Dataset Information

Stratified randomization for platform trials with differing experimental arm eligibility.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Platform trials facilitate efficient use of resources by comparing multiple experimental agents to a common standard of care arm. They can accommodate a changing scientific paradigm within a single trial protocol by adding or dropping experimental arms-critical features for trials in rapidly developing disease areas such as COVID-19 or cancer therapeutics. However, in these trials, efficacy and safety issues may render certain participant subgroups ineligible to some experimental arms, and methods for stratified randomization do not readily apply to this setting.

Methods

We propose extensions for conventional methods of stratified randomization for platform trials whose experimental arms may differ in eligibility criteria. These methods balance on a prespecified set of stratification variables observable prior to arm assignment that remains the same across experimental arms. To do so, we suggest modifying block randomization by including experimental arm eligibility as a stratifying variable, and we suggest modifying the imbalance score calculation in dynamic balancing by performing pairwise comparisons between each eligible experimental arm and standard of care arm participants eligible to that experimental arm.

Results

We provide worked examples to illustrate the proposed extensions. In addition, we also provide a formula to quantify the relative efficiency loss of platform trials with varying eligibility compared with trials with non-varying eligibility as measured by the size of the common standard of care arm.

Conclusions

This article presents important extensions to conventional methods for stratified randomization in order to facilitate the implementation of platform trials with differing experimental arm eligibility.

SUBMITTER: Selukar S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8478711 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundIn cluster-randomized controlled trials (C-RCTs), covariate-constrained randomization (CCR) methods efficiently control imbalance in multiple baseline cluster-level variables, but the choice of imbalance metric to define the subset of "adequately balanced" possible allocation schemes for C-RCTs involving more than two arms and continuous variables is unclear. In an ongoing three-armed C-RCT, we chose the min(three Kruskal-Wallis [KW] test P values) > 0.30 as our metric. We use simulation studies to explore the performance of this and other metrics of baseline variable imbalance in CCR.MethodsWe simulated three continuous variables across three arms under varying allocation ratios and assumptions. We compared the performance of min(analysis of variance [ANOVA] P value) > 0.30, min(KW P value) > 0.30, multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) P value > 0.30, min(nine possible t test P values) > 0.30, and min(Wilcoxon rank-sum [WRS] P values) > 0.30.ResultsPairwise comparison metrics (t test and WRS) tended to be the most conservative, providing the smallest subset of allocation schemes (10%-13%) meeting criteria for acceptable balance. Sensitivity of the min(t test P values) > 0.30 for detecting non-trivial imbalance was 100% for both hypothetical and resampled simulation scenarios. The KW criterion maintained higher sensitivity than both the MANOVA and ANOVA criteria (89% to over 99%) but was not as sensitive as pairwise criteria.ConclusionsOur criterion, the KW P value > 0.30, to signify "acceptable" balance was not the most conservative, but it appropriately identified imbalance in the majority of simulations. Since all are related, CCR algorithms involving any of these imbalance metrics for continuous baseline variables will ensure robust simultaneous control over multiple continuous baseline variables, but we recommend care in determining the threshold of "acceptable" levels of (im)balance.Trial registrationThis trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (initial post: December 1, 2016; identifier: NCT02979444 ).

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.