A response-adaptive randomization procedure for multi-armed clinical trials with normally distributed outcomes.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Williamson SF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7078926 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Response-adaptive designs allow the randomization probabilities to change during the course of a trial based on cumulated response data so that a greater proportion of patients can be allocated to the better performing treatments. A major concern over the use of response-adaptive designs in practice, particularly from a regulatory viewpoint, is controlling the type I error rate. In particular, we show that the naïve z-test can have an inflated type I error rate even after applying a Bonferroni correction. Simulation studies have often been used to demonstrate error control but do not provide a guarantee. In this article, we present adaptive testing procedures for normally distributed outcomes that ensure strong familywise error control by iteratively applying the conditional invariance principle. Our approach can be used for fully sequential and block randomized trials and for a large class of adaptive randomization rules found in the literature. We show there is a high price to pay in terms of power to guarantee familywise error control for randomization schemes with extreme allocation probabilities. However, for proposed Bayesian adaptive randomization schemes in the literature, our adaptive tests maintain or increase the power of the trial compared to the z-test. We illustrate our method using a three-armed trial in primary hypercholesterolemia.
| S-EPMC6739232 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Gittins index provides a well established, computationally attractive, optimal solution to a class of resource allocation problems known collectively as the multi-arm bandit problem. Its development was originally motivated by the problem of optimal patient allocation in multi-arm clinical trials. However, it has never been used in practice, possibly for the following reasons: (1) it is fully sequential, i.e., the endpoint must be observable soon after treating a patient, reducing the medical settings to which it is applicable; (2) it is completely deterministic and thus removes randomization from the trial, which would naturally protect against various sources of bias. We propose a novel implementation of the Gittins index rule that overcomes these difficulties, trading off a small deviation from optimality for a fully randomized, adaptive group allocation procedure which offers substantial improvements in terms of patient benefit, especially relevant for small populations. We report the operating characteristics of our approach compared to existing methods of adaptive randomization using a recently published trial as motivation.
| S-EPMC4856210 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bayesian adaptive randomization is a heuristic approach that aims to randomize more patients to the putatively superior arms based on the trend of the accrued data in a trial. Many statistical aspects of this approach have been explored and compared with other approaches; yet only a limited number of works has focused on improving its performance and providing guidance on its application to real trials. An undesirable property of this approach is that the procedure would randomize patients to an inferior arm in some circumstances, which has raised concerns in its application. Here, we propose an adaptive clip method to rectify the problem by incorporating a data-driven function to be used in conjunction with Bayesian adaptive randomization procedure. This function aims to minimize the chance of assigning patients to inferior arms during the early time of the trial. Moreover, we propose a utility approach to facilitate the selection of a randomization procedure. A cost that reflects the penalty of assigning patients to the inferior arm(s) in the trial is incorporated into our utility function along with all patients benefited from the trial, both within and beyond the trial. We illustrate the selection strategy for a wide range of scenarios.
| S-EPMC7613973 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A response-adaptive randomization (RAR) trial design actively adjusts the ratio of participants assigned to each trial arm, favoring the better performing treatment by using outcome data from participants already in the trial. Compared with a standard clinical trial, an RAR study design has the potential to improve patient participation in acute stroke trials.This cross-sectional randomized survey included adult emergency department patients, age?18, without symptoms of stroke or other critical illness. A standardized protocol was used, and subjects were randomized to either an RAR or standard hypothetical acute stroke trial. After viewing the video describing the hypothetical trial (http://youtu.be/cKIWduCaPZc), reviewing the consent form, and having questions answered, subjects indicated whether they would consent to the trial. A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted to estimate the impact of RAR while controlling for demographic factors and patient understanding of the design.A total of 418 subjects (210 standard and 208 RAR) were enrolled. All baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. There was significantly higher participation in the RAR trial (67.3%) versus the standard trial (54.5%), absolute increase: 12.8% (95% confidence interval, 3.7-22.2). The RAR group had a higher odds ratio of agreeing to research (odds ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.9) while adjusting for patient level factors. Trial designs were generally well understood by the participants.The hypothetical RAR trial attracted more research participation than standard randomization. RAR has the potential to increase recruitment and offer benefit to future trial participants.
| S-EPMC4081030 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC5634533 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We introduce a non-myopic, covariate-adjusted response adaptive (CARA) allocation design for multi-armed clinical trials. The allocation scheme is a computationally tractable procedure based on the Gittins index solution to the classic multi-armed bandit problem and extends the procedure recently proposed in Villar et al. (2015). Our proposed CARA randomization procedure is defined by reformulating the bandit problem with covariates into a classic bandit problem in which there are multiple combination arms, considering every arm per each covariate category as a distinct treatment arm. We then apply a heuristically modified Gittins index rule to solve the problem and define allocation probabilities from the resulting solution. We report the efficiency, balance, and ethical performance of our approach compared to existing CARA methods using a recently published clinical trial as motivation. The net savings in terms of expected number of treatment failures is considerably larger and probably enough to make this design attractive for certain studies where known covariates are expected to be important, stratification is not desired, treatment failures have a high ethical cost, and the disease under study is rare. In a two-armed context, this patient benefit advantage comes at the expense of increased variability in the allocation proportions and a reduction in statistical power. However, in a multi-armed context, simple modifications of the proposed CARA rule can be incorporated so that an ethical advantage can be offered without sacrificing power in comparison with balanced designs.
| S-EPMC6055987 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Randomization is considered to be a key feature to protect against bias in randomized clinical trials. Randomization induces comparability with respect to known and unknown covariates, mitigates selection bias, and provides a basis for inference. Although various randomization procedures have been proposed, no single procedure performs uniformly best. In the design phase of a clinical trial, the scientist has to decide which randomization procedure to use, taking into account the practical setting of the trial with respect to the potential of bias. Less emphasis has been placed on this important design decision than on analysis, and less support has been available to guide the scientist in making this decision.We propose a framework that weights the properties of the randomization procedure with respect to practical needs of the research question to be answered by the clinical trial. In particular, the framework assesses the impact of chronological and selection bias on the probability of a type I error. The framework is applied to a case study with a 2-arm parallel group, single center randomized clinical trial with continuous endpoint, with no-interim analysis, 1:1 allocation and no adaptation in the randomization process.In so doing, we derive scientific arguments for the selection of an appropriate randomization procedure and develop a template which is illustrated in parallel by a case study. Possible extensions are discussed.The proposed ERDO framework guides the investigator through a template for the choice of a randomization procedure, and provides easy to use tools for the assessment. The barriers for the thorough reporting and assessment of randomization procedures could be further reduced in the future when regulators and pharmaceutical companies employ similar, standardized frameworks for the choice of a randomization procedure.
| S-EPMC5715815 | biostudies-other
Project description:A response-adaptive randomization (RAR) design refers to the method in which the probability of treatment assignment changes according to how well the treatments are performing in the trial. Holding the promise of treating more patients with the better treatments, RARs have been successfully implemented in clinical trials. We compared equal randomization (ER) with three RARs: Bayesian adaptive randomization, sequential maximum likelihood, and sequential posterior mean. We fixed the total number of patients, considered as patient horizon, but varied the number of patients in the trial. Among the designs, we compared the proportion of patients assigned to the superior arm, overall response rate, statistical power, and total patients enrolled in the trial with and without adding an efficacy early stopping rule. Without early stopping, ER is preferred when the number of patients beyond the trial is much larger than the number of patients in the trial. RAR is favored for large treatment difference or when the number of patients beyond the trial is small. With early stopping, the difference between these two types of designs was reduced. By carefully choosing the design parameters, both RAR and ER methods can achieve the desirable statistical properties. Within three RAR methods, we recommend SPM considering the larger proportion in the better arm and higher overall response rate than BAR and similar power and trial size with ER. The ultimate choice of RAR or ER methods depends on the investigator's preference, the trade-off between group ethics and individual ethics, and logistic considerations in the trial conduct, etc.
| S-EPMC4314433 | biostudies-other
Project description:BACKGROUND:Randomized controlled trials are the gold-standard for clinical trials. However, randomization is not always feasible. In this article we propose a prospective and adaptive matched case-control trial design assuming that a control group already exists. METHODS:We propose and discuss an interim analysis step to estimate the matching rate using a resampling step followed by a sample size recalculation. The sample size recalculation is based on the observed mean resampling matching rate. We applied our approach in a simulation study and to a real data set to evaluate the characteristics of the proposed design and to compare the results to a naive approach. RESULTS:The proposed design achieves at least 10% higher matching rate than the naive approach at final analysis, thus providing a better estimation of the true matching rate. A good choice for the interim analysis seems to be a fraction of around [Formula: see text] to [Formula: see text] of the control patients. CONCLUSION:The proposed resampling step in a prospective matched case-control trial design leads to an improved estimate of the final matching rate and, thus, to a gain in power of the approach due to sensible sample size recalculation.
| S-EPMC6636117 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In an era of precision medicine, as advanced technology such as molecular profiling at individual patient level has been developed and become increasingly accessible and affordable, biomarker-driven trials have been received a lot of attention and are expected to receive more attention in order to integrate clinical practice with clinical research. Biomarkers play a critical role to identify patients who are expected to get benefit from a treatment, and it is important to effectively incorporate the biomarkers into clinical trials to understand the biomarker-treatment relationship and increase the efficiency. We investigate incorporating biomarkers in adaptive randomization to identify patients who would respond better to the treatment and optimize the treatment allocation. The covariate-adjusted variants of the existing response-adaptive randomization are used to implement biomarker-driven randomization, and the performance of the biomarker-driven randomization is compared with the existing randomization methods, such as traditional fixed randomization with equal probability and response-adaptive randomization without incorporating biomarkers, under the group sequential design allowing early stopping due to superiority and futility. Various scenarios are taken into account to see the impact of the biomarker-driven randomization in the simulation study. It shows that the overall type I error rate is likely to be inflated by the effect of prognostic biomarkers. Several suggestions and considerations for the challenges are discussed to maintain the type I error rate at the nominal level.
| S-EPMC9577777 | biostudies-literature