-19, and enable preparedness for future global health pandemics.

Project description:BackgroundAdaptive clinical trials are growing in popularity as they are more flexible, efficient and ethical than traditional fixed designs. However, notwithstanding their increased use in assessing treatments for COVID-19, their use in critical care trials remains limited. A better understanding of the relative benefits of various adaptive designs may increase their use and interpretation.MethodsUsing two large critical care trials (ADRENAL.Clinicaltrialsgov number, NCT01448109. Updated 12-12-2017; NICE-SUGAR.Clinicaltrialsgov number, NCT00220987. Updated 01-29-2009), we assessed the performance of three frequentist and two bayesian adaptive approaches. We retrospectively re-analysed the trials with one, two, four, and nine equally spaced interims. Using the original hypotheses, we conducted 10,000 simulations to derive error rates, probabilities of making an early correct and incorrect decision, expected sample size and treatment effect estimates under the null scenario (no treatment effect) and alternative scenario (a positive treatment effect). We used a logistic regression model with 90-day mortality as the outcome and the treatment arm as the covariate. The null hypothesis was tested using a two-sided significance level (α) at 0.05.ResultsAcross all approaches, increasing the number of interims led to a decreased expected sample size. Under the null scenario, group sequential approaches provided good control of the type-I error rate; however, the type I error rate inflation was an issue for the Bayesian approaches. The Bayesian Predictive Probability and O'Brien-Fleming approaches showed the highest probability of correctly stopping the trials (around 95%). Under the alternative scenario, the Bayesian approaches showed the highest overall probability of correctly stopping the ADRENAL trial for efficacy (around 91%), whereas the Haybittle-Peto approach achieved the greatest power for the NICE-SUGAR trial. Treatment effect estimates became increasingly underestimated as the number of interims increased.ConclusionsThis study confirms the right adaptive design can reach the same conclusion as a fixed design with a much-reduced sample size. The efficiency gain associated with an increased number of interims is highly relevant to late-phase critical care trials with large sample sizes and short follow-up times. Systematically exploring adaptive methods at the trial design stage will aid the choice of the most appropriate method.

Dataset Information

A simulation study of outcome adaptive randomization in multi-arm clinical trials.

Publications

A simulation study of outcome adaptive randomization in multi-arm clinical trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets