Understanding an impact of patient enrollment pattern on predictability of central (unstratified) randomization in a multi-center clinical trial.

In a multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) with competitive recruitment, eligible patients are enrolled sequentially by different study centers and are randomized to treatment groups using the chosen randomization method. Given the stochastic nature of the recruitment process, some centers may enroll more patients than others, and in some instances, a center may enroll multiple patients in a row, for example, on a given day. If the study is open-label, the investigators might be able to make intelligent guesses on upcoming treatment assignments in the randomization sequence, even if the trial is centrally randomized and not stratified by center. In this paper, we use enrollment data inspired by a real multi-center RCT to quantify the susceptibility of two restricted randomization procedures, the permuted block design and the big stick design, to selection bias under the convergence strategy of Blackwell and Hodges (1957) applied at the center level. We provide simulation evidence that the expected proportion of correct guesses may be greater than 50% (i.e., an increased risk of selection bias) and depends on the chosen randomization method and the number of study patients recruited by a given center that takes consecutive positions on the central allocation schedule. We propose some strategies for ensuring stronger encryption of the randomization sequence to mitigate the risk of selection bias.

Selecting a randomization method for a multi-center clinical trial with stochastic recruitment considerations.

BACKGROUND: The design of a multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) involves multiple considerations, such as the choice of the sample size, the number of centers and their geographic location, the strategy for recruitment of study participants, amongst others. There are plenty of methods to sequentially randomize patients in a multi-center RCT, with or without considering stratification factors. The goal of this paper is to perform a systematic assessment of such randomization methods for a multi-center 1:1 RCT assuming a competitive policy for the patient recruitment process. METHODS: We considered a Poisson-gamma model for the patient recruitment process with a uniform distribution of center activation times. We investigated 16 randomization methods (4 unstratified, 4 region-stratified, 4 center-stratified, 3 dynamic balancing randomization (DBR), and a complete randomization design) to sequentially randomize n = 500 patients. Statistical properties of the recruitment process and the randomization procedures were assessed using Monte Carlo simulations. The operating characteristics included time to complete recruitment, number of centers that recruited a given number of patients, several measures of treatment imbalance and estimation efficiency under a linear model for the response, the expected proportions of correct guesses under two different guessing strategies, and the expected proportion of deterministic assignments in the allocation sequence. RESULTS: Maximum tolerated imbalance (MTI) randomization methods such as big stick design, Ehrenfest urn design, and block urn design result in a better balance-randomness tradeoff than the conventional permuted block design (PBD) with or without stratification. Unstratified randomization, region-stratified randomization, and center-stratified randomization provide control of imbalance at a chosen level (trial, region, or center) but may fail to achieve balance at the other two levels. By contrast, DBR does a very good job controlling imbalance at all 3 levels while maintaining the randomized nature of treatment allocation. Adding more centers into the study helps accelerate the recruitment process but at the expense of increasing the number of centers that recruit very few (or no) patients-which may increase center-level imbalances for center-stratified and DBR procedures. Increasing the block size or the MTI threshold(s) may help obtain designs with improved randomness-balance tradeoff. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of a randomization method is an important component of planning a multi-center RCT. Dynamic balancing randomization with carefully chosen MTI thresholds could be a very good strategy for trials with the competitive policy for patient recruitment.

Decentralized Clinical Trials: Scientific Considerations Through the Lens of the Estimand Framework.

While industry and regulators' interest in decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) is long-standing, the Covid-19 pandemic accelerated and broadened the adoption and experience with these trials. The key idea in decentralization is bringing the clinical trial design, typically on-site, closer to the patient's experience (on-site or off-site). Thus, potential benefits of DCTs include reducing the burden of participation in trials, broadening access to a more diverse population, or using innovative endpoints collected off-site. This paper helps researchers to carefully evaluate the added value and the implications of DCTs beyond the operational aspects of their implementation. The proposed approach is to use the ICH E9(R1) estimand framework to guide the strategic decisions around each decentralization component. Furthermore, the framework can guide the process for clinical trialists to systematically consider the implications of decentralization, in turn, for each attribute of the estimand. We illustrate the use of this approach with a fully DCT case study and show that the proposed systematic process can uncover the scientific opportunities, assumptions, and potential risks associated with a possible use of decentralization components in the design of a trial. This process can also highlight the benefits of specifying estimand attributes in a granular way. Thus, we demonstrate that bringing a decentralization component into the design will not only impact estimators and estimation but can also correspond to addressing more granular questions, thereby uncovering new target estimands.

Steady-state statistical properties and implementation of randomization designs with maximum tolerated imbalance restriction for two-arm equal allocation clinical trials.

In recent decades, several randomization designs have been proposed in the literature as better alternatives to the traditional permuted block design (PBD), providing higher allocation randomness under the same restriction of the maximum tolerated imbalance (MTI). However, PBD remains the most frequently used method for randomizing subjects in clinical trials. This status quo may reflect an inadequate awareness and appreciation of the statistical properties of these randomization designs, and a lack of simple methods for their implementation. This manuscript presents the analytic results of statistical properties for five randomization designs with MTI restriction based on their steady-state probabilities of the treatment imbalance Markov chain and compares them to those of the PBD. A unified framework for randomization sequence generation and real-time on-demand treatment assignment is proposed for the straightforward implementation of randomization algorithms with explicit formulas of conditional allocation probabilities. Topics associated with the evaluation, selection, and implementation of randomization designs are discussed. It is concluded that for two-arm equal allocation trials, several randomization designs offer stronger protection against selection bias than the PBD does, and their implementation is not necessarily more difficult than the implementation of the PBD.

MIJ821 (onfasprodil) in healthy volunteers: First-in-human, randomized, placebo-controlled study (single ascending dose and repeated intravenous dose).

This single-center study administered MIJ821 (onfasprodil) as an intravenous infusion to healthy volunteers and included two parts: a single ascending dose study (Part 1) and a repeated intravenous dose study (Part 2). Primary objective was to evaluate the safety and tolerability of single ascending intravenous doses infused over a 40-min period and of two repeated doses (1 week apart) of MIJ821 in healthy volunteers. Secondary objectives were to assess the pharmacokinetics of MIJ821 after intravenous infusion in Part 1 and Part 2 of the study. Overall, 43 subjects in Part 1 and 12 subjects in Part 2 were randomized in the study. Median age in Part 1 and Part 2 was 45.0 and 43.5 years, respectively, with the majority being Caucasian (Part 1: 84%; Part 2: 92%). 19 subjects (44.2%) in Part 1 and 8 subjects (66.7%) in Part 2 experienced at least one adverse event (AE). Following single dose in Part 1 and Part 2, the AUCinf values of MIJ821 increased in a dose-proportional manner across the dose range 0.016-0.48 mg/kg and the Cmax values in a slight overproportional manner across the dose range 0.048-0.48 mg/kg. At the highest dose of 0.48 mg/kg, the geometric mean AUCinf was 708 h ng/mL and the geometric mean Cmax was 462 ng/mL. Inspection of 1-h post-dose resting electroencephalography activity across cohorts showed a relationship to administered dose, providing exploratory evidence of distal target engagement. In conclusion, MIJ821 showed a good safety and tolerability profile in healthy volunteers. Dissociative AEs were mild, transient, and dose-dependent.

Investigating the value of glucodensity analysis of continuous glucose monitoring data in type 1 diabetes: an exploratory analysis.

Introduction: Continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) devices capture longitudinal data on interstitial glucose levels and are increasingly used to show the dynamics of diabetes metabolism. Given the complexity of CGM data, it is crucial to extract important patterns hidden in these data through efficient visualization and statistical analysis techniques. Methods: In this paper, we adopted the concept of glucodensity, and using a subset of data from an ongoing clinical trial in pediatric individuals and young adults with new-onset type 1 diabetes, we performed a cluster analysis of glucodensities. We assessed the differences among the identified clusters using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with respect to residual pancreatic beta-cell function and some standard CGM-derived parameters such as time in range, time above range, and time below range. Results: Distinct CGM data patterns were identified using cluster analysis based on glucodensities. Statistically significant differences were shown among the clusters with respect to baseline levels of pancreatic beta-cell function surrogate (C-peptide) and with respect to time in range and time above range. Discussion: Our findings provide supportive evidence for the value of glucodensity in the analysis of CGM data. Some challenges in the modeling of CGM data include unbalanced data structure, missing observations, and many known and unknown confounders, which speaks to the importance of--and provides opportunities for--taking an approach integrating clinical, statistical, and data science expertise in the analysis of these data.

