Advertisement

Current Epidemiology Reports

, Volume 3, Issue 3, pp 225–232 | Cite as

SMART Thinking: a Review of Recent Developments in Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials

  • Michael P. WallaceEmail author
  • Erica E. M. Moodie
  • David A. Stephens
Epidemiologic Methods (D Westreich, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Epidemiologic Methods

Abstract

With the increasing interest in personalized medicine, over the last decade, sequential multiple assignment randomized trials (SMARTs) have become a more common fixture of the clinical trial landscape. Primarily of use in the identification of dynamic treatment regimes, they have experienced a shift from the more complex designs of the past to the considerably streamlined versions seen today. In this review, we summarize their history, outline recent and ongoing examples, and discuss some of the important methodological developments for their design and implementation.

Keywords

SMARTs Dynamic treatment regimes Adaptive treatment strategies Longitudinal data Causal inference 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is funded by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada Discovery Grants. Dr. Moodie is sponsored by a Chercheur-Boursier career award from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec-Santé (FRSQ), and Dr. Wallace is partially supported by a training scholarship from the Canadian Network for Advanced Interdisciplinary Methods for comparative effectiveness research, Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network (CAN-AIM DSEN).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance

  1. 1.
    Lavori PW, Dawson R. A design for testing clinical strategies: biased adaptive within-subject randomization. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A. 2000;163:29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lavori P, Dawson R. Dynamic treatment regimes: practical design considerations. Clinical Trials. 2004;1:9–20.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Murphy SA. An experimental design for the development of adaptive treatment strategies. Statistics in Medicine. 2005;24(10):1455–81.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thall PF, Wooten LH, Logothetis CJ, Millikan RE, Tannir NM. Bayesian and frequentist two-stage treatment strategies based on sequential failure times subject to interval censoring. Statistics in Medicine. 2007;26:4687–702.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Almirall D, Lizotte D, Murphy S. SMART design issues and the consideration of opposing outcomes, a discussion of evaluation of viable dynamic treatment regimes in a sequentially randomized trial of advanced prostate cancer by Wang, Rotnitzky, Lin, Millikan, and Thall. Journal of the American Statistical Association. 2012;107(498):509–12.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rush AJ, Fava M, Wisniewski SR, Lavori PW, Trivedi MH, Sackeim HA, et al. Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression (STAR*D): rationale and design. Controlled Clinical Trials. 2004;25:119–42.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Stroup TS, McEvoy JP, Swartz MS, Byerly MJ, Glick ID, Canive JM, et al. The National Institute of Mental Health Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE) project: schizophrenia trial design and protocol development. Schizophrenia Bulletin. 2003;29:15–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pineau J, Bellemare MG, Rush JA, Ghizaru A, Murphy SA. Constructing evidence- based treatment strategies using methods from computer science. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2007;88(Supplement 2(0)):S52–60. Customizing treatment to the patient: adaptive treatment strategies. Available from: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0376871607000270.
  9. 9.
    Shortreed SM, Laber E, Lizotte DJ, Stroup TS, Pineau J, Murphy SA. Informing sequential clinical decision-making through reinforcement learning: an empirical study. Machine Learning. 2011;84(1-2):109–36. Available from: doi: 10.1007/s10994-010-5229-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shortreed SM, Moodie EEM. Estimating the optimal dynamic antipsychotic treatment regime: evidence from the sequential multiple-assignment randomized Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention and Effectiveness schizophrenia study. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series C. 2012;61(4):577–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zhao Y, Zeng D. Recent development on statistical methods for personalized medicine discovery. Frontiers of Medicine. 2013;7(1):102–10. Available from: doi:  10.1007/s11684-013-0245-7.
  12. 12.
    Schneider LS, Tariot PN, Lyketsos CG, Dagerman KS, Davis KL, Davis S. National Institute of Mental Health Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness (CATIE): Alzheimer disease trial methodology. American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2001;9:346–60.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moodie EEM, Karran J, Shortreed SM. A case study of the generalizability and retention rate of a SMART study. 2015; Submitted.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Habermann TM, Weller EA, Morrison VA, Gascoyne RD, Cassileth PA, Cohn JB, et al. Rituximab-CHOP verses CHOP alone or with maintenance rituximab in older patients with diffuse large B-cell lymphoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2006;24:3121–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Matthay KK, Villablanca JG, Seeger RC, Stram DO, Harris RE, Ramsay NK, et al. Treatment of high-risk neuroblastoma with intensive chemotherapy, radiotherapy, autologous bone marrow transplantation, and 13-cis-retinoic acid. The New England Journal of Medicine. 1999;341:1165–73.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Stone RM, Berg DT, George SL, Dodge RK, Paciucci PA, Schulman PP, et al. Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor after initial chemotherapy for elderly patients with primary acute myelogenous leukemia. New England Journal of Medicine. 1995;332:1671–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stone RM, Berg DT, George SL, Dodge RK, Paciucci PA, Schulman PP, et al. Postremission therapy in older patients with de novo acute myeloid leukemia: a randomized trial comparing mitoxantrone and intermediate-dose cytarabine with standard-dose cytarabine. Blood. 2001;98:548–53.