Advertisement

Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice

, Volume 7, Issue 4, pp 753–773 | Cite as

On Recent Advances in Optimal Allocation Designs in Clinical Trials

Article

Abstract

One of the fundamental questions in the design of clinical trials is how to optimally allocate treatments to study subjects to achieve selected experimental objectives. In this article we review major recent methodological advances in optimal allocation for clinical trials. A literature review shows that starting from the 2000s many new allocation methods have been proposed to enhance the design of multiobjective and multiarm clinical trials. These allocation designs can provide improvements over traditional balanced allocation designs both in terms of statistical efficiency and ethical criteria. We also discuss state-of-the art response-adaptive randomization procedures for implementing optimal allocation designs in practice.

Keywords

Efficiency Optimality Power Response-adaptive randomization Unequal allocation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Atkinson, A. 1982. Optimum biased coin designs for sequential clinical trials with prognostic factors. Biometrika, 69, 61–67.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson, A. 1996. The usefullness of optimum experimental designs. J. R. Stat. Soc, Ser. B, 58, 59–76.Google Scholar
  3. Atkinson, A., A. Donev, and R. Tobias. 2007. Optimum experimental designs, with SAS New York, NY, Oxford University Press.MATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Biswas, A., S. Mandal, and R. Bhattacharya. 2011. Multi-treatment optimal response-adaptive designs for phase III clinical trials. J. Korean Stat. Soc., 40, 33–14.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clyde, M., and K. Chaloner. 1996. The equivalence of constrained and weighted designs in multiple objective design problems. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 91, 1236–1244.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook, R. D., and V. Fedorov. 1995. Constrained optimization of experimental design. Statistics, 26, 129–178.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cook, R. D., and W. K. Wong. 1994. On the equivalence of constrained and compound optimal design. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 89, 687–692.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Eisele, J. R. 1994. The doubly-adaptive biased coin design for sequential clinical trials. J. Stat. Plan. Inference, 38, 249–262.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eschenauer, H., J. Koski, and A. Osyczka. 1990. Multicriteria design optimization, Berlin, Germany, Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fedorov, V. 2010. Optimal experimental design. WIREs Comput. Stat., 2, 581–589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hu, F., and W. F. Rosenberger. 2003. Optimality, variability, power: Evaluating response-adaptive randomization procedures for treatment comparisons. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 98, 671–678.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hu, F., and W. F. Rosenberger. 2006. The theory of response-adaptive randomization in clinical trials. New York, NY, Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hu, F., W. F. Rosenberger, and L. X. Zhang. 2006. Asymptotically best response-adaptive randomization procedures. J. Stat. Plan. Inference, 136, 1911–1922.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hu, F., and L. X. Zhang. 2004. Asymptotic properties of doubly-adaptive biased coin designs for multitreatment clinical trials. Ann. Stat., 32, 268–301.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Hu, F., L. X. Zhang, and X. He. 2009. Efficient randomized-adaptive designs. Ann. Stat., 37, 2543–2560.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ivanova, A. V. 2003. A play-the-winner type urn model with reduced variability. Metrika, 58, 1–14.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jennison, C., and B.W. Turnbull. 2000. Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. Boca Raton, FL, Chapman and Hall/CRC.MATHGoogle Scholar
  18. Jeon, Y., and F. Hu. 2010. Optimal adaptive designs for binary response trials with three treatments. Stat. Biopharm. Rese., 2, 310–318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kalish, L. A., and C.B. Begg. 1985. Treatment allocation methods in clinical trials: A review. Stat. Med., 4, 129–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kiefer, J., and J. Wolfowitz. 1960. The equivalence of two extremum problems. Can. J. Math., 12, 363–366.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lauter, E. 1974. Experimental planning in a class of models. Math. Oper. Stat., 5, 673–708.Google Scholar
  22. Lauter, E. 1976. Optimal multipurpose designs for regression models. Math. Oper. Stat., 7, 51–68.MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosenberger, W. F., N. Stallard, A. Ivanova, C. Harper, and M. Ricks. 2001. Optimal adaptive designs for binary response trials. Biometrics, 57, 909–913.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith, R. L. 1984. Properties of biased coin designs in sequential clinical trials. Ann. Stat., 12, 1018–1034.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sun, R., S. H. Cheung, and L. X. Zhang. 2007. A generalized drop-the-loser rule for multi-treatment clinical trials. J. Stat. Plan. Inference, 137, 2011–2023.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sverdlov, O., Y. Tymofyeyev, and W. K. Wong. 2011. Optimal response-adaptive randomized designs for multi-armed survival trials. Stat. Med., 30, 2890–2910.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Sverdlov, O., Y. Ryeznik, and W. K. Wong. 2013. Optimal response-adaptive designs for multiple-objective clinical trials with Weibull time-to-event outcomes. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, acceptedGoogle Scholar
  28. Tymofyeyev, Y. 2005. Optimal allocation for multi-armed clinical trials. Doctoral dissertation,. University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD.Google Scholar
  29. Tymofyeyev, Y., W. F. Rosenberger, and F. Hu. 2007. Implementing optimal allocation in sequential binary response experiments. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 102, 224–234.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wei, L. J. 1978. The adaptive biased coin design for sequential experiments. Ann. Stat., 6, 92–100.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wei, L. J. 1979. The generalized Pólya’s urn design for sequential medical trials. Ann. Stat., 7, 291–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wei, L. J., and S. D. Durham. 1978. Randomized play-the-winner rule in medical trials. J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 73, 838–843.MATHGoogle Scholar
  33. Wong, W. K. 1995. A graphical approach for the construction of constrained D and L-optimal designs using efficiency plots. J. Stat. Comput. Simulation, 53, 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wong, W. K. 1999. Recent advances in multiple-objective design strategies. Stat. Neerlandi., 53, 257–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wong, W. K., and W. Zhu. 2008. Optimum treatment allocation rules under a variance heterogeneity model. Stat. Med., 27, 4581–4595.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Zhang, L. X., F. Hu, and S. H. Cheung. 2006. Asymptotic theorems of sequential estimation-adjusted urn models. Ann. Appl. Probability, 16, 340–369.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zhang, L. X., F. Hu, S. H. Cheung, and W. S. Chan. 2007. Asymptotic properties of covariate-adjusted response-adaptive designs. Ann. Stat. 35, 1166–1182.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang, L. X., F. Hu, S. H. Cheung, and W. S. Chan. 2011. Immigrated urn models—theoretical properties and applications. Ann. Stat., 39, 643–671.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhu, W., and W. K. Wong, 2000a. Optimal treatment allocation in comparative biomedical studies. Stat. Med., 19, 639–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zhu, W., and W. K. Wong. 2000b. Optimum treatment allocation for dual-objective clinical trials with binary outcomes. Comm. Stat. Theory Methods, 29, 957–974.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Grace Scientific Publishing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Translational SciencesNovartis Pharmaceuticals CorporationEast HanoverUSA
  2. 2.Department of StatisticsGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA

Personalised recommendations