Dataset Information

Design and analysis of stratified clinical trials in the presence of bias.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Among various design aspects, the choice of randomization procedure have to be agreed on, when planning a clinical trial stratified by center. The aim of the paper is to present a methodological approach to evaluate whether a randomization procedure mitigates the impact of bias on the test decision in clinical trial stratified by center.

Methods

We use the weighted t test to analyze the data from a clinical trial stratified by center with a two-arm parallel group design, an intended 1:1 allocation ratio, aiming to prove a superiority hypothesis with a continuous normal endpoint without interim analysis and no adaptation in the randomization process. The derivation is based on the weighted t test under misclassification, i.e. ignoring bias. An additive bias model combing selection bias and time-trend bias is linked to different stratified randomization procedures.

Results

Various aspects to formulate stratified versions of randomization procedures are discussed. A formula for sample size calculation of the weighted t test is derived and used to specify the tolerated imbalance allowed by some randomization procedures. The distribution of the weighted t test under misclassification is deduced, taking the sequence of patient allocation to treatment, i.e. the randomization sequence into account. An additive bias model combining selection bias and time-trend bias at strata level linked to the applied randomization sequence is proposed. With these before mentioned components, the potential impact of bias on the type one error probability depending on the selected randomization sequence and thus the randomization procedure is formally derived and exemplarily calculated within a numerical evaluation study.

Conclusion

The proposed biasing policy and test distribution are necessary to conduct an evaluation of the comparative performance of (stratified) randomization procedure in multi-center clinical trials with a two-arm parallel group design. It enables the choice of the best practice procedure. The evaluation stimulates the discussion about the level of evidence resulting in those kind of clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Hilgers RD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7270725 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Design and analysis of stratified clinical trials in the presence of bias.

Hilgers Ralf-Dieter RD Manolov Martin M Heussen Nicole N Rosenberger William F WF

Statistical methods in medical research 20190510 6

<h4>Background</h4>Among various design aspects, the choice of randomization procedure have to be agreed on, when planning a clinical trial stratified by center. The aim of the paper is to present a methodological approach to evaluate whether a randomization procedure mitigates the impact of bias on the test decision in clinical trial stratified by center.<h4>Methods</h4>We use the weighted <i>t</i> test to analyze the data from a clinical trial stratified by center with a two-arm parallel group ...[more]

PMID: 31074333

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGiven the inherent challenges of conducting randomized phase III trials in older cancer patients, single-arm phase II trials which assess the feasibility of a treatment that has already been shown to be effective in a younger population may provide a compelling alternative. Such an approach would need to evaluate treatment feasibility based on a composite endpoint that combines multiple clinical dimensions and to stratify older patients as fit or frail to account for the heterogeneity of the study population to recommend an appropriate treatment approach. In this context, stratified adaptive two-stage designs for binary or composite endpoints, initially developed for biomarker studies, allow to include two subgroups whilst maintaining competitive statistical performances. In practice, heterogeneity may indeed affect more than one dimension and incorporating co-primary endpoints, which independently assess each individual clinical dimension, would therefore appear quite pertinent. The current paper presents a novel phase II design for co-primary endpoints which takes into account the heterogeneity of a population. METHODS: We developed a stratified adaptive Bryant & Day design based on the Jones et al. and Parashar et al. algorithm. This two-stage design allows to jointly assess two dimensions (e.g. activity and toxicity) in two different subgroups. The operating characteristics of this new design were evaluated using examples and simulation comparisons with the Bryant & Day design in the context where the study population is stratified according to a pre-defined criterion.ResultsSimulation results demonstrated that the new design minimized the expected and maximum sample sizes as compared to parallel Bryant & Day designs (one in each subgroup), whilst controlling type I error rates and maintaining a competitive statistical power as well as a high probability of detecting heterogeneity.ConclusionsIn a heterogeneous population, this two-stage stratified adaptive phase II design provides a useful alternative to classical one and allows to identify a subgroup of interest without dramatically increasing sample size. As heterogeneity is not limited to older populations, this new design may also be relevant to other study populations such as children or adolescents and young adults or the development of targeted therapies based on a biomarker.

Project description:In the era of precision medicine, drugs are increasingly developed to target subgroups of patients with certain biomarkers. In large all-comer trials using a biomarker stratified design, the cost of treating and following patients for clinical outcomes may be prohibitive. With a fixed number of randomized patients, the efficiency of testing certain treatments parameters, including the treatment effect among biomarker-positive patients and the interaction between treatment and biomarker, can be improved by increasing the proportion of biomarker positives on study, especially when the prevalence rate of biomarker positives is low in the underlying patient population. When the cost of assessing the true biomarker is prohibitive, one can further improve the study efficiency by oversampling biomarker positives with a cheaper auxiliary variable or a surrogate biomarker that correlates with the true biomarker. To improve efficiency and reduce cost, we can adopt an enrichment strategy for both scenarios by concentrating on testing and treating patient subgroups that contain more information about specific treatment parameters of primary interest to the investigators. In the first scenario, an enriched biomarker stratified design enriches the cohort of randomized patients by directly oversampling the relevant patients with the true biomarker, while in the second scenario, an auxiliary-variable-enriched biomarker stratified design enriches the randomized cohort based on an inexpensive auxiliary variable, thereby avoiding testing the true biomarker on all screened patients and reducing treatment waiting time. For both designs, we discuss how to choose the optimal enrichment proportion when testing a single hypothesis or two hypotheses simultaneously. At a requisite power, we compare the two new designs with the BSD design in terms of the number of randomized patients and the cost of trial under scenarios mimicking real biomarker stratified trials. The new designs are illustrated with hypothetical examples for designing biomarker-driven cancer trials.

Project description:Conventional randomized placebo-controlled study design assumes the absence of drug*placebo interaction. We hypothesized the presence of such an interaction and that conventionally estimated drug effect might be biased. The objectives of the study were to determine the drug*placebo interaction effect (main) and compare conventionally estimated and interaction model-estimated drug effects (secondary).We used a hybrid of balanced placebo and randomized placebo-controlled designs. Four hundred eighty healthy volunteers were randomized to three groups. The first received hydroxyzine (25 mg) described as hydroxyzine or placebo, the second received placebo described as hydroxyzine or placebo, and the third received hydroxyzine and placebo described as unknown; each in a randomized crossover design. Seven participants failed to crossover. Group assignment was concealed from participants and study coordinators. Coordinators were blinded to group and intervention assignment. Participants and coordinators were deceived as to study objectives. Main outcomes were mean area-under-the-curve of drowsiness (therapeutic outcome) and mouth-dryness (adverse outcome), self-reported on 100 mm visual analog scale over 7 h. Drug, placebo, placebo?+?interaction, and total effects were estimated using analysis of covariance by comparing received hydroxyzine/told placebo to received placebo/told placebo, received placebo/told hydroxyzine to received placebo/told placebo, received hydroxyzine/told hydroxyzine to received hydroxyzine/told placebo, and received hydroxyzine/told hydroxyzine to received placebo/told placebo, respectively. Drug effect was also conventionally estimated in the third group.Mean (SD) age was 31.4 (6.6) years, 65% were males. There was significant difference between placebo?+?interaction effect and placebo effect for both drowsiness and mouth-dryness with a mean difference (95% confidence interval) of 35.1 (5.6 to 64.6) and 23.8 (2.4 to 45.2) mm*hr, respectively. Total effect was larger than the sum of drug and placebo effects for drowsiness (139.7 (109.8 to 169.6) vs. 99.1 (68.2 to 130.0) mm*hr) and mouth-dryness (63.6 (41.1 to 86.1) vs. 34.7 (11.1 to 58.4) mm*hr). Conventionally estimated drug effect was larger than interaction model-estimated drug effect for drowsiness (69.2 (45.5 to 92.8) vs. (58.3 (31.6 to 85.0) mm*hr) and mouth-dryness (19.9 (5.3 to 34.5) vs. 9.5 (-9.2 to 28.1) mm*hr).There is significant and important drug*placebo interaction effect that may bias conventionally estimated drug effect.ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT01501591 (registered December 25, 2011).

Project description:BackgroundPragmatic trials provide the opportunity to study the effectiveness of health interventions to improve care in real-world settings. However, use of open-cohort designs with patients becoming eligible after randomization and reliance on electronic health records (EHRs) to identify participants may lead to a form of selection bias referred to as identification bias. This bias can occur when individuals identified as a result of the treatment group assignment are included in analyses.MethodsTo demonstrate the importance of identification bias and how it can be addressed, we consider a motivating case study, the PRimary care Opioid Use Disorders treatment (PROUD) Trial. PROUD is an ongoing pragmatic, cluster-randomized implementation trial in six health systems to evaluate a program for increasing medication treatment of opioid use disorders (OUDs). A main study objective is to evaluate whether the PROUD intervention decreases acute care utilization among patients with OUD (effectiveness aim). Identification bias is a particular concern, because OUD is underdiagnosed in the EHR at baseline, and because the intervention is expected to increase OUD diagnosis among current patients and attract new patients with OUD to the intervention site. We propose a framework for addressing this source of bias in the statistical design and analysis.ResultsThe statistical design sought to balance the competing goals of fully capturing intervention effects and mitigating identification bias, while maximizing power. For the primary analysis of the effectiveness aim, identification bias was avoided by defining the study sample using pre-randomization data (pre-trial modeling demonstrated that the optimal approach was to use individuals with a prior OUD diagnosis). To expand generalizability of study findings, secondary analyses were planned that also included patients newly diagnosed post-randomization, with analytic methods to account for identification bias.ConclusionAs more studies seek to leverage existing data sources, such as EHRs, to make clinical trials more affordable and generalizable and to apply novel open-cohort study designs, the potential for identification bias is likely to become increasingly common. This case study highlights how this bias can be addressed in the statistical study design and analysis.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03407638. Registered on 23 January 2018.

Project description:Currently, a growing placebo response rate has been observed in clinical trials for antidepressant drugs, a phenomenon that has made it increasingly difficult to demonstrate efficacy. The sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD) is a clinical trial design that was proposed to address this issue. The SPCD theoretically has the potential to reduce the sample-size requirement for a clinical trial and to simultaneously enrich the study population to be less responsive to the placebo.Because the basic SPCD already reduces the placebo response by removing placebo responders between the first and second phases of a trial, the purpose of this study was to examine whether we can further improve the efficiency of the basic SPCD and whether we can do so when the projected underlying drug and placebo response rates differ considerably from the actual ones.Three adaptive designs that used interim analyses to readjust the length of study duration for individual patients were tested to reduce the sample-size requirement or increase the statistical power of the SPCD. Various simulations of clinical trials using the SPCD with interim analyses were conducted to test these designs through calculations of empirical power.From the simulations, we found that the adaptive designs can recover unnecessary resources spent in the traditional SPCD trial format with overestimated initial sample sizes and provide moderate gains in power. Under the first design, results showed up to a 25% reduction in person-days, with most power losses below 5%. In the second design, results showed up to a 8% reduction in person-days with negligible loss of power. In the third design using sample-size re-estimation, up to 25% power was recovered from underestimated sample-size scenarios.Given the numerous possible test parameters that could have been chosen for the simulations, the study's results are limited to situations described by the parameters that were used and may not generalize to all possible scenarios. Furthermore, dropout of patients is not considered in this study.It is possible to make an already complex design such as the SPCD adaptive, and thus more efficient, potentially overcoming the problem of placebo response at lower cost. Ultimately, such a design may expedite the approval of future effective treatments.

Dataset Information

Design and analysis of stratified clinical trials in the presence of bias.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Design and analysis of stratified clinical trials in the presence of bias.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets