The purpose of this paper is to investigate and develop methods for analysis of multi-center randomized clinical trials which only rely on the randomization process as a basis of inference. Our motivation is prompted by the fact that most current statistical procedures used in the analysis of randomized multi-center studies are model based. The randomization feature of the trials is usually ignored. An important characteristic of model based analysis is that it is straightforward to model covariates. Nevertheless, in nearly all model based analyses, the effects due to different centers and, in general, the design of the clinical trials are ignored. An alternative to a model based analysis is to have analyses guided by the design of the trial. Our development of design based methods allows the incorporation of centers as well as other features of the trial design. The methods make use of conditioning on the ancillary statistics in the sample space generated by the randomization process. We have investigated the power of the methods and have found that, in the presence of center variation, there is a significant increase in power. The methods have been extended to group sequential trials with similar increases in power.
Randomization is a common technique used in clinical trials to eliminate potential bias and confounders in a patient population. Equal allocation to treatment groups is the standard due to its optimal efficiency in many cases. However, in certain scenarios, unequal allocation can improve efficiency. In superiority trials with more than two groups, the optimal randomization is not always a balanced randomization. In non-inferiority trials, additive margin with equal variance is the only instance with balanced randomization. Optimal randomization for non-inferiority trials can be far from 1:1 an…
Response-Adaptive Randomization (RAR) is part of a wider class of data-dependent sampling algorithms, for which clinical trials are typically used as a motivating application. In that context, patient allocation to treatments is determined by randomization probabilities that change based on the accrued response data in order to achieve experimental goals. RAR has received abundant theoretical attention from the biostatistical literature since the 1930's and has been the subject of numerous debates. In the last decade, it has received renewed consideration from the applied and methodological co…
While the HVTN 505 trial showed no overall efficacy of the tested vaccine to prevent HIV infection over placebo, previous studies, biological theories, and the finding that immune response markers strongly correlated with infection in vaccine recipients generated the hypothesis that a qualitative interaction occurred. This hypothesis can be assessed with statistical methods for studying treatment effect modification by an intermediate response variable (i.e., principal stratification effect modification (PSEM) methods). However, available PSEM methods make untestable structural risk assumption…
[Invited Discussion] Randomization Tests to Address Disruptions in Clinical Trials: A Report from the NISS Ingram Olkin Forum Series on Unplanned Clinical Trial Disruptions
In clinical trials, response-adaptive randomization (RAR) has the appealing ability to assign more subjects to better-performing treatments based on interim results. The traditional RAR strategy alters the randomization ratio on a patient-by-patient basis; this has been heavily criticized for bias due to time-trends. An alternate approach is blocked RAR, which groups patients together in blocks and recomputes the randomization ratio in a block-wise fashion; the final analysis is then stratified by block. However, the typical blocked RAR design divides patients into equal-sized blocks, which is…
Two commonly used methods for improving precision and power in clinical trials are stratified randomization and covariate adjustment. However, many trials do not fully capitalize on the combined precision gains from these two methods, which can lead to wasted resources in terms of sample size and trial duration. We derive consistency and asymptotic normality of model-robust estimators that combine these two methods, and show that these estimators can lead to substantial gains in precision and power. Our theorems cover a class of estimators that handle continuous, binary, and time-to-event outc…
Response-adaptive randomization allows the probabilities of allocating patients to treatments in a clinical trial to change based on the previously observed response data, in order to achieve different experimental goals. One concern over the use of such designs in practice, particularly from a regulatory viewpoint, is controlling the type I error rate. To address this, Robertson and Wason (Biometrics, 2019) proposed methodology that guarantees familywise error rate control for a large class of response-adaptive designs. In this paper, we propose an improvement of their proposal that is concep…
Bayesian response adaptive clinical trials are currently evaluating experimental therapies for several diseases. Adaptive decisions, such as pre-planned variations of the randomization probabilities, attempt to accelerate the development of new treatments. The design of response adaptive trials, in most cases, requires time consuming simulation studies to describe operating characteristics, such as type I/II error rates, across plausible scenarios. We investigate large sample approximations of pivotal operating characteristics in Bayesian Uncertainty directed trial Designs (BUDs). A BUD trial …
