Literature DB >> 24849843

Managing competing demands in the implementation of response-adaptive randomization in a large multicenter phase III acute stroke trial.

Wenle Zhao1, Valerie Durkalski.   

Abstract

It is well known that competing demands exist between the control of important covariate imbalance and protection of treatment allocation randomness in confirmative clinical trials. When implementing a response-adaptive randomization algorithm in confirmative clinical trials designed under a frequentist framework, additional competing demands emerge between the shift of the treatment allocation ratio and the preservation of the power. Based on a large multicenter phase III stroke trial, we present a patient randomization scheme that manages these competing demands by applying a newly developed minimal sufficient balancing design for baseline covariates and a cap on the treatment allocation ratio shift in order to protect the allocation randomness and the power. Statistical properties of this randomization plan are studied by computer simulation. Trial operation characteristics, such as patient enrollment rate and primary outcome response delay, are also incorporated into the randomization plan.
Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  allocation randomness; allocation ratio; covariate balancing; minimal sufficient balance; response-adaptive randomization

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24849843      PMCID: PMC4159417          DOI: 10.1002/sim.6213

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Med        ISSN: 0277-6715            Impact factor:   2.373


  34 in total

1.  Randomized play-the-winner clinical trials: review and recommendations.

Authors:  W F Rosenberger
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1999-08

2.  Unequal group sizes in randomised trials: guarding against guessing.

Authors:  Kenneth F Schulz; David A Grimes
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-03-16       Impact factor: 79.321

3.  The impact of randomization on the analysis of clinical trials.

Authors:  Gerd K Rosenkranz
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-09-27       Impact factor: 2.373

4.  Covariate-adjusted adaptive randomization in a sarcoma trial with multi-stage treatments.

Authors:  Peter F Thall; J Kyle Wathen
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2005-07-15       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 5.  The use of unequal randomisation ratios in clinical trials: a review.

Authors:  J C Dumville; S Hahn; J N V Miles; D J Torgerson
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2005-10-19       Impact factor: 2.226

6.  Optimal response-adaptive randomized designs for multi-armed survival trials.

Authors:  Oleksandr Sverdlov; Yevgen Tymofyeyev; Weng Kee Wong
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-08-08       Impact factor: 2.373

7.  Near efficient target allocations in response-adaptive randomization.

Authors:  Atanu Biswas; Rahul Bhattacharya
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2012-12-12       Impact factor: 3.021

8.  Using Randomization Tests to Preserve Type I Error With Response-Adaptive and Covariate-Adaptive Randomization.

Authors:  Richard Simon; Noah Robin Simon
Journal:  Stat Probab Lett       Date:  2011-07       Impact factor: 0.870

9.  Outcome--adaptive randomization: is it useful?

Authors:  Edward L Korn; Boris Freidlin
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-12-20       Impact factor: 44.544

10.  Response-adaptive randomization for clinical trials with adjustment for covariate imbalance.

Authors:  Jing Ning; Xuelin Huang
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2010-07-30       Impact factor: 2.373

View more
  3 in total

1.  Intensive vs Standard Treatment of Hyperglycemia and Functional Outcome in Patients With Acute Ischemic Stroke: The SHINE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Karen C Johnston; Askiel Bruno; Qi Pauls; Christiana E Hall; Kevin M Barrett; William Barsan; Amy Fansler; Katrina Van de Bruinhorst; Scott Janis; Valerie L Durkalski-Mauldin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2019-07-23       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Minimal sufficient balance randomization for sequential randomized controlled trial designs: results from the ESCAPE trial.

Authors:  Tolulope T Sajobi; Gurbakhshash Singh; Mark W Lowerison; Jordan Engbers; Bijoy K Menon; Andrew M Demchuk; Mayank Goyal; Michael D Hill
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-11-02       Impact factor: 2.279

3.  Bayesian dose selection design for a binary outcome using restricted response adaptive randomization.

Authors:  Caitlyn Meinzer; Renee Martin; Jose I Suarez
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2017-09-08       Impact factor: 2.279

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.