Response-adaptive randomization for clinical trials with adjustment for covariate imbalance.

Division of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, The University of Texas, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Statistics in Medicine (Impact Factor: 2.04). 07/2010; 29(17):1761-8. DOI: 10.1002/sim.3978
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT In clinical trials with a small sample size, the characteristics (covariates) of patients assigned to different treatment arms may not be well balanced. This may lead to an inflated type I error rate. This problem can be more severe in trials that use response-adaptive randomization rather than equal randomization because the former may result in smaller sample sizes for some treatment arms. We have developed a patient allocation scheme for trials with binary outcomes to adjust the covariate imbalance during response-adaptive randomization. We used simulation studies to evaluate the performance of the proposed design. The proposed design keeps the important advantage of a standard response-adaptive design, that is to assign more patients to the better treatment arms, and thus it is ethically appealing. On the other hand, the proposed design improves over the standard response-adaptive design by controlling covariate imbalance between treatment arms, maintaining the nominal type I error rate, and offering greater power.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: It is well known that competing demands exist between the control of important covariate imbalance and protection of treatment allocation randomness in confirmative clinical trials. When implementing a response-adaptive randomization algorithm in confirmative clinical trials designed under a frequentist framework, additional competing demands emerge between the shift of the treatment allocation ratio and the preservation of the power. Based on a large multicenter phase III stroke trial, we present a patient randomization scheme that manages these competing demands by applying a newly developed minimal sufficient balancing design for baseline covariates and a cap on the treatment allocation ratio shift in order to protect the allocation randomness and the power. Statistical properties of this randomization plan are studied by computer simulation. Trial operation characteristics, such as patient enrollment rate and primary outcome response delay, are also incorporated into the randomization plan. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Statistics in Medicine 05/2014; · 2.04 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Continued growth in the field of adult congenital heart disease has given rise to a critical mass of patients, investigators and resources dedicated to advancing knowledge through research. Impressive gains over the past decade have largely been driven by successful observational studies. Despite the privileged role of clinical trials in the hierarchy of evidence-based medicine, few such studies have thus far been conducted in adult congenital heart disease. Obstacles and challenges particular to clinical trials in adult congenital heart disease are addressed in this review. In looking ahead, examples of creative methodological solutions to maximizing the efficiency of clinical trials for rare diseases are discussed, including Bayesian analyses, outcome-adaptive randomization and internal pilot studies.
    Future Cardiology 03/2012; 8(2):297-304.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In many patients the optimal method of investigation of peripheral pulmonary lesions (PPL) is not clear. We performed a prospective randomized pragmatic trial to determine the comparative effectiveness of endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial lung biopsy (EBUS-TBLB) and CT-guided percutaneous needle biopsy (CT-PNB) for the investigation of PPL. Overall complication rates were higher in those undergoing CT-PNB (27% v 3%, p = 0.03), while diagnostic accuracy of EBUS-TBLB was shown to be non-inferior to that of CT-PNB. Expected diagnostic accuracy and complication rates are likely to differ for individual patients on the basis of specific complex clinicoradiologic factors, which will influence the cost-benefit analysis between EBUS-TBLB and CT-PNB for individual patients. Further studies are required to examine the effect of these factors on clinical decision-making.
    Respiratory medicine 08/2011; 105(11):1704-11. · 2.33 Impact Factor


Available from