Response adaptive randomization (RAR) is appealing from methodological, ethical, and pragmatic perspectives in the sense that subjects are more likely to be randomized to better performing treatment groups based on accumulating data. However, applications of RAR in confirmatory drug clinical trials with multiple active arms are limited largely due to its complexity, and lack of control of randomization ratios to different treatment groups. To address the aforementioned issues, we propose a Response Adaptive Block Randomization (RABR) design allowing arbitrarily pre-specified randomization rati…
In situations where it is difficult to enroll patients in randomized controlled trials, external data can improve efficiency and feasibility. In such cases, adaptive trial designs could be used to decrease enrollment in the control arm of the trial by updating the randomization ratio at the interim analysis. Updating the randomization ratio requires an estimate of the amount of information effectively borrowed from external data, which is typically done with a linear approximation. However, this linear approximation is not always a reliable estimate, which could potentially lead to sub-optimal…
The most common objective for response adaptive clinical trials is to seek to ensure that patients within a trial have a high chance of receiving the best treatment available by altering the chance of allocation on the basis of accumulating data. Approaches which yield good patient benefit properties suffer from low power from a frequentist perspective when testing for a treatment difference at the end of the study due to the high imbalance in treatment allocations. In this work we develop an alternative pairwise test for treatment difference on the basis of allocation probabilities of the cov…
Efforts to develop biomarker-targeted anti-cancer therapies have progressed rapidly in recent years. Six antibodies acting on programmed death ligand 1 or programmed death 1 pathways were approved in 75 cancer indications between 2015 and 2021. With efforts to expedite regulatory reviews of promising therapies, several targeted cancer therapies have been granted accelerated approval on the basis of single-arm phase II trials. And yet, in the absence of randomization, patient outcomes may not have been studied under standard of care chemotherapies for emerging biomarker subpopulations prior to …
In randomized clinical trials, adjustments for baseline covariates at both design and analysis stages are highly encouraged by regulatory agencies. A recent trend is to use a model-assisted approach for covariate adjustment to gain credibility and efficiency while producing asymptotically valid inference even when the model is incorrect. In this article we present three considerations for better practice when model-assisted inference is applied to adjust for covariates under simple or covariate-adaptive randomized trials: (1) guaranteed efficiency gain: a model-assisted method should often gai…
When choosing estimands and estimators in randomized clinical trials, caution is warranted as intercurrent events, such as - due to patients who switch treatment after disease progression, are often extreme. Statistical analyses may then easily lure one into making large implicit extrapolations, which often go unnoticed. We will illustrate this problem of implicit extrapolations using a real oncology case study, with a right-censored time-to-event endpoint, in which patients can cross over from the control to the experimental treatment after disease progression, for ethical reasons. We resolve…
Many phase II clinical trials have used survival outcomes as the primary endpoints in recent decades. Suppose the radiotherapy is evaluated in a phase II trial using survival outcomes. In that case, the competing risk issue often arises because the time to disease progression can be censored by the time to normal tissue complications, and vice versa. Besides, much literature has examined that patients receiving the same radiotherapy dose may yield distinct responses due to their heterogeneous radiation susceptibility statuses. Therefore, the "one-dose-fit-all" strategy often fails, and it is m…
Data-Adaptive and Model-Robust Covariate Adjustment for Time-to-Event Outcomes in Stratified Randomized Trials
Cornell Tech, Cornell University（康奈尔科技校区，康奈尔大学）；Department of Biostatistics, Department of Population Health, New York University School of Medicine（纽约大学医学院生物统计学系、人口健康系）
This paper studies the evaluation of methods for targeting the allocation of limited resources to a high-risk subpopulation. We consider a randomized controlled trial to measure the difference in efficiency between two targeting methods and show that it is biased. An alternative, survey-based design is shown to be unbiased. Both designs are simulated for the evaluation of a policy to target lead hazard investigations using a predictive model. Based on our findings, we advised the Chicago Department of Public Health to use the survey design for their field trial. Our work anticipates further de…
Covariate-adaptive randomization is popular in clinical trials with sequentially arrived patients for balancing treatment assignments across prognostic factors which may have influence on the response. However, existing theory on tests for treatment effect under covariate-adaptive randomization is limited to tests under linear or generalized linear models, although covariate-adaptive randomization has been used in survival analysis for a long time and its main application is in survival analysis. Often times, practitioners would simply adopt a conventional test such as the log-rank test or sco…
Cluster randomized trails (CRT) have been widely employed in medical and public health research. Many clinical count outcomes, such as the number of falls in nursing homes, exhibit excessive zero values. In the presence of zero inflation, traditional power analysis methods for count data based on Poisson or negative binomial distribution may be inadequate. In this study, we present a sample size method for CRTs with zero-inflated count outcomes. It is developed based on GEE regression directly modeling the marginal mean of a ZIP outcome, which avoids the challenge of testing two intervention e…