Sample size determination for the association between longitudinal and time-to-event outcomes using the joint modeling time-dependent slopes parameterization.

Given their improvements in bias reduction and efficiency, joint models (JMs) for longitudinal and time-to-event data offer great potential to clinical trials. However, for JM to become more widely used, there is a need for additional development of design considerations. To this end, Chen et al previously developed two closed-form sample size formulas in the JM setting. In this current work, we expand upon this framework by utilizing the time-dependent slopes parameterization, where the change in the longitudinal outcome influences the hazard, in addition to the current value of the longitudinal process. Our extended formula for the required number of events can be used when testing significance of the association between the longitudinal and time-to-event outcomes. We find that if the data indeed are generated such that not only the current value, but also the slope of the longitudinal outcome influence the hazard of the time-to-event process, it is advisable to use the current formula developed utilizing the time-dependent slopes parameterization. In this setting, our proposed formula will provide a more accurate estimate of power compared to the method by Chen et al. To illustrate our proposed method, we present power calculations of a biomarker qualification study for Hutchinson-Gilford progeria syndrome, an ultra-rare premature aging disease.

Description of the Method for Evaluating Digital Endpoints in Alzheimer Disease Study: Protocol for an Exploratory, Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: More sensitive and less burdensome efficacy end points are urgently needed to improve the effectiveness of clinical drug development for Alzheimer disease (AD). Although conventional end points lack sensitivity, digital technologies hold promise for amplifying the detection of treatment signals and capturing cognitive anomalies at earlier disease stages. Using digital technologies and combining several test modalities allow for the collection of richer information about cognitive and functional status, which is not ascertainable via conventional paper-and-pencil tests. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties, operational feasibility, and patient acceptance of 10 promising technologies that are to be used as efficacy end points to measure cognition in future clinical drug trials. METHODS: The Method for Evaluating Digital Endpoints in Alzheimer Disease study is an exploratory, cross-sectional, noninterventional study that will evaluate 10 digital technologies' ability to accurately classify participants into 4 cohorts according to the severity of cognitive impairment and dementia. Moreover, this study will assess the psychometric properties of each of the tested digital technologies, including the acceptable range to assess ceiling and floor effects, concurrent validity to correlate digital outcome measures to traditional paper-and-pencil tests in AD, reliability to compare test and retest, and responsiveness to evaluate the sensitivity to change in a mild cognitive challenge model. This study included 50 eligible male and female participants (aged between 60 and 80 years), of whom 13 (26%) were amyloid-negative, cognitively healthy participants (controls); 12 (24%) were amyloid-positive, cognitively healthy participants (presymptomatic); 13 (26%) had mild cognitive impairment (predementia); and 12 (24%) had mild AD (mild dementia). This study involved 4 in-clinic visits. During the initial visit, all participants completed all conventional paper-and-pencil assessments. During the following 3 visits, the participants underwent a series of novel digital assessments. RESULTS: Participant recruitment and data collection began in June 2020 and continued until June 2021. Hence, the data collection occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic (SARS-CoV-2 virus pandemic). Data were successfully collected from all digital technologies to evaluate statistical and operational performance and patient acceptance. This paper reports the baseline demographics and characteristics of the population studied as well as the study's progress during the pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: This study was designed to generate feasibility insights and validation data to help advance novel digital technologies in clinical drug development. The learnings from this study will help guide future methods for assessing novel digital technologies and inform clinical drug trials in early AD, aiming to enhance clinical end point strategies with digital technologies. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/35442.

