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

allocation randomness clinical trial maximum tolerated imbalance randomization

Journal

Statistics in medicine
ISSN: 1097-0258
Titre abrégé: Stat Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8215016

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
20 Jan 2024
Historique:
revised: 01 11 2023
received: 26 06 2023
accepted: 04 01 2024
medline: 20 1 2024
pubmed: 20 1 2024
entrez: 20 1 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

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.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38243729
doi: 10.1002/sim.10013
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Subventions

Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : U24 NS100655
Pays : United States
Organisme : NINDS NIH HHS
ID : U01 NS087748
Pays : United States

Informations de copyright

© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Références

Berger V. Selection Bias and Covariate Imbalances in Randomized Clinical Trials. West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons; 2005.
Zhao W, Berger V. Imbalance control in clinical trial subject randomization-from philosophy to strategy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;101:116-118. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.022
Blackwell D, Hodges JL. Design for the control of selection bias. Ann Math Stat. 1957;28(2):449-460.
Zhao W, Weng Y, Wu Q, Palesch Y. Quantitative comparison of randomization designs in sequential clinical trials based on treatment balance and allocation randomness. Pharm Stat. 2012;11(1):39-48. doi:10.1002/pst.493
Ryeznik Y, Sverdlov O. A comparative study of restricted randomization procedures for multiarm trials with equal or unequal treatment allocation ratios. Stat Med. 2018;37(21):3056-3077. doi:10.1002/sim.7817
Berger VW, Bour LJ, Carter K, et al. A roadmap to using randomization in clinical trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):168. doi:10.1186/s12874-021-01303-z
Hill AB. The clinical trial. Br Med Bull. 1951;71:278-282.
Efron B. Forcing a sequential experiment to be balanced. Biometrika. 1971;58:403-417.
Wei LJ. A class of designs for sequential clinical trials. J Am Stat Assoc. 1977;72:382-386.
Soares JF, Wu CF. Some restricted randomization rules in sequential designs. Commun Stat. 1983;12:2017-2034.
Chen YP. Biased coin design with imbalance tolerance. Commun Stat Stoch Models. 1999;15(5):953-975. doi:10.1080/15326349908807570
Chen YP. Which design is better? Ehrenfest urn versus biased coin. Adv Appl Probab. 2000;32:738-749.
Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM. Randomization in Clinical Trials Theory and Practice. New York: NY, Wiley-Interscience; 2002.
Berger VW, Ivanova A, Knoll MD. Minimizing predictability while retaining balance through the use of less restrictive randomization procedures. Stat Med. 2003;22(19):3017-3028. doi:10.1002/sim.1538
Kuznetsova OM, Tymofyeyev Y. Brick tunnel randomization for unequal allocation to two or more treatment groups. Stat Med. 2011;30(8):812-824. doi:10.1002/sim.4167
Zhao W, Weng Y. Block urn design - a new randomization algorithm for sequential trials with two or more treatments and balanced or unbalanced allocation. Contemp Clin Trials. 2011;32(6):953-961. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2011.08.004
Efird J. Blocked randomization with randomly selected block sizes. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2011;8(1):15-20. doi:10.3390/ijerph8010015
Kuznetsova OM, Tymofyeyev Y. Wide brick tunnel randomization - an unequal allocation procedure that limits the imbalance in treatment totals. Stat Med. 2014;33(9):1514-1530. doi:10.1002/sim.6051
Zhao W. Mass weighted urn design-a new randomization algorithm for unequal allocations. Contemp Clin Trials. 2015;43:209-216. doi:10.1016/j.cct.2015.06.008
Zhao W, Berger VW, Yu Z. The asymptotic maximal procedure for subject randomization in clinical trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27(7):2142-2153. doi:10.1177/0962280216677107
van der Pas SL. Merged block randomisation: a novel randomisation procedure for small clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2019;16(3):246-252. doi:10.1177/1740774519827957
Berger VW, Bejleri K, Agnor R. Comparing MTI randomization procedures to blocked randomization. Stat Med. 2016;35(5):685-694. doi:10.1002/sim.6637
Matts JP, Lachin JM. Properties of permuted-block randomization in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1988;9(4):327-344. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(88)90047-5
Zhao W, Weng Y. A simplified formula for quantification of the probability of deterministic assignments in permuted block randomization. J Stat Plan Inference. 2011;141(1):474-478. doi:10.1016/j.jspi.2010.06.023
Altman DG, Schulz KF. Statistics notes: concealing treatment allocation in randomised trials. BMJ. 2001;323(7310):446-447. doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7310.446
Zhao W, Yeatts SD, Broderick JP, et al. Optimal randomization designs for large multicenter clinical trials: from the National Institutes of Health Stroke Trials Network funded by National Institutes of Health/National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke experience. Stroke. 2023;54(7):1909-1919. doi:10.1161/STROKEAHA.122.040743
Zhao W, Hill MD, Palesch Y. Minimal sufficient balance-a new strategy to balance baseline covariates and preserve randomness of treatment allocation. Stat Methods Med Res. 2015;24(6):989-1002. doi:10.1177/0962280212436447

Auteurs

Wenle Zhao (W)

Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.

Kerstine Carter (K)

Biometrics and Data Sciences Department, Boehringer-Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc, Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA.

Oleksandr Sverdlov (O)

Early Development Analytics, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, East Hanover, New Jersey, USA.

Annika Scheffold (A)

Biometrics and Data Sciences Department, Boehringer-Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc, Ridgefield, Connecticut, USA.
Biometrics and Data Sciences Department, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Biberach, Germany.

Yevgen Ryeznik (Y)

BioPharma Early Biometrics & Statistical Innovations, Data Science & AI, R&D BioPharmaceuticals, AstraZeneca, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Christy Cassarly (C)

Department of Public Health Sciences, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.

Vance W Berger (VW)

Division of Cancer Prevention, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Classifications MeSH