Utility of Covariate-Adjusted Response-Adaptive Randomization in Survival Trials

Using biomarkers to allocate patients in a response-adaptive clinical trial

In this paper, we discuss a response adaptive randomization method, and why it should be used in clinical trials for rare diseases compared to a randomized controlled trial with equal fixed randomization. The developed method uses a patient's biomarkers to alter the allocation probability to each treatment, in order to emphasize the benefit to the trial population. The method starts with an initial burn-in period of a small number of patients, who with equal probability, are allocated to each treatment. We then use a regression method to predict the best outcome of the next patient, using their biomarkers and the information from the previous patients. This estimated best treatment is assigned to the next patient with high probability. A completed clinical trial for the effect of catumaxomab on the survival of cancer patients is used as an example to demonstrate the use of the method and the differences to a controlled trial with equal allocation. Different regression procedures are investigated and compared to a randomized controlled trial, using efficacy and ethical measures.

Model-based adaptive randomization procedures for heteroscedasticity of treatment responses

In clinical trials, the responses of patients usually depend on the assigned treatment as well as some important covariates, which may cause heteroscedasticity in treatment responses. As clinical trials are generally designed to demonstrate efficacy for the overall population, they are usually not adequately powered for detecting interactions. To improve the power of interaction tests, this article develops two model-based adaptive randomization procedures for heteroscedasticity of treatment responses, and derives their limiting allocation proportions, which are generalizations of the Neyman allocation. Issues of hypothesis testing and sample size estimation are also addressed. Simulation studies show that compared with complete randomization, the two model-based randomization procedures have greater power to detect differences in systematic effects, main treatment effects and treatment-covariate interactions. In addition, the validity of limiting allocation proportion is also verified through simulations.

A matching procedure for sequential experiments that iteratively learns which covariates improve power

We propose a dynamic allocation procedure that increases power and efficiency when measuring an average treatment effect in sequential randomized trials exploiting some subjects' previous assessed responses. Subjects arrive sequentially and are either randomized or paired to a previously randomized subject and administered the alternate treatment. The pairing is made via a dynamic matching criterion that iteratively learns which specific covariates are important to the response. We develop estimators for the average treatment effect as well as an exact test. We illustrate our method's increase in efficiency and power over other allocation procedures in both simulated scenarios and a clinical trial dataset. An R package "SeqExpMatch" for use by practitioners is available on CRAN.

Comparison of treatments with ordinal responses in trials with sequential monitoring and response-adaptive randomization

In clinical trials, comparisons of treatments with ordinal responses are frequently conducted using the proportional odds model. However, the use of this model necessitates the adoption of the proportional odds assumption, which may not be appropriate. In particular, when responses are skewed, the use of the proportional odds model may result in a markedly inflated type I error rate. The latent Weibull distribution has recently been proposed to remedy this problem, and it has been demonstrated to be superior to the proportional odds model, especially when response-adaptive randomization is incorporated. However, there are several drawbacks associated with the latent Weibull model and the previously suggested response-adaptive treatment randomization scheme. In this paper, we propose the modified latent Weibull model to address these issues. Based on the modified latent Weibull model, the original response-adaptive design was also revised. In addition, the group sequential monitoring mechanism was included to enable interim analyses to be performed to determine, during a trial, whether a specific treatment is significantly more effective than another. If so, this will enable the trial to be terminated at a much earlier stage than a trial based on a fixed sample size. We performed a simulation study that clearly demonstrated the merits of our proposed framework. Furthermore, we redesigned a clinical study to further illustrate the advantages of our response-adaptive approach.

Evaluating response-adaptive randomization procedures for recurrent events and terminal event data using a composite endpoint

Recurrent event and terminal event data commonly arise in clinical and observational studies. To evaluate the efficacy of a treatment effect for both types of events, a composite endpoint has been used as a possible assessment, particularly when faced with high costs and a longer follow-up study. To model recurrent event processes complicated by the existence of a terminal event, joint frailty modeling has been typically employed. In this study, the objective was to develop some target-driven response adaptive randomization strategies using a composite endpoint based on joint frailty modeling. We first implemented a balanced randomized design and then investigated the response adaptive randomization. The former is intuitively first adopted while the latter is expected to be desirable and ethical in terms of allocating more subjects to the more effective treatment. The results show that the proposed procedures using a composite endpoint are capable of reducing the number of trial participants who receive inferior treatment while simultaneously reaching a desired optimal target as compared to a balanced randomized design. The R shiny application for calculating the sample size and allocation probabilities is also available. Finally, two clinical trials were used as pilot datasets to introduce the proposed procedures.

Response-adaptive treatment allocation for clinical studies with recurrent event and terminal event data

In long-term clinical studies, recurrent event data are frequently collected to contrast the efficacy of two different treatments. However, the recurrent event process can be stopped by a terminal event, such as death. For analyzing recurrent event and terminal event data, joint frailty modeling has recently received considerable attention because it makes it possible to study the joint evolution over time of both recurrent and terminal event processes and gives consistent and efficient parameters. For a two-arm clinical trial design based on these data sets, there has been limited research on investigating the balanced design, let alone adaptive treatment allocation. Although equal sample size allocation obtained for both treatments is intuitively first adopted in a trial design, if one treatment is expected to be superior, it may be desirable to allocate more subjects to the effective treatment. In this article, we calculate the required sample size based on restricted randomization and then propose a target response-adaptive randomization procedure for recurrent and terminal event outcomes based on the joint frailty model. A randomization procedure, the doubly adaptive biased coin design that targets some optimal allocations, is implemented. The proposed adaptive treatment allocation schemes have been shown to be capable of reducing the number of trial participants who receive inferior treatment while simultaneously reaching an optimal target, as well as retaining a comparable test power as compared to a restricted randomization design. Finally, two clinical studies, the COAPT trial and the A-HeFT trial, are used to illustrate the advantages of adopting the proposed procedure.

Optimal and ethical designs for hypothesis testing in multi-arm exponential trials

Multi-arm clinical trials are complex experiments which involve several objectives. The demand for unequal allocations in a multi-treatment context is growing and adaptive designs are being increasingly used in several areas of medical research. For uncensored and censored exponential responses, we propose a constrained optimization approach in order to derive the design maximizing the power of the multivariate test of homogeneity, under a suitable ethical constraint. In the absence of censoring, we obtain a very simple closed-form solution that dominates the balanced design in terms of power and ethics. Our suggestion can also accommodate delayed responses and staggered entries, and can be implemented via response adaptive rules. While other targets proposed in the literature could present an unethical behavior, the suggested optimal allocation is frequently unbalanced by assigning more patients to the best treatment, both in the absence and presence of censoring. We evaluate the operating characteristics of our proposal theoretically and by simulations, also redesigning a real lung cancer trial, showing that the constrained optimal target guarantees very good performances in terms of ethical demands, power and estimation precision. Therefore, it is a valid and useful tool in designing clinical trials, especially oncological trials and clinical experiments for grave and novel infectious diseases, where the ethical concern is of primary importance.

Compound optimal allocations for survival clinical trials

The aim of the present paper is to provide optimal allocations for comparative clinical trials with survival outcomes. The suggested targets are derived adopting a compound optimization strategy based on a subjective weighting of the relative importance of inferential demands and ethical concerns. The ensuing compound optimal targets are continuous functions of the treatment effects, so we provide the conditions under which they can be approached by standard response-adaptive randomization procedures, also guaranteeing the applicability of the classical asymptotic inference. The operating characteristics of the suggested methodology are verified both theoretically and by simulation, including the robustness to model misspecification. With respect to the other available proposals, our strategy always assigns more patients to the best treatment without compromising inference, taking into account estimation efficiency and power as well. We illustrate our procedure by redesigning two real oncological trials.

Response-adaptive treatment allocation for survival trials with clustered right-censored data

A comparison of 2 treatments with survival outcomes in a clinical study may require treatment randomization on clusters of multiple units with correlated responses. For example, for patients with otitis media in both ears, a specific treatment is normally given to a single patient, and hence, the 2 ears constitute a cluster. Statistical procedures are available for comparison of treatment efficacies. The conventional approach for treatment allocation is the adoption of a balanced design, in which half of the patients are assigned to each treatment arm. However, considering the increasing acceptability of responsive-adaptive designs in recent years because of their desirable features, we have developed a response-adaptive treatment allocation scheme for survival trials with clustered data. The proposed treatment allocation scheme is superior to the balanced design in that it allows more patients to receive the better treatment. At the same time, the test power for comparing treatment efficacies using our treatment allocation scheme remains highly competitive. The advantage of the proposed randomization procedure is supported by a simulation study and the redesign of a clinical study.

A class of Covariate-Adjusted Response-Adaptive Allocation Designs for Multitreatment Binary Response Trials

A class of covariate-adjusted response-adaptive randomization procedures is developed for binary treatment outcomes in a phase III clinical trial set up involving multiple treatments. The target allocation is developed by combining the ethical aspects with statistical precision under the existence of treatment covariate interaction. Relevant measures of the performance for the proposed allocation designs are studied and compared.

Covariate-adjusted response-adaptive randomization for multi-arm clinical trials using a modified forward looking Gittins index rule

We introduce a non-myopic, covariate-adjusted response adaptive (CARA) allocation design for multi-armed clinical trials. The allocation scheme is a computationally tractable procedure based on the Gittins index solution to the classic multi-armed bandit problem and extends the procedure recently proposed in Villar et al. (2015). Our proposed CARA randomization procedure is defined by reformulating the bandit problem with covariates into a classic bandit problem in which there are multiple combination arms, considering every arm per each covariate category as a distinct treatment arm. We then apply a heuristically modified Gittins index rule to solve the problem and define allocation probabilities from the resulting solution. We report the efficiency, balance, and ethical performance of our approach compared to existing CARA methods using a recently published clinical trial as motivation. The net savings in terms of expected number of treatment failures is considerably larger and probably enough to make this design attractive for certain studies where known covariates are expected to be important, stratification is not desired, treatment failures have a high ethical cost, and the disease under study is rare. In a two-armed context, this patient benefit advantage comes at the expense of increased variability in the allocation proportions and a reduction in statistical power. However, in a multi-armed context, simple modifications of the proposed CARA rule can be incorporated so that an ethical advantage can be offered without sacrificing power in comparison with balanced designs.

A Bayesian Hybrid Adaptive Randomisation Design for Clinical Trials with Survival Outcomes

BACKGROUND

Response-adaptive randomisation designs have been proposed to improve the efficiency of phase III randomised clinical trials and improve the outcomes of the clinical trial population. In the setting of failure time outcomes, Zhang and Rosenberger (2007) developed a response-adaptive randomisation approach that targets an optimal allocation, based on a fixed sample size.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this research is to propose a response-adaptive randomisation procedure for survival trials with an interim monitoring plan, based on the following optimal criterion: for fixed variance of the estimated log hazard ratio, what allocation minimizes the expected hazard of failure? We demonstrate the utility of the design by redesigning a clinical trial on multiple myeloma.

METHODS

To handle continuous monitoring of data, we propose a Bayesian response-adaptive randomisation procedure, where the log hazard ratio is the effect measure of interest. Combining the prior with the normal likelihood, the mean posterior estimate of the log hazard ratio allows derivation of the optimal target allocation. We perform a simulation study to assess and compare the performance of this proposed Bayesian hybrid adaptive design to those of fixed, sequential or adaptive - either frequentist or fully Bayesian - designs. Non informative normal priors of the log hazard ratio were used, as well as mixture of enthusiastic and skeptical priors. Stopping rules based on the posterior distribution of the log hazard ratio were computed. The method is then illustrated by redesigning a phase III randomised clinical trial of chemotherapy in patients with multiple myeloma, with mixture of normal priors elicited from experts.

RESULTS

As expected, there was a reduction in the proportion of observed deaths in the adaptive vs. non-adaptive designs; this reduction was maximized using a Bayes mixture prior, with no clear-cut improvement by using a fully Bayesian procedure. The use of stopping rules allows a slight decrease in the observed proportion of deaths under the alternate hypothesis compared with the adaptive designs with no stopping rules.

CONCLUSIONS

Such Bayesian hybrid adaptive survival trials may be promising alternatives to traditional designs, reducing the duration of survival trials, as well as optimizing the ethical concerns for patients enrolled in the trial.

A Unified Family of Covariate-Adjusted Response-Adaptive Designs Based on Efficiency and Ethics

Response-adaptive designs have recently attracted more and more attention in the literature because of its advantages in efficiency and medical ethics. To develop personalized medicine, covariate information plays an important role in both design and analysis of clinical trials. A challenge is how to incorporate covariate information in response-adaptive designs while considering issues of both efficiency and medical ethics. To address this problem, we propose a new and unified family of covariate-adjusted response-adaptive (CARA) designs based on two general measurements of efficiency and ethics. Important properties (including asymptotic properties) of the proposed procedures are studied under categorical covariates. This new family of designs not only introduces new desirable CARA designs, but also unifies several important designs in the literature. We demonstrate the proposed procedures through examples, simulations, and a discussion of related earlier work.