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.