A Smartphone-Based Intervention as an Adjunct to Standard-of-Care Treatment for Schizophrenia: Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Antipsychotic medications have limited benefits in schizophrenia, and cognitive behavioral therapy may be beneficial as an adjunct. There may be potential for implementing mobile cognitive behavioral therapy-based treatment for schizophrenia in addition to standard antipsychotic medications. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to determine whether PEAR-004, a smartphone-based investigational digital therapeutic, improves the symptoms of an acute psychotic exacerbation of schizophrenia when it is added to standard treatments. METHODS: This was a 12-week, multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled, rater-blinded, parallel group proof­of­concept study of 112 participants with moderate acute psychotic exacerbation in schizophrenia. This study was conducted in 6 clinical trial research sites in the United States from December 2018 to September 2019. The primary outcome, change in Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) from baseline to week 12 or the last available visit, was analyzed using the mixed-effects regression model for repeated measures, applied to an intent-to-treat sample. RESULTS: The total PANSS scores slightly decreased from baseline over the study period in both groups; the treatment difference at day 85 between PEAR-004 and sham was 2.7 points, in favor of the sham (2-sided P=.09). The secondary scales found no benefit, except for transient improvement in depressive symptoms with PEAR-004. Application engagement was good, and patient and clinical investigator satisfaction was high. No safety concerns were observed. There was some evidence of study site heterogeneity for the onboarding processes and directions on PEAR-004 product use at baseline and throughout the study. However, these differences did not affect the efficacy results. CONCLUSIONS: In the largest-to-date randomized, sham-controlled study of a digital therapeutic in schizophrenia, PEAR-004 did not demonstrate an effect on the primary outcome-total PANSS scores-when compared with a nonspecific digital sham control. The secondary and exploratory results also did not demonstrate any notable benefits, except for possible temporary improvement in depressive symptoms. This study provided many useful scientific and operational insights that can be used in the further clinical development of PEAR-004 and other investigational digital therapeutics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03751280; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03751280.

A roadmap to using randomization in clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Randomization is the foundation of any clinical trial involving treatment comparison. It helps mitigate selection bias, promotes similarity of treatment groups with respect to important known and unknown confounders, and contributes to the validity of statistical tests. Various restricted randomization procedures with different probabilistic structures and different statistical properties are available. The goal of this paper is to present a systematic roadmap for the choice and application of a restricted randomization procedure in a clinical trial. METHODS: We survey available restricted randomization procedures for sequential allocation of subjects in a randomized, comparative, parallel group clinical trial with equal (1:1) allocation. We explore statistical properties of these procedures, including balance/randomness tradeoff, type I error rate and power. We perform head-to-head comparisons of different procedures through simulation under various experimental scenarios, including cases when common model assumptions are violated. We also provide some real-life clinical trial examples to illustrate the thinking process for selecting a randomization procedure for implementation in practice. RESULTS: Restricted randomization procedures targeting 1:1 allocation vary in the degree of balance/randomness they induce, and more importantly, they vary in terms of validity and efficiency of statistical inference when common model assumptions are violated (e.g. when outcomes are affected by a linear time trend; measurement error distribution is misspecified; or selection bias is introduced in the experiment). Some procedures are more robust than others. Covariate-adjusted analysis may be essential to ensure validity of the results. Special considerations are required when selecting a randomization procedure for a clinical trial with very small sample size. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of randomization design, data analytic technique (parametric or nonparametric), and analysis strategy (randomization-based or population model-based) are all very important considerations. Randomization-based tests are robust and valid alternatives to likelihood-based tests and should be considered more frequently by clinical investigators.

Pharmacometrics meets statistics-A synergy for modern drug development.

Modern drug development problems are very complex and require integration of various scientific fields. Traditionally, statistical methods have been the primary tool for design and analysis of clinical trials. Increasingly, pharmacometric approaches using physiology-based drug and disease models are applied in this context. In this paper, we show that statistics and pharmacometrics have more in common than what keeps them apart, and collectively, the synergy from these two quantitative disciplines can provide greater advances in clinical research and development, resulting in novel and more effective medicines to patients with medical need.

A Study of Novel Exploratory Tools, Digital Technologies, and Central Nervous System Biomarkers to Characterize Unipolar Depression.