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for comparing the effectiveness of a new treatment to the current one (the control). Most RCTs allocate the patients to the treatment group and the control group by uniform randomization. We show that this procedure can be highly sub-optimal (in terms of learning) if -- as is often the case -- patients can be recruited in cohorts (rather than all at once), the effects on each cohort can be observed before recruiting the next cohort, and the effects are heterogeneous across identifiable subgroups of patients. We formulate the patient all…
Nonparametric covariate adjustment is considered for log-rank type tests of treatment effect with right-censored time-to-event data from clinical trials applying covariate-adaptive randomization. Our proposed covariate-adjusted log-rank test has a simple explicit formula and a guaranteed efficiency gain over the unadjusted test. We also show that our proposed test achieves universal applicability in the sense that the same formula of test can be universally applied to simple randomization and all commonly used covariate-adaptive randomization schemes such as the stratified permuted block and P…
While the gold standard for clinical trials is to blind all parties -- participants, researchers, and evaluators -- to treatment assignment, this is not always a possibility. When some or all of the above individuals know the treatment assignment, this leaves the study open to the introduction of post-randomization biases. In the Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) trial, we were presented with the potential for the unblinded clinicians administering the treatment, as well as the individuals enrolled in the study, to introduce ascertainment bias into some bu…
In the presence of prognostic covariates, inference about the treatment effect with time-to-event endpoints is mostly conducted via the stratified log-rank test or the score test based on the Cox proportional hazards model. In their ground-breaking work Ye and Shao (2020) have demonstrated theoretically that when the model is misspecified, the robust score test (Wei and Lin, 1989) as well as the unstratified log-rank test are conservative in trials with stratified randomization. This fact, however, was not established for the Pocock and Simon covariate-adaptive allocation other than through si…
A sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) facilitates comparison of multiple adaptive treatment strategies (ATSs) simultaneously. Previous studies have established a framework to test the homogeneity of multiple ATSs by a global Wald test through inverse probability weighting. SMARTs are generally lengthier than classical clinical trials due to the sequential nature of treatment randomization in multiple stages. Thus, it would be beneficial to add interim analyses allowing for early stop if overwhelming efficacy is observed. We introduce group sequential methods to SMARTs to fa…
The treatment effect in a specific subgroup is often of interest in randomized clinical trials. When the subgroup is characterized by the absence of certain post-randomization events, a naive analysis on the subset of patients without these events may be misleading. The principal stratification framework allows one to define an appropriate causal estimand in such settings. Statistical inference for the principal stratum estimand hinges on scientifically justified assumptions, which can be included with Bayesian methods through prior distributions. Our motivating example is a large randomized p…
In parametric Bayesian designs of early phase cancer clinical trials with drug combinations exploring a discrete set of partially ordered doses, several authors claimed that there is no added value in including an interaction term to model synergism between the two drugs. In this paper, we investigate these claims in the setting of continuous dose levels of the two agents. Parametric models will be used to describe the relationship between the doses of the two agents and the probability of dose limiting toxicity and efficacy. Trial design proceeds by treating cohorts of two patients simultaneo…
Clinical trials are an instrument for making informed decisions based on evidence from well-designed experiments. Here we consider adaptive designs mainly from the perspective of multi-arm Phase II clinical trials, in which one or more experimental treatments are compared to a control. Treatment allocation of individual trial participants is assumed to take place according to a fixed block randomization, albeit with an important twist: The performance of each treatment arm is assessed after every measured outcome, in terms of the posterior distribution of a corresponding model parameter. Diffe…
Marquette University（马凯特大学）；Oregon Clinical and Translational Research Institute（俄勒冈临床与转化研究所）；Oregon Health & Science University（俄勒冈健康与科学大学）
Explanatory studies, such as randomized controlled trials, are targeted to extract the true causal effect of interventions on outcomes and are by design adjusted for covariates through randomization. On the contrary, observational studies are a representation of events that occurred without intervention. Both can be illustrated using the Structural Causal Model (SCM), and do-calculus can be employed to estimate the causal effects. Pragmatic clinical trials (PCT) fall between these two ends of the trial design spectra and are thus hard to define. Due to its pragmatic nature, no standardized rep…
