Literature DB >> 30027336

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

Yevgen Ryeznik1,2, Oleksandr Sverdlov3, Andrew C Hooker4.   

Abstract

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.

Keywords:  D-optimal; randomization design; small population group; time-to-event outcome; unequal allocation

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30027336     DOI: 10.1208/s12248-018-0242-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AAPS J        ISSN: 1550-7416            Impact factor:   4.009


  42 in total

1.  Optimal treatment allocation in comparative biomedical studies.

Authors:  W Zhu; W K Wong
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2000-03-15       Impact factor: 2.373

2.  Bayesian optimal designs for Phase I clinical trials.

Authors:  Linda M Haines; Inna Perevozskaya; William F Rosenberger
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Comparing MTI randomization procedures to blocked randomization.

Authors:  Vance W Berger; Klejda Bejleri; Rebecca Agnor
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2015-09-03       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 4.  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

5.  Wide brick tunnel randomization - an unequal allocation procedure that limits the imbalance in treatment totals.

Authors:  Olga M Kuznetsova; Yevgen Tymofyeyev
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2013-12-03       Impact factor: 2.373

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.  On the efficiency of two-stage response-adaptive designs.

Authors:  Holger Dette; Björn Bornkamp; Frank Bretz
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2012-08-03       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  A better alternative to the inferior permuted block design is not necessarily complex.

Authors:  Wenle Zhao
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2016-05-10       Impact factor: 2.373

9.  Risk of selection bias in randomized trials: further insight.

Authors:  Vance W Berger
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2016-10-07       Impact factor: 2.279

10.  Some recommendations for multi-arm multi-stage trials.

Authors:  James Wason; Dominic Magirr; Martin Law; Thomas Jaki
Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res       Date:  2012-12-12       Impact factor: 3.021

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.