Background: Digital technologies have the potential to provide objective and precise tools to detect depression-related symptoms. Deployment of digital technologies in clinical research can enable collection of large volumes of clinically relevant data that may not be captured using conventional psychometric questionnaires and patient-reported outcomes. Rigorous methodology studies to develop novel digital endpoints in depression are warranted. Objective: We conducted an exploratory, cross-sectional study to evaluate several digital technologies in subjects with major depressive disorder (MDD) and persistent depressive disorder (PDD), and healthy controls. The study aimed at assessing utility and accuracy of the digital technologies as potential diagnostic tools for unipolar depression, as well as correlating digital biomarkers to clinically validated psychometric questionnaires in depression. Methods: A cross-sectional, non-interventional study of 20 participants with unipolar depression (MDD and PDD/dysthymia) and 20 healthy controls was conducted at the Centre for Human Drug Research (CHDR), the Netherlands. Eligible participants attended three in-clinic visits (days 1, 7, and 14), at which they underwent a series of assessments, including conventional clinical psychometric questionnaires and digital technologies. Between the visits, there was at-home collection of data through mobile applications. In all, seven digital technologies were evaluated in this study. Three technologies were administered via mobile applications: an interactive tool for the self-assessment of mood, and a cognitive test; a passive behavioral monitor to assess social interactions and global mobility; and a platform to perform voice recordings and obtain vocal biomarkers. Four technologies were evaluated in the clinic: a neuropsychological test battery; an eye motor tracking system; a standard high-density electroencephalogram (EEG)-based technology to analyze the brain network activity during cognitive testing; and a task quantifying bias in emotion perception. Results: Our data analysis was organized by technology - to better understand individual features of various technologies. In many cases, we obtained simple, parsimonious models that have reasonably high diagnostic accuracy and potential to predict standard clinical outcome in depression. Conclusion: This study generated many useful insights for future methodology studies of digital technologies and proof-of-concept clinical trials in depression and possibly other indications.

Opportunity for efficiency in clinical development: An overview of adaptive clinical trial designs and innovative machine learning tools, with examples from the cardiovascular field.

Modern data analysis tools and statistical modeling techniques are increasingly used in clinical research to improve diagnosis, estimate disease progression and predict treatment outcomes. What seems less emphasized is the importance of the study design, which can have a serious impact on the study cost, time and statistical efficiency. This paper provides an overview of different types of adaptive designs in clinical trials and their applications to cardiovascular trials. We highlight recent proliferation of work on adaptive designs over the past two decades, including some recent regulatory guidelines on complex trial designs and master protocols. We also describe the increasing role of machine learning and use of metaheuristics to construct increasingly complex adaptive designs or to identify interesting features for improved predictions and classifications.

Clinical Design and Analysis Strategies for the Development of Gene Therapies: Considerations for Quantitative Drug Development in the Age of Genetic Medicine.

Cell and gene therapies have shown enormous promise across a range of diseases in recent years. Numerous adoptive cell therapy modalities as well as systemic and direct-to-target tissue gene transfer administrations are currently in clinical development. The clinical trial design, development, reporting, and analysis of novel cell and gene therapies can differ significantly from established practices for small molecule drugs and biologics. Here, we discuss important quantitative considerations and key competencies for drug developers in preclinical requirements, trial design, and lifecycle planning for gene therapies. We argue that the unique development path of gene therapies requires practicing quantitative drug developers-statisticians, pharmacometricians, pharmacokineticists, epidemiologists, and medical and translational science leads-to exercise active collaboration and cross-functional learning across development stages.

Efficacy and safety of single- and repeated-selurampanel dosing for 2 weeks in patients with chronic subjective tinnitus: Results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over, proof-of-concept phase IIa study.

To evaluate efficacy and safety of BGG492 (selurampanel; an orally active, competitive AMPA glutamate receptor antagonist) in patients with moderate-to-catastrophic chronic subjective tinnitus. Study (NCT01302873) enrolled patients with subjective tinnitus based on THI severity grade 3, 4 or 5 (moderate, severe or catastrophic), and those with chronic (>6 and <36 months) tinnitus. Primary endpoints were clinical status of tinnitus using TBF-12 and tinnitus loudness using VAS after multiple dose 2-week BGG492 treatment. Safety was assessed by recording all adverse events (AEs). After a single dose of BGG492 VAS scores for tinnitus loudness (P=0.012) and tinnitus annoyance (P=0.004) were significantly reduced vs placebo. After 2 weeks treatment a significantly greater proportion of patients showed improvement of ≥4 points from baseline in TBF-12 (stringent responder definition) with BGG492 vs placebo (26.7% [n=23] vs 14% [n=12], respectively; odds ratio [OR] (90% CI):2.30 (1.10, 4.83); P=0.064), fulfilling proof-of-concept achievement criteria. No notable difference in proportion of responders to BGG492 vs placebo was observed as assessed using VAS (26.7% [n=23] vs 27.6% [n=24], respectively; OR (90% CI):0.94 (0.52, 1.67); P=0.848). Dizziness was the most frequently reported AE in 50% [n=21] and 31.5% [n=17] patients on BGG492 100 and 50mg TID, respectively vs 9.6% [n=9] on placebo. In conclusion, BGG492 showed reduction of both tinnitus loudness and annoyance after a single dose and reduction of tinnitus handicap after 2 weeks of treatment in patients with chronic subjective tinnitus, thereby supporting further clinical investigation of AMPA receptor antagonists with an improved benefit/risk ratio. A dose of 100mg TID BGG492 showed higher efficacy but somewhat lower tolerability compared to 50mg TID.

Citalopram for Acute and Preventive Efficacy in Bipolar Depression (CAPE-BD): A Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of citalopram in the acute and maintenance phases of bipolar depression in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. METHODS: Between 2007 and 2014, 119 subjects with acute major depressive episodes diagnosed with DSM-IV bipolar disorder, type I or type II, were randomized blindly to citalopram or placebo, added to standard mood stabilizers. They were followed for 6 weeks for acute efficacy (primary outcome) and up to 1 year for maintenance efficacy (secondary outcome) using scores on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) and the Mania Rating Scale of the Schedule for Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (MRS-SADS). The study was powered for a clinically meaningful effect size. RESULTS: Mean ± SD MADRS scores changed from a baseline value of 27.4 ± 9.1 to 13.1 ± 8.4 at the end of the acute phase for citalopram versus a change from 27.4 ± 7.3 to 15.2 ± 9.9 for placebo, a clinically and statistically nonsignificant difference. Maintenance efficacy also was not better with citalopram than with placebo. Acute manic/hypomanic episodes were similar in both groups, and subjects with type II illness did not have better outcomes than subjects with type I illness. In maintenance treatment, MRS-SADS scores were greater overall, especially in subjects with a rapid-cycling illness course, with citalopram versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Citalopram, added to standard mood stabilizers, did not have clinically meaningful benefit versus placebo for either acute or maintenance treatment of bipolar depression. Acute mania did not worsen with citalopram, but maintenance treatment led to worsened manic symptoms, especially in subjects with a rapid-cycling course. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00562861.

Implementing unequal randomization in clinical trials with heterogeneous treatment costs.

Equal randomization has been a popular choice in clinical trial practice. However, in trials with heterogeneous variances and/or variable treatment costs, as well as in settings where maximization of every trial participant's benefit is an important design consideration, optimal allocation proportions may be unequal across study treatment arms. In this paper, we investigate optimal allocation designs minimizing study cost under statistical efficiency constraints for parallel group clinical trials comparing several investigational treatments against the control. We show theoretically that equal allocation designs may be suboptimal, and unequal allocation designs can provide higher statistical power for the same budget or result in a smaller cost for the same level of power. We also show how optimal allocation can be implemented in practice by means of restricted randomization procedures and how to perform statistical inference following these procedures, using invoked population-based or randomization-based approaches. Our results provide further support to some previous findings in the literature that unequal randomization designs can be cost efficient and can be successfully implemented in practice. We conclude that the choice of the target allocation, the randomization procedure, and the statistical methodology for data analysis is an essential component in ensuring valid, powerful, and robust clinical trial results.

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.

A comparative study of restricted randomization procedures for multiarm trials with equal or unequal treatment allocation ratios.

Randomization designs for multiarm clinical trials are increasingly used in practice, especially in phase II dose-ranging studies. Many new methods have been proposed in the literature; however, there is lack of systematic, head-to-head comparison of the competing designs. In this paper, we systematically investigate statistical properties of various restricted randomization procedures for multiarm trials with fixed and possibly unequal allocation ratios. The design operating characteristics include measures of allocation balance, randomness of treatment assignments, variations in the allocation ratio, and statistical characteristics such as type I error rate and power. The results from the current paper should help clinical investigators select an appropriate randomization procedure for their clinical trial. We also provide a web-based R shiny application that can be used to reproduce all results in this paper and run simulations under additional user-defined experimental scenarios.