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tummarello D, Mari D, Graziano F, Isidori P, Cetto G, Pasini F, et al. A randomized, controlled phase III study of cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and vincristine with etoposide (CAV-E) or teniposide (CAV-T), followed by recombinant interferon-alpha maintenance therapy or observation, in small cell lung carcinoma patients with complete responses. Cancer. 1997;80:2222–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Auyeung SF, Long Q, Royster EB, Murthy S, McNutt MD, Lawson D, et al. Sequential multiple-assignment randomized trial design of neurobehavioral treatment for patients with metastatic malignant melanoma undergoing high-dose interferon-alpha therapy. Clinical Trials. 2009;6:480–90.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sherwood NA, Butryn ML, Forman EM, Almirall D, Seburg EM, Crain AL, et al. The BestFIT trial: a SMART approach to developing individualized weight loss treatments. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2016;47:209–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Naar-King S, Ellis DA, Idalski AC, Templin T, Jacques-Tiura AJ, Brogan KH, et al. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2015.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nahum-Shani I, Qian M, Almirall D, Pelham WE, Gnagy B, Fabiano GA, et al. Experimental design and primary data analysis methods for comparing adaptive interventions. Psychological Methods. 2012;17:457–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nahum-Shani I, Qian M, Almirall D, Pelham WE, Gnagy B, Fabiano GA, et al. Q-learning: a data analysis method for constructing adaptive interventions. Psychological methods. 2012;17(4):478–94. Available from: http://search.proquest.com.proxylib.umich.edu/docview/1314310841?accountid=14667.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mateos MV, Orio A, Martínez-López J, Gutiérrez N, Teruel AI, de Paz R, et al. Bortezomib, melphalan, and prednisone versus bortezomib, thalidomide, and prednisone as induction therapy followed by maintenance treatment with bortezomib and thalidomide versus bortezomib and prednisone in elderly patients with untreated multiple myeloma: a randomised trial. The Lancet Oncology. 2010;11:934–41.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kasari C. Developmental and augmented intervention for facilitating expressive language (CCNIA). Bethesda: National Institutes of Health; 2009. Available from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01013545.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oslin D. Managing alcoholism in people who do not respond to naltrexone (EXTEND). Bethesda: National Institutes of Health; 2005. Available from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00115037.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Jones H. H. Jones. Reinforcement-based treatment for pregnant drug abusers (HOME II). National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD. 2010; Available from: http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01177982
  28. 28.
    Murphy S, Lynch K, Oslin D, et al. Developing adaptive treatment strategies in substance abuse research. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2007;88:s24–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rich B, Moodie EEM, Stephens DA, Platt RW. Simulating sequential multiple assignment randomized trials to generate optimal personalized warfarin dosing strategies. Clinical Trials. 2014;11:435–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gunlicks-Stoessel M, Mufson L, Westervelt A, Almirall D, Murphy S. A pilot SMART for developing an adaptive treatment strategy for adolescent depression. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2015;18:1–15.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chronis-Tuscano A, Wang CH, Strickland J, Almirall D, Stein M. Personalized treatment of mothers with ADHD and their young at-risk children: a SMART pilot. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2016.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dawson R, Lavori PW. Sample size calculations for evaluating treatment policies in multi-stage designs. Clinical Trials. 2010;7:643–52.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chakraborty B, Moodie EEM. Statistical methods for dynamic treatment regimes. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.•
    Kosorok MR, Moodie EEM. Adaptive treatment strategies in practice. 2016. This book provides an overview of the personalized medicine literature, from planning trials to data analysis. It is written with a wide variety of readers in mind, ranging from the discussion of broad principles to specialist implementations.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Kilbourne AM, Almirall D, Eisenberg D, Waxmonsky J, Goodrich DE, Fortney JC, et al. Protocol: Adaptive Implementation of Effective Programs Trial (ADEPT): cluster randomized SMART trial comparing a standard versus enhanced implementation strategy to improve outcomes of a mood disorders program. Implementation Science. 2014;9.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Tamura RN, Krischer JP, Pagnoux C, Micheletti R, Grayson PC, Chen Y, et al. A small n sequential multiple assignment randomized trial design for use in rare disease research. Contemporary Clinical Trials. 2016;46:48–51.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Cheung YK, Chakraborty B, Davidson KW. Sequential multiple assignment randomized trial (SMART) with adaptive randomization for quality improvement in depression treatment program. Biometrics. 2016;71(2):450–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Robins JM. Optimal structural nested models for optimal sequential decisions. In: Lin D, Heagerty P, editors. Proceedings of the second Seattle symposium on biostatistics. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2004. p. 189–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Watkins CJCH. Learning from delayed rewards, PhD dissertation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1989.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sutton RS, Andrew GB. Reinforcement learning: an introduction. Cambridge: MIT press; 1998.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Wallace MP, Moodie EEM. Personalizing medicine: a review of adaptive treatment strategies. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. 2014;23(6):580–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael P. Wallace
    • 1
  • Erica E. M. Moodie
    • 1
  • David A. Stephens
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational HealthMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada
  2. 2.Department of Mathematics and StatisticsMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations