Dataset Information

Independence estimators for re-randomisation trials in multi-episode settings: a simulation study

ABSTRACT:

Background

Re-randomisation trials involve re-enrolling and re-randomising patients for each new treatment episode they experience. They are often used when interest lies in the average effect of an intervention across all the episodes for which it would be used in practice. Re-randomisation trials are often analysed using independence estimators, where a working independence correlation structure is used. However, research into independence estimators in the context of re-randomisation has been limited.

Methods

We performed a simulation study to evaluate the use of independence estimators in re-randomisation trials. We focussed on a continuous outcome, and the setting where treatment allocation does not affect occurrence of subsequent episodes. We evaluated different treatment effect mechanisms (e.g. by allowing the treatment effect to vary across episodes, or to become less effective on re-use, etc), and different non-enrolment mechanisms (e.g. where patients who experience a poor outcome are less likely to re-enrol for their second episode). We evaluated four different independence estimators, each corresponding to a different estimand (per-episode and per-patient approaches, and added-benefit and policy-benefit approaches).

Results

We found that independence estimators were unbiased for the per-episode added-benefit estimand in all scenarios we considered. We found independence estimators targeting other estimands (per-patient or policy-benefit) were unbiased, except when there was differential non-enrolment between treatment groups (i.e. when different types of patients from each treatment group decide to re-enrol for subsequent episodes). We found the use of robust standard errors provided close to nominal coverage in all settings where the estimator was unbiased.

Conclusions

Careful choice of estimand can ensure re-randomisation trials are addressing clinically relevant questions. Independence estimators are a useful approach, and should be considered as the default estimator until the statistical properties of alternative estimators are thoroughly evaluated.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01433-4.

SUBMITTER: Kahan B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8557515 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn a non-inferiority (NI) trial, analysis based on the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle is anti-conservative, so current guidelines recommend analysing on a per-protocol (PP) population in addition. However, PP analysis relies on the often implausible assumption of no confounders. Randomisation-based efficacy estimators (RBEEs) allow for treatment non-adherence while maintaining a comparison of randomised groups. Fischer et al. have developed an approach for estimating RBEEs in randomised trials with two active treatments, a common feature of NI trials. The aim of this paper was to demonstrate the use of RBEEs in NI trials using this approach, and to appraise the feasibility of these estimators as the primary analysis in NI trials.MethodsTwo NI trials were used. One comparing two different dosing regimens for the maintenance of remission in people with ulcerative colitis (CODA), and the other comparing an orally administered treatment to an intravenously administered treatment in preventing skeletal-related events in patients with bone metastases from breast cancer (ZICE). Variables that predicted adherence in each of the trial arms, and were also independent of outcome, were sought in each of the studies. Structural mean models (SMMs) were fitted that conditioned on these variables, and the point estimates and confidence intervals compared to that found in the corresponding ITT and PP analyses.ResultsIn the CODA study, no variables were found that differentially predicted treatment adherence while remaining independent of outcome. The SMM, using standard methodology, moved the point estimate closer to 0 (no difference between arms) compared to the ITT and PP analyses, but the confidence interval was still within the NI margin, indicating that the conclusions drawn would remain the same. In the ZICE study, cognitive functioning as measured by the corresponding domain of the QLQ-C30, and use of chemotherapy at baseline were both differentially associated with adherence while remaining independent of outcome. However, while the SMM again moved the point estimate closer to 0, the confidence interval was wide, overlapping with any NI margin that could be justified.ConclusionDeriving RBEEs in NI trials with two active treatments can provide a randomisation-respecting estimate of treatment efficacy that accounts for treatment adherence, is straightforward to implement, but requires thorough planning during the design stage of the study to ensure that strong baseline predictors of treatment are captured. Extension of the approach to handle nonlinear outcome variables is also required.Trial registrationThe CODA study: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00708656 . Registered on 8 April 2008. The ZICE study trial: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT00326820 . Registered on 16 May 2006.

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:BackgroundThe Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial is aimed at addressing the urgent need to find effective treatments for patients hospitalised with suspected or confirmed COVID-19. The trial has had many successes, including discovering that dexamethasone is effective at reducing COVID-19 mortality, the first treatment to reach this milestone in a randomised controlled trial. Despite this, it continues to use standard or 'fixed' randomisation to allocate patients to treatments. We assessed the impact of implementing response adaptive randomisation within RECOVERY using an array of performance measures, to learn if it could be beneficial going forward. This design feature has recently been implemented within the REMAP-CAP platform trial.MethodsTrial data was simulated to closely match the data for patients allocated to standard care, dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, or lopinavir-ritonavir in the RECOVERY trial from March-June 2020, representing four out of five arms tested throughout this period. Trials were simulated in both a two-arm trial setting using standard care and dexamethasone, and a four-arm trial setting utilising all above treatments. Two forms of fixed randomisation and two forms of response-adaptive randomisation were tested. In the two-arm setting, response-adaptive randomisation was implemented across both trial arms, whereas in the four-arm setting it was implemented in the three non-standard care arms only. In the two-arm trial, randomisation strategies were performed at the whole trial level as well as within three pre-specified patient subgroups defined by patients' respiratory support level.ResultsAll response-adaptive randomisation strategies led to more patients being given dexamethasone and a lower mortality rate in the trial. Subgroup specific response-adaptive randomisation reduced mortality rates even further. In the two-arm trial, response-adaptive randomisation reduced statistical power compared to FR, with subgroup level adaptive randomisation exhibiting the largest power reduction. In the four-arm trial, response-adaptive randomisation increased statistical power in the dexamethasone arm but reduced statistical power in the lopinavir arm. Response-adaptive randomisation did not induce any meaningful bias in treatment effect estimates nor did it cause any inflation in the type 1 error rate.ConclusionsUsing response-adaptive randomisation within RECOVERY could have increased the number of patients receiving the optimal COVID-19 treatment during the trial, while reducing the number of patients needed to attain the same study power as the original study. This would likely have reduced patient deaths during the trial and lead to dexamethasone being declared effective sooner. Deciding how to balance the needs of patients within a trial and future patients who have yet to fall ill is an important ethical question for the trials community to address. Response-adaptive randomisation deserves to be considered as a design feature in future trials of COVID-19 and other diseases.

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.