Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Epidemiologic Methods (D Westreich, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Epidemiology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

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

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lavori P, Dawson R. Dynamic treatment regimes: practical design considerations. Clinical Trials. 2004;1:9–20.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Murphy SA. An experimental design for the development of adaptive treatment strategies. Statistics in Medicine. 2005;24(10):1455–81.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Moodie EEM, Karran J, Shortreed SM. A case study of the generalizability and retention rate of a SMART study. 2015; Submitted.

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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. 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. Murphy S, Lynch K, Oslin D, et al. Developing adaptive treatment strategies in substance abuse research. Drug and Alcohol Dependence. 2007;88:s24–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

  32. Dawson R, Lavori PW. Sample size calculations for evaluating treatment policies in multi-stage designs. Clinical Trials. 2010;7:643–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Chakraborty B, Moodie EEM. Statistical methods for dynamic treatment regimes. New York: Springer-Verlag; 2013.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  39. Watkins CJCH. Learning from delayed rewards, PhD dissertation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sutton RS, Andrew GB. Reinforcement learning: an introduction. Cambridge: MIT press; 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wallace MP, Moodie EEM. Personalizing medicine: a review of adaptive treatment strategies. Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety. 2014;23(6):580–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Occupational Health, McGill University, 1020 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, QC, H3A 1A2, Canada

    Michael P. Wallace & Erica E. M. Moodie

  2. Department of Mathematics and Statistics, McGill University, Montreal, QC, H3A 2K6, Canada

    David A. Stephens

Authors
  1. Michael P. Wallace
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Erica E. M. Moodie
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David A. Stephens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael P. Wallace.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Epidemiologic Methods

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wallace, M.P., Moodie, E.E.M. & Stephens, D.A. SMART Thinking: a Review of Recent Developments in Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials. Curr Epidemiol Rep 3, 225–232 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-016-0079-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40471-016-0079-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation