Optimal design for inference on the threshold of a biomarker

Enrichment designs with a continuous biomarker require the estimation of a threshold to determine the subpopulation benefitting from the treatment. This article provides the optimal allocation for inference in a two-stage enrichment design for treatment comparisons when a continuous biomarker is suspected to affect patient response. Several design criteria, associated with different trial objectives, are optimized under balanced or Neyman allocation and under equality of the first two empirical biomarker's moments. Moreover, we propose a new covariate-adaptive randomization procedure that converges to the optimum with the fastest available rate. Theoretical and simulation results show that this strategy improves the efficiency of a two-stage enrichment clinical trial, especially with smaller sample sizes and under heterogeneous responses.

Regression-based multiple treatment effect estimation under covariate-adaptive randomization

Covariate-adaptive randomization methods are widely used in clinical trials to balance baseline covariates. Recent studies have shown the validity of using regression-based estimators for treatment effects without imposing functional form requirements on the true data generation model. These studies have had limitations in certain scenarios; for example, in the case of multiple treatment groups, these studies did not consider additional covariates or assumed that the allocation ratios were the same across strata. To address these limitations, we develop a stratum-common estimator and a stratum-specific estimator under multiple treatments. We derive the asymptotic behaviors of these estimators and propose consistent nonparametric estimators for asymptotic variances. To determine their efficiency, we compare the estimators with the stratified difference-in-means estimator as the benchmark. We find that the stratum-specific estimator guarantees efficiency gains, regardless of whether the allocation ratios across strata are the same or different. Our conclusions were also validated by simulation studies and a real clinical trial example.

Regression analysis for covariate-adaptive randomization: A robust and efficient inference perspective

Linear regression is arguably the most fundamental statistical model; however, the validity of its use in randomized clinical trials, despite being common practice, has never been crystal clear, particularly when stratified or covariate-adaptive randomization is used. In this article, we investigate several of the most intuitive and commonly used regression models for estimating and inferring the treatment effect in randomized clinical trials. By allowing the regression model to be arbitrarily misspecified, we demonstrate that all these regression-based estimators robustly estimate the treatment effect, albeit with possibly different efficiency. We also propose consistent non-parametric variance estimators and compare their performances to those of the model-based variance estimators that are readily available in standard statistical software. Based on the results and taking into account both theoretical efficiency and practical feasibility, we make recommendations for the effective use of regression under various scenarios. For equal allocation, it suffices to use the regression adjustment for the stratum covariates and additional baseline covariates, if available, with the usual ordinary-least-squares variance estimator. For unequal allocation, regression with treatment-by-covariate interactions should be used, together with our proposed variance estimators. These recommendations apply to simple and stratified randomization, and minimization, among others. We hope this work helps to clarify and promote the usage of regression in randomized clinical trials.

Re-randomization tests in clinical trials

As randomization methods use more information in more complex ways to assign patients to treatments, analysis of the resulting data becomes challenging. The treatment assignment vector and outcome vector become correlated whenever randomization probabilities depend on data correlated with outcomes. One straightforward analysis method is a re-randomization test that fixes outcome data and creates a reference distribution for the test statistic by repeatedly re-randomizing according to the same randomization method used in the trial. This article reviews re-randomization tests, especially in nonstandard settings like covariate-adaptive and response-adaptive randomization. We show that re-randomization tests provide valid inference in a wide range of settings. Nonetheless, there are simple examples demonstrating limitations.