A Graphical Comparison of Response-Adaptive Randomization Procedures

Response-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: from myths to practical considerations

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 communities, driven by well-known practical examples and its widespread use in machine learning. Papers on the subject present different views on its usefulness, and these are not easy to reconcile. This work aims to address this gap by providing a unified, broad and fresh review of methodological and practical issues to consider when debating the use of RAR in clinical trials.

A roadmap to using randomization in clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Randomization is the foundation of any clinical trial involving treatment comparison. It helps mitigate selection bias, promotes similarity of treatment groups with respect to important known and unknown confounders, and contributes to the validity of statistical tests. Various restricted randomization procedures with different probabilistic structures and different statistical properties are available. The goal of this paper is to present a systematic roadmap for the choice and application of a restricted randomization procedure in a clinical trial.

METHODS

We survey available restricted randomization procedures for sequential allocation of subjects in a randomized, comparative, parallel group clinical trial with equal (1:1) allocation. We explore statistical properties of these procedures, including balance/randomness tradeoff, type I error rate and power. We perform head-to-head comparisons of different procedures through simulation under various experimental scenarios, including cases when common model assumptions are violated. We also provide some real-life clinical trial examples to illustrate the thinking process for selecting a randomization procedure for implementation in practice.

RESULTS

Restricted randomization procedures targeting 1:1 allocation vary in the degree of balance/randomness they induce, and more importantly, they vary in terms of validity and efficiency of statistical inference when common model assumptions are violated (e.g. when outcomes are affected by a linear time trend; measurement error distribution is misspecified; or selection bias is introduced in the experiment). Some procedures are more robust than others. Covariate-adjusted analysis may be essential to ensure validity of the results. Special considerations are required when selecting a randomization procedure for a clinical trial with very small sample size.

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of randomization design, data analytic technique (parametric or nonparametric), and analysis strategy (randomization-based or population model-based) are all very important considerations. Randomization-based tests are robust and valid alternatives to likelihood-based tests and should be considered more frequently by clinical investigators.

Response-adaptive designs for binary responses: How to offer patient benefit while being robust to time trends?

Response‐adaptive randomisation (RAR) can considerably improve the chances of a successful treatment outcome for patients in a clinical trial by skewing the allocation probability towards better performing treatments as data accumulates. There is considerable interest in using RAR designs in drug development for rare diseases, where traditional designs are not either feasible or ethically questionable. In this paper, we discuss and address a major criticism levelled at RAR: namely, type I error inflation due to an unknown time trend over the course of the trial. The most common cause of this phenomenon is changes in the characteristics of recruited patients—referred to as patient drift. This is a realistic concern for clinical trials in rare diseases due to their lengthly accrual rate. We compute the type I error inflation as a function of the time trend magnitude to determine in which contexts the problem is most exacerbated. We then assess the ability of different correction methods to preserve type I error in these contexts and their performance in terms of other operating characteristics, including patient benefit and power. We make recommendations as to which correction methods are most suitable in the rare disease context for several RAR rules, differentiating between the 2‐armed and the multi‐armed case. We further propose a RAR design for multi‐armed clinical trials, which is computationally efficient and robust to several time trends considered.

Impact of adaptation algorithm, timing, and stopping boundaries on the performance of Bayesian response adaptive randomization in confirmative trials with a binary endpoint

Despite the concerns of time trend in subject profiles, the use of Bayesian response adaptive randomization (BRAR) in large multicenter phase 3 confirmative trials has been reported in recent years, motivated by the potential benefits in subject ethics and/or trial efficiency. However three issues remain unclear to investigators: 1) among several BRAR algorithms, how to choose one for the specific trial setting; 2) when to start and how frequently to update the allocation ratio; and 3) how to choose the interim analyses stopping boundaries to preserve the type 1 error. In this paper, three commonly used BRAR algorithms are evaluated based on type 1 error, power, sample size, the proportion of subjects assigned to the better performing arm, and the total number of failures, under two specific trial settings and different allocation ratio update timing and frequencies. Simulation studies show that for two-arm superiority trials, none of the three BRAR algorithms has predominant benefits in both patient ethics and trial efficiency when compared to fixed equal allocation design. For a specific trial aiming to identify the best or the worst among three treatments, a properly selected BRAR algorithm and its implementation parameters are able to gain ethical and efficiency benefits simultaneously. Although the simulation results come from a specific trial setting, the methods described in this paper are generally applicable to other trials.

Start-up designs for response-adaptive randomization procedures with sequential estimation

Response-adaptive randomization procedures are appropriate for clinical trials in which two or more treatments are to be compared, patients arrive sequentially and the response of each patient is recorded before the next patient arrives. However, for those procedures that involve sequential estimation of model parameters, start-up designs are commonly required in order to provide initial estimates of the parameters. In this paper, a suite of such start-up designs for two treatments and binary patient responses are considered and compared in terms of the numbers of patients required in order to give meaningful parameters estimates, the number of patients allocated to the better treatment, and the bias in the parameter estimates. It is shown that permuted block designs with blocks of size 4 are to be preferred over a wide range of parameter values. For the case of two treatments, normal responses and selected start-up procedures, a design incorporating complete randomization followed appropriately by repeats of one of the treatments yields the minimum expected number of patients and is to be preferred.