Statistical Science

Handling Covariates in the Design of Clinical Trials

William F. Rosenberger and Oleksandr Sverdlov

Full-text: Open access

Abstract

There has been a split in the statistics community about the need for taking covariates into account in the design phase of a clinical trial. There are many advocates of using stratification and covariate-adaptive randomization to promote balance on certain known covariates. However, balance does not always promote efficiency or ensure more patients are assigned to the better treatment. We describe these procedures, including model-based procedures, for incorporating covariates into the design of clinical trials, and give examples where balance, efficiency and ethical considerations may be in conflict. We advocate a new class of procedures, covariate-adjusted response-adaptive (CARA) randomization procedures that attempt to optimize both efficiency and ethical considerations, while maintaining randomization. We review all these procedures, present a few new simulation studies, and conclude with our philosophy.

Article information

Source
Statist. Sci. Volume 23, Number 3 (2008), 404-419.

Dates
First available in Project Euclid: 28 January 2009

Permanent link to this document
https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ss/1233153066

Digital Object Identifier
doi:10.1214/08-STS269

Mathematical Reviews number (MathSciNet)
MR2483911

Zentralblatt MATH identifier
1329.62350

Keywords
Balance covariate-adaptive randomization covariate-adjusted response-adaptive randomization efficiency ethics

Citation

Rosenberger, William F.; Sverdlov, Oleksandr. Handling Covariates in the Design of Clinical Trials. Statist. Sci. 23 (2008), no. 3, 404--419. doi:10.1214/08-STS269. https://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ss/1233153066


Export citation

References

  • Aickin, M. (2001). Randomization, balance and the validity and efficiency of design-adaptive allocation methods. J. Statist. Plann. Inf. 94 97–119.
  • Atkinson, A. C. (1982). Optimum biased coin designs for sequential clinical trials with prognostic factors. Biometrika 69 61–67.
  • Atkinson, A. C. (1999). Optimum biased-coin designs for sequential treatment allocation with covariate information (with discussion). Statist. Med. 18 1741–1752.
  • Atkinson, A. C. (2002). The comparison of designs for sequential clinical trials with covariate information. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. A 165 349–373.
  • Atkinson, A. C. and Biswas, A. (2005a). Bayesian adaptive biased-coin designs for clinical trials with normal responses. Biometrics 61 118–125.
  • Atkinson, A. C. and Biswas, A. (2005b). Adaptive biased-coin designs for skewing the allocation proportion in clinical trials with normal responses. Statist. Med. 24 2477–2492.
  • Baldi Antognini, A. and Giovagnoli, A. (2005). On the large sample optimality of sequential designs for comparing two or more treatments. Sequential Anal. 24 205–217.
  • Baldi Antognini, A. and Giovagnoli, A. (2006). On asymptotic inference for sequential experiments with an adaptive treatment allocation and/or an adaptive stopping rule. Metron 64 29–45.
  • Ball, F. G., Smith, A. F. M. and Verdinelli, I. (1993). Biased coin designs with Bayesian bias. J. Statist. Plann. Inf. 34 403–421.
  • Bandyopadhyay, U. and Biswas, A. (2001). Adaptive designs for normal responses with prognostic factors. Biometrika 88 409–419.
  • Bandyopadhyay, U., Biswas, A. and Bhattacharya, R. (2007). A covariate-adjusted two-stage allocation design for binary responses in randomized clinical trials. Statist. Med. 26 4386–4399.
  • Begg, C. B. and Iglewicz, B. (1980). A treatment allocation procedure for sequential clinical trials. Biometrics 36 81–90.
  • Begg, C. B. and Kalish, L. (1984). Treatment allocation in sequential clinical trials: The logistic model. Biometrics 40 409–420.
  • Birkett, N. J. (1985). Adaptive allocation in randomized controlled trials. Controlled Clin. Trials 6 146–155.
  • Buyse, M. and McEntegart, D. (2004). Achieving balance in clinical trials: An unbalanced view from EU regulators. Applied Clin. Trials 13 36–40.
  • Day, S., Grouin, J.-M. and Lewis, J. (2005). Achieving balance in clinical trials. Applied Clin. Trials 13 41–43.
  • Ebbutt, A., Kay, R., McNamara, J. and Engler, J. (1997). The analysis of trials using a minimisation algorithm. In Statisticians in the Pharmaceutical Industry Annual Conference Report, 1997 12–15. PSI, London.
  • Efron, B. (1971). Forcing a sequential experiment to be balanced. Biometrika 58 403–417.
  • Efron, B. (1980). Randomizing and balancing a complicated sequential experiment. In Biostatistics Casebook (R. G. Miller, B. Efron, B. Brown and L. E. Moses, eds.) 19–30. Wiley, New York.
  • Frane, J. W. (1998). A method of biased coin randomization, its implementation and its validation. Drug Inf. J. 32 423–432.
  • Gail, M. (1992). A conversation with Nathan Mantel. Statist. Sci. 12 88–97.
  • Grizzle, J. E. (1982). A note on stratifying versus complete random assignment in clinical trials. Controlled Clin. Trials 3 365–368.
  • Grouin, J.-M., Day, S. and Lewis, J. (2004). Adjustment for baseline covariates: An introductory note. Statist. Med. 23 697–699.
  • Hammerstrom, T. (2003). Computer intensive and re-randomization tests in clinical trials. FDA/Industry Workshop, Bethesda, MD.
  • Harville, D. A. (1974). Nearly optimal allocation of experimental units using observed covariate values. Technometrics 16 589–599.
  • Heritier, S., Gebski, V. and Pillai, A. (2005). Dynamic balancing randomization in controlled clinical trials. Statist. Med. 24 3729–3741.
  • Hu, F. and Rosenberger, W. F. (2006). The Theory of Response-Adaptive Randomization. Wiley, New York.
  • Hu, F. and Zhang, L.-X. (2004). Asymptotic properties of doubly adaptive biased coin designs for multitreatment clinical trials. Ann. Statist. 32 268–301.
  • Kalish, L. A. and Begg, C. B. (1985). Treatment allocation methods in clinical trials: A review. Statist. Med. 4 129–144.
  • Kalish, L. A. and Begg, C. B. (1987). The impact of treatment allocation procedures on nominal significance levels and bias. Controlled Clin. Trials 8 121–135.
  • Kalish, L. A. and Harrington, D. P. (1988). Efficiency of balanced treatment allocation for survival analysis. Biometrics 44 815–821.
  • Kiefer, J. and Wolfowitz, J. (1960). The equivalence of two extremum problems. Canad. J. Math. 12 363–366.
  • Klotz, J. H. (1978). Maximum entropy constrained balance randomization for clinical trials. Biometrics 34 283–287.
  • Leyland-Jones, B. (2003). Breast cancer trial with erythropoietin terminated unexpectedly. Lancet Oncology 4 459–460.
  • McEntegart, D. (2003). The pursuit of balance using stratified and dynamic randomization techniques: An overview. Drug Inf. J. 37 293–308.
  • Nordle, O. and Brantmark, B. (1977). A self-adjusting randomization plan for allocation of patients into two treatment groups. Clin. Pharm. Therap. 22 825–830.
  • Permutt, T. (2000). Adjustment for covariates. In Encyclopedia of Biopharmaceutical Statistics (S. C. Chow, ed.). Dekker, New York.
  • Pesarin, F. (2001). Multivariate Permutation Tests With Applications in Biostatistics. Wiley, Chichester.
  • Pocock, S. J. and Simon, R. (1975). Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics 31 103–115.
  • Raghavarao, D. (1980). Use of distance function in sequential treatment assignment for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Calcutta Statist. Assoc. Bull. 29 99–102.
  • Rosenberger, W. F. and Lachin, J. L. (2002). Randomization in Clinical Trials: Theory and Practice. Wiley, New York.
  • Rosenberger, W. F., Stallard, N., Ivanova, A., Harper, C. and Ricks, M. (2001). Optimal adaptive designs for binary response trials. Biometrics 57 909–913.
  • Rosenberger, W. F., Vidyashankar, A. N. and Agarwal, D. K. (2001). Covariate-adjusted response-adaptive designs for binary response. J. Biopharm. Statist. 11 227–236.
  • Scott, N. W., McPherson, G. C., Ramsay, C. R. and Campbell, M. K. (2002). The method of minimization for allocation to clinical trials: A review. Controlled Clin. Trials 23 662–674.
  • Sibson, R. (1974). D-optimality and duality. In Progress in Statistics (J. Gani, K. Sarkadi and J. Vincze, eds.). North-Holland, Amsterdam.
  • Signorini, D. F., Leung, O., Simes, R. J., Beller, E. and Gebski, V. J. (1993). Dynamic balanced randomization for clinical trials. Statist. Med. 12 2343–2350.
  • Smith, R. L. (1984a). Properties of biased coin designs in sequential clinical trials. Ann. Statist. 12 1018–1034.
  • Smith, R. L. (1984b). Sequential treatment allocation using biased coin designs. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B 46 519–543.
  • Taves, D. R. (1974). Minimization: A new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups. J. Clin. Pharmacol. Therap. 15 443–453.
  • Taves, D. R. (2004). Faulty assumptions in Atkinson’s criteria for clinical trial design. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. A 167 179–180.
  • Therneau, T. (1993). How many stratification factors are ‘too many’ to use in a randomization plan. Controlled Clin. Trials 14 98–108.
  • Titterington, D. M. (1983). On constrained balance randomization for clinical trials. Biometrics 39 1083–1086.
  • Treasure, T. and MacRae, K. D. (1998). Minimisation: The platinum standard for trials? Br. Med. J. 317 362–363.
  • Tu, D., Shalay, K. and Pater, J. (2000). Adjustment of treatment effect for covariates in clinical trials: Statistical and regulatory issues. Drug Inf. J. 34 511–523.
  • Wei, L. J. (1978). An application of an urn model to the design of sequential controlled clinical trials. J. Amer. Statist. Assoc. 72 382–386.
  • Zelen, M. (1974). The randomization and stratification of patients to clinical trials. J. Chron. Dis. 27 365–375.
  • Zhang, L.-X., Hu, F., Cheung, S. H. and Chan, W. S. (2007). Asymptotic properties of covariate-adjusted response-adaptive designs. Ann. Statist. 35 1166–1182.