Stratification of randomization is not required for a pre‐specified subgroup analysis

Published literature and regulatory agency guidance documents provide conflicting recommendations as to whether a pre-specified subgroup analysis also requires for its validity that the study employ randomization that is stratified on subgroup membership. This is an important issue, as subgroup analyses are often required to demonstrate efficacy in the development of drugs with a companion diagnostic. Here, it is shown, for typical randomization methods, that the fraction of patients in the subgroup given experimental treatment matches, on average, the target fraction in the entire study. Also, mean covariate values are balanced, on average, between treatment arms in the subgroup, and it is argued that the variance in covariate imbalance between treatment arms in the subgroup is at worst only slightly increased versus a subgroup-stratified randomization method. Finally, in an analysis of variance setting, a least-squares treatment effect estimator within the subgroup is shown to be unbiased whether or not the randomization is stratified on subgroup membership. Thus, a requirement that a study be stratified on subgroup membership would place an artificial roadblock to innovation and the goals of personalized healthcare.

[1]  G. Campbell,et al.  Interpretation of Subgroup Analyses in Medical Device Clinical Trials* , 1998 .

[2]  Mohit Bhandari,et al.  How to work with a subgroup analysis. , 2009, Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie.

[3]  Yi Tsong,et al.  ISSUES RELATED TO SUBGROUP ANALYSIS IN CLINICAL TRIALS , 2002, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[4]  The challenge of subgroup analyses. , 2006, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  L. Kaiser Dynamic randomization and a randomization model for clinical trials data , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  Yevgen Tymofyeyev,et al.  Preserving the allocation ratio at every allocation with biased coin randomization and minimization in studies with unequal allocation , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  G. Borm,et al.  Sequential balancing: a simple method for treatment allocation in clinical trials. , 2005, Contemporary Clinical Trials.

[8]  Robert T O'Neill,et al.  Statistical considerations in evaluating pharmacogenomics-based clinical effect for confirmatory trials , 2010, Clinical trials.

[9]  R. Simon Clinical trials for predictive medicine , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  学 岩崎,et al.  Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP): points to consider on adjustment for baseline covariates. , 2006, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  L. J. Wei,et al.  Properties of the urn randomization in clinical trials. , 1988, Controlled clinical trials.

[12]  S. Pocock,et al.  Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. , 1975, Biometrics.

[13]  Stephane Heritier,et al.  Dynamic balancing randomization in controlled clinical trials , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[14]  F. Collins,et al.  The path to personalized medicine. , 2010, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  R. Simon,et al.  Use of genomic signatures in therapeutics development in oncology and other diseases , 2006, The Pharmacogenomics Journal.