A simulation study of outcome adaptive randomization in multi-arm clinical trials

Randomizing patients among treatments with equal probabilities in clinical trials is the established method to obtain unbiased comparisons. In recent years, motivated by ethical considerations, many authors have proposed outcome adaptive randomization, wherein the randomization probabilities are unbalanced, based on interim data, to favor treatment arms having more favorable outcomes. While there has been substantial controversy regarding the merits and flaws of adaptive versus equal randomization, there has not yet been a systematic simulation study in the multi-arm setting. A simulation study was conducted to evaluate four different Bayesian adaptive randomization methods and compare them to equal randomization in five-arm clinical trials. All adaptive randomization methods included an initial burn-in with equal randomization and some combination of other modifications to avoid extreme randomization probabilities. Trials either with or without a control arm were evaluated, using designs that may terminate arms early for futility and select one or more experimental treatments at the end. The designs were evaluated under a range of scenarios and sample sizes. For trials with a control arm and maximum same size 250 or 500, several commonly used adaptive randomization methods have very low probabilities of correctly selecting a truly superior treatment. Of those studied, the only adaptive randomization method with desirable properties has a burn-in with equal randomization and thereafter randomization probabilities restricted to the interval 0.10–0.90. Compared to equal randomization, this method has a favorable sample size imbalance but lower probability of correctly selecting a superior treatment. In multi-arm trials, compared to equal randomization, several commonly used adaptive randomization methods give much lower probabilities of selecting superior treatments. Aside from randomization method, conducting a multi-arm trial without a control arm may lead to very low probabilities of selecting any superior treatments if differences between the treatment success probabilities are small.

[1]  M. Buyse.  Commentary on Hey and Kimmelman , 2015, Clinical trials.

[2]  C. Assaid,et al.  The Theory of Response-Adaptive Randomization in Clinical Trials , 2007 .

[3]  Ying Yuan,et al.  On the usefulness of outcome-adaptive randomization. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[4]  J. Kimmelman,et al.  Are outcome-adaptive allocation trials ethical? , 2015, Clinical trials.

[5]  J M Lachin,et al.  The use of response-adaptive designs in clinical trials. , 1993, Controlled clinical trials.

[6]  W. Rosenberger,et al.  The theory of response-adaptive randomization in clinical trials , 2006 .

[7]  John Weiner,et al.  Letter to the Editor , 1992, SIGIR Forum.

[8]  THE CLINICAL ONCOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AUSTRALIA,et al.  A NEW DESIGN FOR RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS , 1981 .

[9]  M. Zelen.  A new design for randomized clinical trials. , 1979, The New England journal of medicine.

[10]  L. J. Wei,et al.  The Randomized Play-the-Winner Rule in Medical Trials , 1978 .

[11]  Rick Chappell,et al.  Continuous Bayesian adaptive randomization based on event times with covariates by Cheung et al., Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25:55-70. , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  P. Thall,et al.  Practical Bayesian adaptive randomisation in clinical trials. , 2007, European journal of cancer.

[13]  W. R. Thompson.  ON THE LIKELIHOOD THAT ONE UNKNOWN PROBABILITY EXCEEDS ANOTHER IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE OF TWO SAMPLES , 1933 .

[14]  Lili Zhao,et al.  Modern Adaptive Randomized Clinical Trials: Statistical and Practical Aspects , 2016 .

[15]  Peter F Thall,et al.  Continuous Bayesian adaptive randomization based on event times with covariates , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  P. Thall,et al.  Covariate‐adjusted adaptive randomization in a sarcoma trial with multi‐stage treatments , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  Dezheng Huo,et al.  A group sequential, response-adaptive design for randomized clinical trials. , 2003, Controlled clinical trials.

[18]  Oleksandr Sverdlov,et al.  Adaptive Randomization for Clinical Trials , 2012, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[19]  P. Thall,et al.  Randomized phase II study of gemcitabine and docetaxel compared with gemcitabine alone in patients with metastatic soft tissue sarcomas: results of sarcoma alliance for research through collaboration study 002 [corrected]. , 2007, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[20]  D. Berry.  Adaptive clinical trials: the promise and the caution. , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[21]  Richard S. Sutton,et al.  Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction , 1998, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[22]  G. Yin,et al.  Worth Adapting? Revisiting the Usefulness of Outcome-Adaptive Randomization , 2012, Clinical Cancer Research.

[23]  D. Berry,et al.  Adaptive randomized study of idarubicin and cytarabine versus troxacitabine and cytarabine versus troxacitabine and idarubicin in untreated patients 50 years or older with adverse karyotype acute myeloid leukemia. , 2003, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[24]  B. Freidlin,et al.  Outcome--adaptive randomization: is it useful? , 2011, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[25]  Edward S. Kim,et al.  The BATTLE trial: personalizing therapy for lung cancer. , 2011, Cancer discovery.

[26]  P. Thall,et al.  Statistical controversies in clinical research: scientific and ethical problems with adaptive randomization in comparative clinical trials. , 2015, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[27]  J. Connor,et al.  The platform trial: an efficient strategy for evaluating multiple treatments. , 2015, JAMA.

[28]  S. Ellenberg,et al.  Commentary on Hey and Kimmelman , 2015, Clinical trials.

[29]  Nandini Dendukuri,et al.  Multiple imputation for correcting verification bias by Ofer Harel and Xiao‐Hua Zhou, Statistics in Medicine 2006; 25:3769–3786 , 2007, Statistics in medicine.