Comparison of randomization techniques for clinical trials with data from the HOMERUS‐trial

Minimization in randomized clinical trials

In randomized trials, comparability of the treatment groups is ensured through allocation of treatments using a mechanism that involves some random element, thus controlling for confounding of the treatment effect. Completely random allocation ensures comparability between the treatment groups for all known and unknown prognostic factors. For a specific trial, however, imbalances in prognostic factors among the treatment groups may occur. Although accidental bias can be avoided in the presence of such imbalances by stratifying the analysis, most trialists, regulatory agencies, and other stakeholders prefer a balanced distribution of prognostic factors across the treatment groups. Some procedures attempt to achieve balance in baseline covariates, by stratifying the allocation for these covariates, or by dynamically adapting the allocation using covariate information during the trial (covariate-adaptive procedures). In this Tutorial, the performance of minimization, a popular covariate-adaptive procedure, is compared with two other commonly used procedures, completely random allocation and stratified blocked designs. Using individual patient data of 2 clinical trials (in advanced ovarian cancer and age-related macular degeneration), the procedures are compared in terms of operating characteristics (using asymptotic and randomization tests), predictability of treatment allocation, and achieved balance. Fifty actual trials of various sizes that applied minimization for treatment allocation are used to investigate the achieved balance. Implementation issues of minimization are described. Minimization procedures are useful in all trials but especially when (1) many major prognostic factors are known, (2) many centers of different sizes accrue patients, or (3) the trial sample size is moderate.

The Vitamins in Psychosis Study: A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial of the Effects of Vitamins B12, B6, and Folic Acid on Symptoms and Neurocognition in First-Episode Psychosis

BACKGROUND

Elevated homocysteine is observed in schizophrenia and associated with illness severity. The aim of this study was to determine whether vitamins B₁₂, B₆, and folic acid lower homocysteine and improve symptomatology and neurocognition in first-episode psychosis. Whether baseline homocysteine, genetic variation, sex, and diagnosis interact with B-vitamin treatment on outcomes was also examined.

METHODS

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was used. A total of 120 patients with first-episode psychosis were randomized to an adjunctive B-vitamin supplement (containing folic acid [5 mg], B₁₂ [0.4 mg], and B₆ [50 mg]) or placebo, taken once daily for 12 weeks. Coprimary outcomes were change in total symptomatology (Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale) and composite neurocognition. Secondary outcomes included additional measures of symptoms, neurocognition, functioning, tolerability, and safety.

RESULTS

B-vitamin supplementation reduced homocysteine levels (p = .003, effect size = -0.65). B-vitamin supplementation had no significant effects on Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale total (p = .749) or composite neurocognition (p = .785). There were no significant group differences in secondary symptom domains. A significant group difference in the attention/vigilance domain (p = .024, effect size = 0.49) showed that the B-vitamin group remained stable and the placebo group declined in performance. In addition, 14% of the sample had elevated baseline homocysteine levels, which was associated with greater improvements in one measure of attention/vigilance following B-vitamin supplementation. Being female and having affective psychosis was associated with improved neurocognition in select domains following B-vitamin supplementation. Genetic variation did not influence B-vitamin treatment response.

CONCLUSIONS

While 12-week B-vitamin supplementation might not improve overall psychopathology and global neurocognition, it may have specific neuroprotective properties in attention/vigilance, particularly in patients with elevated homocysteine levels, patients with affective psychosis, and female patients. Results support a personalized medicine approach to vitamin supplementation in first-episode psychosis.

Self-Measurement of Blood Pressure at Home Reduces the Need for Antihypertensive Drugs

It is still uncertain whether one can safely base treatment decisions on self-measurement of blood pressure. In the present study, we investigated whether antihypertensive treatment based on self-measurement of blood pressure leads to the use of less medication without the loss of blood pressure control. We randomly assigned 430 hypertensive patients to receive treatment either on the basis of self-measured pressures (n=216) or office pressures (OPs; n=214). During 1-year follow-up, blood pressure was measured by office measurement (10 visits), ambulatory monitoring (start and end), and self-measurement (8 times, self-pressure group only). In addition, drug use, associated costs, and degree of target organ damage (echocardiography and microalbuminuria) were assessed. The self-pressure group used less medication than the OP group (1.47 versus 2.48 drug steps; P <0.001) with lower costs ($3222 versus $4420 per 100 patients per month; P <0.001) but without significant differences in systolic and diastolic OP values (1.6/1.0 mm Hg; P =0.25/0.20), in changes in left ventricular mass index (−6.5 g/m 2 versus −5.6 g/m 2 ; P =0.72), or in median urinary microalbumin concentration (−1.7 versus −1.5 mg per 24 hours; P =0.87). Nevertheless, 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure values at the end of the trial were higher in the self-pressure than in the OP group: 125.9 versus 123.8 mm Hg ( P <0.05) for systolic and 77.2 versus 76.1 mm Hg ( P <0.05) for diastolic blood pressure. These data show that self-measurement leads to less medication use than office blood pressure measurement without leading to significant differences in OP values or target organ damage. Ambulatory values, however, remain slightly elevated for the self-pressure group.