The benefit of stratification in clinical trials revisited

Exploring Stratification Strategies for Population- Versus Randomization-Based Inference

Stratification on important variables is a common practice in clinical trials, since ensuring cosmetic balance on known baseline covariates is often deemed to be a crucial requirement for the credibility of the experimental results. However, the actual benefits of stratification are still debated in the literature. Other authors have shown that it does not improve efficiency in large samples and improves it only negligibly in smaller samples. This paper investigates different subgroup analysis strategies, with a particular focus on the potential benefits in terms of inferential precision of prestratification versus both poststratification and post hoc regression adjustment. For each of these approaches, the pros and cons of population-based versus randomization-based inference are discussed. The effects of the presence of a treatment-by-covariate interaction and the variability in the patient responses are also taken into account. Our results show that, in general, prestratifying does not provide substantial benefit. On the contrary, it may be deleterious, in particular for randomization-based procedures in the presence of a chronological bias. Even when there is treatment-by-covariate interaction, prestratification may backfire by considerably reducing the inferential precision.

An Overview of Adaptive Designs and Some of Their Challenges, Benefits, and Innovative Applications

Adaptive designs are increasingly developed and used to improve all phases of clinical trials and in biomedical studies in various ways to address different statistical issues. We first present an overview of adaptive designs and note their numerous advantages over traditional clinical trials. In particular, we provide a concrete demonstration that shows how recent adaptive design strategies can further improve an adaptive trial implemented 13 years ago. Despite their usefulness, adaptive designs are still not widely implemented in clinical trials. We offer a few possible reasons and propose some ways to use them more broadly in practice, which include greater availability of software tools and interactive websites to generate optimal adaptive trials freely and effectively, including the use of metaheuristics to facilitate the search for an efficient trial design. To this end, we present several web-based tools for finding various adaptive and nonadaptive optimal designs and discuss nature-inspired metaheuristics. Metaheuristics are assumptions-free general purpose optimization algorithms widely used in computer science and engineering to tackle all kinds of challenging optimization problems, and their use in designing clinical trials is just emerging. We describe a few recent such applications and some of their capabilities for designing various complex trials. Particle swarm optimization is an exemplary nature-inspired algorithm, and similar to others, it has a simple definition but many moving parts, making it hard to study its properties analytically. We investigated one of its hitherto unstudied issues on how to bring back out-of-range candidates during the search for the optimum of the search domain and show that different strategies can impact the success and time of the search. We conclude with a few caveats on the use of metaheuristics for a successful search.

How Good is Stratification and Prediction Model Analysis Between Primary and Revisional Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Surgery? A Multi-center Study and Narrative Review

INTRODUCTIONS

Revision surgery because of weight recurrence is performed in 2.5-33% of primary vertical banded gastroplasty (VBG), laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG), and gastric band (GB) cases. These cases qualify for revisional Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RRYGB).

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from 2008 to 2019. A stratification analysis and multivariate logistic regression for prediction modeling compared the possibility of sufficient % excess weight loss (%EWL) ≥ 50 or insufficient %EWL < 50 between three different RRYGB procedures, with primary Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (PRYGB) as the control during 2 years of follow-up. A narrative review was conducted to test the presence of prediction models in the literature and their internal and external validity.

RESULTS

A total of 558 patients underwent PRYGB, and 338 underwent RRYGB after VBG, LSG, and GB, and completed 2 years of follow-up. Overall, 32.2% of patients after RRYGB had a sufficient %EWL ≥ 50 after 2 years, compared to 71.3% after PRYGB (p ≤ 0.001). The total %EWL after the revision surgeries for VBG, LSG, and GB was 68.5%, 74.2%, and 64.1%, respectively (p ≤ 0.001). After correcting for confounding factors, the baseline odds ratio (OR) or sufficient %EWL ≥ 50 after PRYGB, LSG, VBG, and GB was 2.4, 1.45, 0.29, and 0.32, respectively (p ≤ 0.001). Age was the only significant variable in the prediction model (p = 0.0016). It was impossible to develop a validated model after revision surgery because of the differences between stratification and the prediction model. The narrative review showed only 10.2% presence of validation in the prediction models, and 52.5% had external validation.

CONCLUSION

Overall, 32.2% of all patients after revisional surgery had a sufficient %EWL ≥ 50 after 2 years, compared to PRYGB. LSG had the best outcome in the revisional surgery group in the sufficient %EWL group and the best outcome in the insufficient %EWL group. The skewness between the prediction model and stratification resulted in a partially non-functional prediction model.

Pair Matcher (PaM): fast model-based optimization of treatment/case-control matches

Motivation

In clinical trials, individuals are matched using demographic criteria, paired and then randomly assigned to treatment and control groups to determine a drug’s efficacy. A chief cause for the irreproducibility of results across pilot to Phase-III trials is population stratification bias caused by the uneven distribution of ancestries in the treatment and control groups.

Results

Pair Matcher (PaM) addresses stratification bias by optimizing pairing assignments a priori and/or a posteriori to the trial using both genetic and demographic criteria. Using simulated and real datasets, we show that PaM identifies ideal and near-ideal pairs that are more genetically homogeneous than those identified based on competing methods, including the commonly used principal component analysis (PCA). Homogenizing the treatment (or case) and control groups can be expected to improve the accuracy and reproducibility of the trial or genetic study. PaM’s ancestral inferences also allow characterizing responders and developing a precision medicine approach to treatment.

Availability and implementation

PaM is freely available via Rhttps://github.com/eelhaik/PAM and a web-interface at http://elhaik-matcher.sheffield.ac.uk/ElhaikLab/.

Supplementary information

Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online.

Design and analysis of stratified clinical trials in the presence of bias

BACKGROUND

Among various design aspects, the choice of randomization procedure have to be agreed on, when planning a clinical trial stratified by center. The aim of the paper is to present a methodological approach to evaluate whether a randomization procedure mitigates the impact of bias on the test decision in clinical trial stratified by center.

METHODS

We use the weighted t test to analyze the data from a clinical trial stratified by center with a two-arm parallel group design, an intended 1:1 allocation ratio, aiming to prove a superiority hypothesis with a continuous normal endpoint without interim analysis and no adaptation in the randomization process. The derivation is based on the weighted t test under misclassification, i.e. ignoring bias. An additive bias model combing selection bias and time-trend bias is linked to different stratified randomization procedures.

RESULTS

Various aspects to formulate stratified versions of randomization procedures are discussed. A formula for sample size calculation of the weighted t test is derived and used to specify the tolerated imbalance allowed by some randomization procedures. The distribution of the weighted t test under misclassification is deduced, taking the sequence of patient allocation to treatment, i.e. the randomization sequence into account. An additive bias model combining selection bias and time-trend bias at strata level linked to the applied randomization sequence is proposed. With these before mentioned components, the potential impact of bias on the type one error probability depending on the selected randomization sequence and thus the randomization procedure is formally derived and exemplarily calculated within a numerical evaluation study.

CONCLUSION

The proposed biasing policy and test distribution are necessary to conduct an evaluation of the comparative performance of (stratified) randomization procedure in multi-center clinical trials with a two-arm parallel group design. It enables the choice of the best practice procedure. The evaluation stimulates the discussion about the level of evidence resulting in those kind of clinical trials.

On Stratified Adjusted Tests by Binomial Trials

To estimate or test the treatment effect in randomized clinical trials, it is important to adjust for the potential influence of covariates that are likely to affect the association between the treatment or control group and the response. If these covariates are known at the start of the trial, random assignment of the treatment within each stratum would be considered. On the other hand, if these covariates are not clear at the start of the trial, or if it is difficult to allocate the treatment within each stratum, completely randomized assignment of the treatment would be performed. In both sampling structures, the use of a stratified adjusted test is a useful way to evaluate the significance of the overall treatment effect by reducing the variance and/or bias of the result. If the trial has a binary endpoint, the Cochran and Mantel-Haenszel tests are generally used. These tests are constructed based on the assumption that the number of patients within a stratum is fixed. However, in practice, the stratum sizes are not fixed at the start of the trial in many situations, and are instead allowed to vary. Therefore, there is a risk that using these tests under such situations would result in an error in the estimated variation of the test statistics. To handle the problem, we propose new test statistics under both sampling structures based on multinomial distributions. Our proposed approach is based on the Cochran test, and the difference between the two tests tends to have similar values in the case of a large number of patients. When the total number of patients is small, our approach yields a more conservative result. Through simulation studies, we show that the new approach could correctly maintain the type I error better than the traditional approach.