Implementing Optimal Allocation in Sequential Binary Response Experiments

Doubly adaptive biased coin design to improve Bayesian clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints

Clinical trialists often face the challenge of balancing scientific questions with other design features, such as improving efficiency, minimizing exposure to inferior treatments, and simultaneously comparing multiple treatments. While Bayesian response adaptive randomization (RAR) is a popular and effective method for achieving these objectives, it is known to have large variability and a lack of explicit theoretical results, making its use in clinical trials a subject of concern. It is desirable to propose a design that targets the same allocation proportion as Bayesian RAR and achieves the above objectives but addresses the concerns over Bayesian RAR. We propose the frequentist doubly adaptive biased coin designs (DBCD) targeting ethical allocation proportions from the Bayesian framework to satisfy different objectives in clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints. We derive the theoretical properties of the proposed adaptive randomization design and show through comprehensive numerical simulations that it can achieve ethical objectives without sacrificing efficiency. Our combined theoretical and numerical results offer a strong foundation for the practical use of RAR in real clinical trials.

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.

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.

Multi-arm covariate-adaptive randomization

Simultaneously investigating multiple treatments in a single study achieves considerable efficiency in contrast to the traditional two-arm trials. Balancing treatment allocation for influential covariates has become increasingly important in today's clinical trials. The multi-arm covariate-adaptive randomized clinical trial is one of the most powerful tools to incorporate covariate information and multiple treatments in a single study. Pocock and Simon's procedure has been extended to the multi-arm case. However, the theoretical properties of multi-arm covariate-adaptive randomization have remained largely elusive for decades. In this paper, we propose a general framework for multi-arm covariate-adaptive designs which also includes the two-arm case, and establish the corresponding theory under widely satisfied conditions. The theoretical results provide new insights into the balance properties of covariate-adaptive randomization procedures and make foundations for most existing statistical inferences under two-arm covariate-adaptive randomization. Furthermore, these open a door to study the theoretical properties of statistical inferences for clinical trials based on multi-arm covariate-adaptive randomization procedures.

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 randomization for multiple comparisons of treatments with recurrentevent responses

Recurrent event responses are frequently encountered during clinical trials of treatments for certain diseases, such as asthma. The recurrence rates of different treatments are often compared by applying the negative binomial model. In addition, a balanced treatment-allocation procedure that assigns the same number of patients to each treatment is often applied. Recently, a response-adaptive treatment-allocation procedure has been developed for trials with recurrent event data, and has been shown to be superior to balanced treatment allocation. However, this response-adaptive treatment allocation procedure is only applicable for the comparison of two treatments. In this paper, we derive response-adaptive treatment-allocation procedures for trials which comprise several treatments. As pairwise comparisons and multiple comparisons with a control are two common multiple-testing scenarios in trials with more than two treatments, corresponding treatment-allocation procedures for these scenarios are also investigated. The redesign of two clinical studies illustrates the clinical benefits that would be obtained from our proposed response-adaptive treatment-allocation procedures.

Personalized Risk-Based Screening Design for Comparative Two-Arm Group Sequential Clinical Trials

Personalized medicine has been emerging to take into account individual variability in genes and environment. In the era of personalized medicine, it is critical to incorporate the patients’ characteristics and improve the clinical benefit for patients. The patients’ characteristics are incorporated in adaptive randomization to identify patients who are expected to get more benefit from the treatment and optimize the treatment allocation. However, it is challenging to control potential selection bias from using observed efficacy data and the effect of prognostic covariates in adaptive randomization. This paper proposes a personalized risk-based screening design using Bayesian covariate-adjusted response-adaptive randomization that compares the experimental screening method to a standard screening method based on indicators of having a disease. Personalized risk-based allocation probability is built for adaptive randomization, and Bayesian adaptive decision rules are calibrated to preserve error rates. A simulation study shows that the proposed design controls error rates and yields a much smaller number of failures and a larger number of patients allocated to a better intervention compared to existing randomized controlled trial designs. Therefore, the proposed design performs well for randomized controlled clinical trials under personalized medicine.

Quantifying Efficiency Gains of Innovative Designs of Two-Arm Vaccine Trials for COVID-19 Using an Epidemic Simulation Model

Clinical trials of a vaccine during an epidemic face particular challenges, such as the pressure to identify an effective vaccine quickly to control the epidemic, and the effect that time-space-varying infection incidence has on the power of a trial. We illustrate how the operating characteristics of different trial design elements maybe evaluated using a network epidemic and trial simulation model, based on COVID-19 and individually randomized two-arm trials with a binary outcome. We show that "ring" recruitment strategies, prioritizing participants at an imminent risk of infection, can result in substantial improvement in terms of power in the model we present. In addition, we introduce a novel method to make more efficient use of the data from the earliest cases of infection observed in the trial, whose infection may have been too early to be vaccine-preventable. Finally, we compare several methods of response-adaptive randomization (RAR), discussing their advantages and disadvantages in the context of our model and identifying particular adaptation strategies that preserve power and estimation properties, while slightly reducing the number of infections, given an effective vaccine.

