Randomization tests for multiarmed randomized clinical trials

Assessing intervention effects in a randomized trial within a social network

Studies of social networks provide unique opportunities to assess the causal effects of interventions that may impact more of the population than just those intervened on directly. Such effects are sometimes called peer or spillover effects, and may exist in the presence of interference, that is, when one individual's treatment affects another individual's outcome. Randomization-based inference (RI) methods provide a theoretical basis for causal inference in randomized studies, even in the presence of interference. In this article, we consider RI of the intervention effect in the eX-FLU trial, a randomized study designed to assess the effect of a social distancing intervention on influenza-like-illness transmission in a connected network of college students. The approach considered enables inference about the effect of the social distancing intervention on the per-contact probability of influenza-like-illness transmission in the observed network. The methods allow for interference between connected individuals and for heterogeneous treatment effects. The proposed methods are evaluated empirically via simulation studies, and then applied to data from the eX-FLU trial.

On model-based time trend adjustments in platform trials with non-concurrent controls

BACKGROUND

Platform trials can evaluate the efficacy of several experimental treatments compared to a control. The number of experimental treatments is not fixed, as arms may be added or removed as the trial progresses. Platform trials are more efficient than independent parallel group trials because of using shared control groups. However, for a treatment entering the trial at a later time point, the control group is divided into concurrent controls, consisting of patients randomised to control when that treatment arm is in the platform, and non-concurrent controls, patients randomised before. Using non-concurrent controls in addition to concurrent controls can improve the trial's efficiency by increasing power and reducing the required sample size, but can introduce bias due to time trends.

METHODS

We focus on a platform trial with two treatment arms and a common control arm. Assuming that the second treatment arm is added at a later time, we assess the robustness of recently proposed model-based approaches to adjust for time trends when utilizing non-concurrent controls. In particular, we consider approaches where time trends are modeled either as linear in time or as a step function, with steps at time points where treatments enter or leave the platform trial. For trials with continuous or binary outcomes, we investigate the type 1 error rate and power of testing the efficacy of the newly added arm, as well as the bias and root mean squared error of treatment effect estimates under a range of scenarios. In addition to scenarios where time trends are equal across arms, we investigate settings with different time trends or time trends that are not additive in the scale of the model.

RESULTS

A step function model, fitted on data from all treatment arms, gives increased power while controlling the type 1 error, as long as the time trends are equal for the different arms and additive on the model scale. This holds even if the shape of the time trend deviates from a step function when patients are allocated to arms by block randomisation. However, if time trends differ between arms or are not additive to treatment effects in the scale of the model, the type 1 error rate may be inflated.

CONCLUSIONS

The efficiency gained by using step function models to incorporate non-concurrent controls can outweigh potential risks of biases, especially in settings with small sample sizes. Such biases may arise if the model assumptions of equality and additivity of time trends are not satisfied. However, the specifics of the trial, scientific plausibility of different time trends, and robustness of results should be carefully considered.

Constrained randomization and statistical inference for multi‐arm parallel cluster randomized controlled trials

A practical limitation of cluster randomized controlled trials (cRCTs) is that the number of available clusters may be small, resulting in an increased risk of baseline imbalance under simple randomization. Constrained randomization overcomes this issue by restricting the allocation to a subset of randomization schemes where sufficient overall covariate balance across comparison arms is achieved. However, for multi-arm cRCTs, several design and analysis issues pertaining to constrained randomization have not been fully investigated. Motivated by an ongoing multi-arm cRCT, we elaborate the method of constrained randomization and provide a comprehensive evaluation of the statistical properties of model-based and randomization-based tests under both simple and constrained randomization designs in multi-arm cRCTs, with varying combinations of design and analysis-based covariate adjustment strategies. In particular, as randomization-based tests have not been extensively studied in multi-arm cRCTs, we additionally develop most-powerful randomization tests under the linear mixed model framework for our comparisons. Our results indicate that under constrained randomization, both model-based and randomization-based analyses could gain power while preserving nominal type I error rate, given proper analysis-based adjustment for the baseline covariates. Randomization-based analyses, however, are more robust against violations of distributional assumptions. The choice of balance metrics and candidate set sizes and their implications on the testing of the pairwise and global hypotheses are also discussed. Finally, we caution against the design and analysis of multi-arm cRCTs with an extremely small number of clusters, due to insufficient degrees of freedom and the tendency to obtain an overly restricted randomization space.

Pharmacometrics meets statistics-A synergy for modern drug development

Modern drug development problems are very complex and require integration of various scientific fields. Traditionally, statistical methods have been the primary tool for design and analysis of clinical trials. Increasingly, pharmacometric approaches using physiology-based drug and disease models are applied in this context. In this paper, we show that statistics and pharmacometrics have more in common than what keeps them apart, and collectively, the synergy from these two quantitative disciplines can provide greater advances in clinical research and development, resulting in novel and more effective medicines to patients with medical need.

A simple solution to the inadequacy of asymptotic likelihood-based inference for response-adaptive clinical trials

The present paper discusses drawbacks and limitations of likelihood-based inference in sequential clinical trials for treatment comparisons managed via Response-Adaptive Randomization. Taking into account the most common statistical models for the primary outcome—namely binary, Poisson, exponential and normal data—we derive the conditions under which (i) the classical confidence intervals degenerate and (ii) the Wald test becomes inconsistent and strongly affected by the nuisance parameters, also displaying a non monotonic power. To overcome these drawbacks, we provide a very simple solution that could preserve the fundamental properties of likelihood-based inference. Several illustrative examples and simulation studies are presented in order to confirm the relevance of our results and provide some practical recommendations.

Randomization-based interval estimation in randomized clinical trials

Randomization-based interval estimation takes into account the particular randomization procedure in the analysis and preserves the confidence level even in the presence of heterogeneity. It is distinguished from population-based confidence intervals with respect to three aspects: definition, computation, and interpretation. The article contributes to the discussion of how to construct a confidence interval for a treatment difference from randomization tests when analyzing data from randomized clinical trials. The discussion covers (i) the definition of a confidence interval for a treatment difference in randomization-based inference, (ii) computational algorithms for efficiently approximating the endpoints of an interval, and (iii) evaluation of statistical properties (ie, coverage probability and interval length) of randomization-based and population-based confidence intervals under a selected set of randomization procedures when assuming heterogeneity in patient outcomes. The method is illustrated with a case study.