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.

An optimal multiarmed response adaptive design for survival outcome with independent censoring

Compromising ethics and precision in the context of a multiarmed clinical trial, an optimal order adjusted response adaptive design is proposed for survival outcomes subject to independent random censoring. The operating characteristics of the proposed design and the follow-up inference are studied both theoretically as well as empirically and are compared with those of the competitors. Applicability of the developed design is further illustrated through redesigning a real clinical trial with survival responses.

An optimal response adaptive design for multi-treatment clinical trials with ordinal categorical outcomes

In clinical trials, fixed randomizations in a prefixed proportion (e.g. 1:1 or 2:1 for two treatment trials) may be adopted to allocate the entering patients among the competing treatments. However, such an allocation procedure ignores the knowledge obtained from the accrued information on the performance of the treatments until that point. However, while allocating, a fixed randomization may favor the most and the least effective treatments in a prefixed manner, and hence becomes instrumental to induce a conflict with the "individual ethics" requirement. Adaptive allocation designs are considered instead, for their ability to dynamically settle the issue of running randomization towards the treatment doing better - all using the available data but with a scope to compromise in statistical precision. Although most of the developments are pertinent to binary, continuous and survival responses, ordinal categorical responses are natural outcomes in many disciplines of clinical trials like Orthopedics and Ophthalmology. Therefore, to balance between ethics and precision in the context of a multi-treatment clinical trial producing ordinal categorical responses, an optimal response adaptive design is derived by minimizing a measure of "precision" subject to constrained number of "failures" ensuring higher number of assignments to the "best" treatment. Related design and inference-based characteristics are extensively studied - both theoretically and empirically. Further, the practical applicability of the developed design is envisaged through re-designing of a real clinical trial, where the responses are immediate and are measured in ordinal categorical scale.

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.

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 randomization procedures in seamless phase II/III clinical trials

It is desirable to work efficiently and cost effectively to evaluate new therapies in a time-sensitive and ethical manner without compromising the integrity and validity of the development process. The seamless phase II/III clinical trial has been proposed to meet this need, and its efficient, ethical and economic advantages can be strengthened by its combination with innovative response adaptive randomization (RAR) procedures. In particular, well-designed frequentist RAR procedures can target theoretically optimal allocation proportions, and there are explicit asymptotic results. However, there has been little research into seamless phase II/III clinical trials with frequentist RAR because of the difficulty in performing valid statistical inference and controlling the type I error rate. In this paper, we propose the framework for a family of frequentist RAR designs for seamless phase II/III trials, derive the asymptotic distribution of the parameter estimators using martingale processes and offer solutions to control the type I error rate. The numerical studies demonstrate our theoretical findings and the advantages of the proposed methods.

Adaptive treatment allocation for comparative clinical studies with recurrent events data

In long-term clinical studies, recurrent event data are sometimes collected and used to contrast the efficacies of two different treatments. The event reoccurrence rates can be compared using the popular negative binomial model, which incorporates information related to patient heterogeneity into a data analysis. For treatment allocation, a balanced approach in which equal sample sizes are obtained for both treatments is predominately adopted. However, if one treatment is superior, then it may be desirable to allocate fewer subjects to the less-effective treatment. To accommodate this objective, a sequential response-adaptive treatment allocation procedure is derived based on the doubly adaptive biased coin design. Our proposed treatment allocation schemes have been shown to be capable of reducing the number of subjects receiving the inferior treatment while simultaneously retaining a test power level that is comparable to that of a balanced design. The redesign of a clinical study illustrates the advantages of using our procedure.

Optimal designs for testing hypothesis in multiarm clinical trials

The present paper deals with the problem of designing randomized multiarm clinical trials for treatment comparisons in order to achieve a suitable trade-off among inferential precision and ethical concerns. Although the large majority of the literature is focused on the estimation of the treatment effects, in particular for the case of two treatments with binary outcomes, the present paper takes into account the inferential goal of maximizing the power of statistical tests to detect correct conclusions about the treatment effects for normally response trials. After discussing the allocation optimizing the power of the classical multivariate test of homogeneity, we suggest a multipurpose design methodology, based on constrained optimization, which maximizes the power of the test under a suitable ethical constraint reflecting the effectiveness of the treatments. The ensuing optimal allocation depends in general on the unknown model parameters but, contrary to the unconstrained optimal solution or to some targets proposed in the literature, it is a non-degenerate continuous function of the treatment contrasts, and therefore it can be approached by standard response-adaptive randomization procedures. The properties of this constrained optimal allocation are described both theoretically and through suitable examples, showing good performances both in terms of ethical gain and statistical efficiency, taking into account estimation precision as well.

Nonparametric response-adaptive randomization for continuous responses

Many response-adaptive randomization procedures have been proposed and studied over the past few decades. However, most of these procedures are based on parametric structure and do not directly apply to nonparametric models. In this paper, we propose a response-adaptive randomization procedure based on Mann-Whitney U test statistic. Under widely satisfied conditions, we derive asymptotic properties of the randomization procedure and further obtain power functions in form under Mann-Whitney U test. Simulations show the proposed procedure is more robust and more ethical than classical response-adaptive randomization procedures in some circumstances. Advantages of the procedure are also illustrated in a redesigned real clinical trial.

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.

Implementing Optimal Designs for Dose-Response Studies Through Adaptive Randomization for a Small Population Group

In dose-response studies with censored time-to-event outcomes, D-optimal designs depend on the true model and the amount of censored data. In practice, such designs can be implemented adaptively, by performing dose assignments according to updated knowledge of the dose-response curve at interim analysis. It is also essential that treatment allocation involves randomization-to mitigate various experimental biases and enable valid statistical inference at the end of the trial. In this work, we perform a comparison of several adaptive randomization procedures that can be used for implementing D-optimal designs for dose-response studies with time-to-event outcomes with small to moderate sample sizes. We consider single-stage, two-stage, and multi-stage adaptive designs. We also explore robustness of the designs to experimental (chronological and selection) biases. Simulation studies provide evidence that both the choice of an allocation design and a randomization procedure to implement the target allocation impact the quality of dose-response estimation, especially for small samples. For best performance, a multi-stage adaptive design with small cohort sizes should be implemented using a randomization procedure that closely attains the targeted D-optimal design at each stage. The results of the current work should help clinical investigators select an appropriate randomization procedure for their dose-response study.

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.

Optimal and lead-in adaptive allocation for binary outcomes: a comparison of Bayesian methodologies

We compare posterior and predictive estimators and probabilities in response-adaptive randomization designs for two- and three-group clinical trials with binary outcomes. Adaptation based upon posterior estimates are discussed, as are two predictive probability algorithms: one using the traditional definition, the other using a skeptical distribution. Optimal and natural lead-in designs are covered. Simulation studies show: efficacy comparisons lead to more adaptation than center comparisons, though at some power loss; skeptically predictive efficacy comparisons and natural lead-in approaches lead to less adaptation but offer reduced allocation variability. Though nuanced, these results help clarify the power-adaptation trade-off in adaptive randomization.

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.

Implementing Optimal Allocation in Clinical Trials with Multiple Endpoints

Modern clinical trials are often complex, with multiple competing objectives and multiple endpoints. Such trials should be both ethical and efficient. In this paper, we overcome the obstacles introduced by the large number of unknown parameters and the possible correlations between the multiple endpoints. We obtain the optimal allocation proportions for the following two optimization problems: (1) maximizing the power of the test of homogeneity with a fixed sample size, and (2) minimizing the expected weighted number of failures with a fixed power. Further, we implement these optimal allocations through response-adaptive randomization procedures. Our theoretical results provide the foundation for the implementation and further investigation of the procedure, and our numerical studies demonstrate its ability to achieve diverse objectives.

Adaptive Designs for Non-inferiority Trials with Multiple Experimental Treatments

The increase in the popularity of non-inferiority clinical trials represents the increasing need to search for substitutes for some reference (standard) treatments. A new treatment would be preferred to the standard treatment if the benefits of adopting it outweigh a possible clinically insignificant reduction in treatment efficacy (non-inferiority margin). Statistical procedures have recently been developed for treatment comparisons in non-inferiority clinical trials that have multiple experimental (new) treatments. An ethical concern for non-inferiority trials is that some patients undergo the less effective treatments; this problem is more serious when multiple experimental treatments are included in a balanced trial in which the sample sizes are the same for all experimental treatments. With the aim of giving fewer patients the inferior treatments, we propose a response-adaptive treatment allocation scheme that is based on the doubly adaptive biased coin design. The proposed adaptive design is also shown to be superior to the balanced design in terms of testing power.

Statistical inference for response adaptive randomization procedures with adjusted optimal allocation proportions

Seamless phase II/III clinical trials have attracted increasing attention recently. They mainly use Bayesian response adaptive randomization (RAR) designs. There has been little research into seamless clinical trials using frequentist RAR designs because of the difficulty in performing valid statistical inference following this procedure. The well-designed frequentist RAR designs can target theoretically optimal allocation proportions, and they have explicit asymptotic results. In this paper, we study the asymptotic properties of frequentist RAR designs with adjusted target allocation proportions, and investigate statistical inference for this procedure. The properties of the proposed design provide an important theoretical foundation for advanced seamless clinical trials. Our numerical studies demonstrate that the design is ethical and efficient.

Is the classical Wald test always suitable under response-adaptive randomization?

The aim of this paper is to analyze the impact of response-adaptive randomization rules for normal response trials intended to test the superiority of one of two available treatments. Taking into account the classical Wald test, we show how response-adaptive methodology could induce a consistent loss of inferential precision. Then, we suggest a modified version of the Wald test which, by using the current allocation proportion to the treatments as a consistent estimator of the target, avoids some degenerate scenarios and so it should be preferable to the classical test. Furthermore, we show both analytically and via simulations how some target allocations may induce a locally decreasing power function. Thus, we derive the conditions on the target guaranteeing its monotonicity and we show how a correct choice of the initial sample size allows one to overcome this drawback regardless of the adopted target.

Response-adaptive randomization for multi-arm clinical trials using the forward looking Gittins index rule

The Gittins index provides a well established, computationally attractive, optimal solution to a class of resource allocation problems known collectively as the multi-arm bandit problem. Its development was originally motivated by the problem of optimal patient allocation in multi-arm clinical trials. However, it has never been used in practice, possibly for the following reasons: (1) it is fully sequential, i.e., the endpoint must be observable soon after treating a patient, reducing the medical settings to which it is applicable; (2) it is completely deterministic and thus removes randomization from the trial, which would naturally protect against various sources of bias. We propose a novel implementation of the Gittins index rule that overcomes these difficulties, trading off a small deviation from optimality for a fully randomized, adaptive group allocation procedure which offers substantial improvements in terms of patient benefit, especially relevant for small populations. We report the operating characteristics of our approach compared to existing methods of adaptive randomization using a recently published trial as motivation.

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.

Shift-invariant target in allocation problems

We provide a template for finding target allocation proportions in optimal allocation designs where the target will be invariant for both shifts in location and scale of the response distributions. One possible application of such target allocation proportions is to carry out a response-adaptive allocation. While most of the existing designs are invariant for any change in scale of the underlying distributions, they are not location invariant in most of the cases. First, we indicate this serious flaw in the existing literature and illustrate how this lack of location invariance makes the performance of the designs very poor in terms of allocation for any drastic change in location, such as the changes from degrees centigrade to degrees Fahrenheit. We illustrate that unless a target allocation is location invariant, it might lead to a completely irrelevant and useless target for allocation. Then we discuss how such location invariance can be achieved for general continuous responses. We illustrate the proposed method using some real clinical trial data. We also indicate the possible extension of the procedure for more than two treatments at hand and in the presence of covariates.

Efficient and ethical response-adaptive randomization designs for multi-arm clinical trials with Weibull time-to-event outcomes

We consider a design problem for a clinical trial with multiple treatment arms and time-to-event primary outcomes that are modeled using the Weibull family of distributions. The D-optimal design for the most precise estimation of model parameters is derived, along with compound optimal allocation designs that provide targeted efficiencies for various estimation problems and ethical considerations. The proposed optimal allocation designs are studied theoretically and are implemented using response-adaptive randomization for a clinical trial with censored Weibull outcomes. We compare the merits of our multiple-objective response-adaptive designs with traditional randomization designs and show that our designs are more flexible, realistic, generally more ethical, and frequently provide higher efficiencies for estimating different sets of parameters.

Adaptive randomization for clinical trials

In February 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA, 2010 ) drafted guidance that discusses the statistical, clinical, and regulatory aspects of various adaptive designs for clinical trials. An important class of adaptive designs is adaptive randomization, which is considered very briefly in subsection VI.B of the guidance. The objective of this paper is to review several important new classes of adaptive randomization procedures and convey information on the recent developments in the literature on this topic. Much of this literature has been focused on the development of methodology to address past criticisms and concerns that have hindered the broader use of adaptive randomization. We conclude that adaptive randomization is a very broad area of experimental design that has important application in modern clinical trials.