Response-adaptive randomization for multi-arm clinical trials using the forward looking Gittins index rule

Doubly adaptive biased coin design to improve Bayesian clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints

Clinical trialists often face the challenge of balancing scientific questions with other design features, such as improving efficiency, minimizing exposure to inferior treatments, and simultaneously comparing multiple treatments. While Bayesian response adaptive randomization (RAR) is a popular and effective method for achieving these objectives, it is known to have large variability and a lack of explicit theoretical results, making its use in clinical trials a subject of concern. It is desirable to propose a design that targets the same allocation proportion as Bayesian RAR and achieves the above objectives but addresses the concerns over Bayesian RAR. We propose the frequentist doubly adaptive biased coin designs (DBCD) targeting ethical allocation proportions from the Bayesian framework to satisfy different objectives in clinical trials with time-to-event endpoints. We derive the theoretical properties of the proposed adaptive randomization design and show through comprehensive numerical simulations that it can achieve ethical objectives without sacrificing efficiency. Our combined theoretical and numerical results offer a strong foundation for the practical use of RAR in real clinical trials.

Using biomarkers to allocate patients in a response-adaptive clinical trial

In this paper, we discuss a response adaptive randomization method, and why it should be used in clinical trials for rare diseases compared to a randomized controlled trial with equal fixed randomization. The developed method uses a patient's biomarkers to alter the allocation probability to each treatment, in order to emphasize the benefit to the trial population. The method starts with an initial burn-in period of a small number of patients, who with equal probability, are allocated to each treatment. We then use a regression method to predict the best outcome of the next patient, using their biomarkers and the information from the previous patients. This estimated best treatment is assigned to the next patient with high probability. A completed clinical trial for the effect of catumaxomab on the survival of cancer patients is used as an example to demonstrate the use of the method and the differences to a controlled trial with equal allocation. Different regression procedures are investigated and compared to a randomized controlled trial, using efficacy and ethical measures.

Response-adaptive randomization for multiarm clinical trials using context-dependent information measures

Theoretical-information approach applied to the clinical trial designs appeared to bring several advantages when tackling a problem of finding a balance between power and expected number of successes (ENS). In particular, it was shown that the built-in parameter of the weight function allows finding the desired trade-off between the statistical power and number of treated patients in the context of small population Phase II clinical trials. However, in real clinical trials, randomized designs are more preferable. The goal of this research is to introduce randomization to a deterministic entropy-based sequential trial procedure generalized to multiarm setting. Several methods of randomization applied to an entropy-based design are investigated in terms of statistical power and ENS. Namely, the four design types are considered: (a) deterministic procedures, (b) naive randomization using the inverse of entropy criteria as weights, (c) block randomization, and (d) randomized penalty parameter. The randomized entropy-based designs are compared to randomized Gittins index (GI) and fixed randomization (FR). After the comprehensive simulation study, the following conclusion on block randomization is made: for both entropy-based and GI-based block randomization designs the degree of randomization induced by forward-looking procedures is insufficient to achieve a decent statistical power. Therefore, we propose an adjustment for the forward-looking procedure that improves power with almost no cost in terms of ENS. In addition, the properties of randomization procedures based on randomly drawn penalty parameter are also thoroughly investigated.

Adaptive designs for best treatment identification with top-two Thompson sampling and acceleration

We consider outcome adaptive phase II or phase II/III trials to identify the best treatment for further development. Different from many other multi-arm multi-stage designs, we borrow approaches for the best arm identification in multi-armed bandit (MAB) approaches developed for machine learning and adapt them for clinical trial purposes. The best arm identification in MAB focuses on the error rate of identification at the end of the trial, but we are also interested in the cumulative benefit of trial patients, for example, the frequency of patients treated with the best treatment. In particular, we consider Top-Two Thompson Sampling (TTTS) and propose an acceleration approach for better performance in drug development scenarios in which the sample size is much smaller than that considered in machine learning applications. We also propose a variant of TTTS (TTTS2) which is simpler, easier for implementation, and has comparable performance in small sample settings. An extensive simulation study was conducted to evaluate the performance of the proposed approach in multiple typical scenarios in drug development.

Response-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: from myths to practical considerations

Response-Adaptive Randomization (RAR) is part of a wider class of data-dependent sampling algorithms, for which clinical trials are typically used as a motivating application. In that context, patient allocation to treatments is determined by randomization probabilities that change based on the accrued response data in order to achieve experimental goals. RAR has received abundant theoretical attention from the biostatistical literature since the 1930's and has been the subject of numerous debates. In the last decade, it has received renewed consideration from the applied and methodological communities, driven by well-known practical examples and its widespread use in machine learning. Papers on the subject present different views on its usefulness, and these are not easy to reconcile. This work aims to address this gap by providing a unified, broad and fresh review of methodological and practical issues to consider when debating the use of RAR in clinical trials.

A novel statistical test for treatment differences in clinical trials using a response-adaptive forward-looking Gittins Index Rule

The most common objective for response-adaptive clinical trials is to seek to ensure that patients within a trial have a high chance of receiving the best treatment available by altering the chance of allocation on the basis of accumulating data. Approaches that yield good patient benefit properties suffer from low power from a frequentist perspective when testing for a treatment difference at the end of the study due to the high imbalance in treatment allocations. In this work we develop an alternative pairwise test for treatment difference on the basis of allocation probabilities of the covariate-adjusted response-adaptive randomization with forward-looking Gittins Index (CARA-FLGI) Rule for binary responses. The performance of the novel test is evaluated in simulations for two-armed studies and then its applications to multiarmed studies are illustrated. The proposed test has markedly improved power over the traditional Fisher exact test when this class of nonmyopic response adaptation is used. We also find that the test's power is close to the power of a Fisher exact test under equal randomization.

Some performance considerations when using multi-armed bandit algorithms in the presence of missing data

When comparing the performance of multi-armed bandit algorithms, the potential impact of missing data is often overlooked. In practice, it also affects their implementation where the simplest approach to overcome this is to continue to sample according to the original bandit algorithm, ignoring missing outcomes. We investigate the impact on performance of this approach to deal with missing data for several bandit algorithms through an extensive simulation study assuming the rewards are missing at random. We focus on two-armed bandit algorithms with binary outcomes in the context of patient allocation for clinical trials with relatively small sample sizes. However, our results apply to other applications of bandit algorithms where missing data is expected to occur. We assess the resulting operating characteristics, including the expected reward. Different probabilities of missingness in both arms are considered. The key finding of our work is that when using the simplest strategy of ignoring missing data, the impact on the expected performance of multi-armed bandit strategies varies according to the way these strategies balance the exploration-exploitation trade-off. Algorithms that are geared towards exploration continue to assign samples to the arm with more missing responses (which being perceived as the arm with less observed information is deemed more appealing by the algorithm than it would otherwise be). In contrast, algorithms that are geared towards exploitation would rapidly assign a high value to samples from the arms with a current high mean irrespective of the level observations per arm. Furthermore, for algorithms focusing more on exploration, we illustrate that the problem of missing responses can be alleviated using a simple mean imputation approach.

An alternative metric for evaluating the potential patient benefit of response-adaptive randomization procedures

When planning a two-arm group sequential clinical trial with a binary primary outcome that has severe implications for quality of life (e.g., mortality), investigators may strive to find the design that maximizes in-trial patient benefit. In such cases, Bayesian response-adaptive randomization (BRAR) is often considered because it can alter the allocation ratio throughout the trial in favor of the treatment that is currently performing better. Although previous studies have recommended using fixed randomization over BRAR based on patient benefit metrics calculated from the realized trial sample size, these previous comparisons have been limited by failures to hold type I and II error rates constant across designs or consider the impacts on all individuals directly affected by the design choice. In this paper, we propose a metric for comparing designs with the same type I and II error rates that reflects expected outcomes among individuals who would participate in the trial if enrollment is open when they become eligible. We demonstrate how to use the proposed metric to guide the choice of design in the context of two recent trials in persons suffering out of hospital cardiac arrest. Using computer simulation, we demonstrate that various implementations of group sequential BRAR offer modest improvements with respect to the proposed metric relative to conventional group sequential monitoring alone. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Personalized Risk-Based Screening Design for Comparative Two-Arm Group Sequential Clinical Trials

Personalized medicine has been emerging to take into account individual variability in genes and environment. In the era of personalized medicine, it is critical to incorporate the patients' characteristics and improve the clinical benefit for patients. The patients' characteristics are incorporated in adaptive randomization to identify patients who are expected to get more benefit from the treatment and optimize the treatment allocation. However, it is challenging to control potential selection bias from using observed efficacy data and the effect of prognostic covariates in adaptive randomization. This paper proposes a personalized risk-based screening design using Bayesian covariate-adjusted response-adaptive randomization that compares the experimental screening method to a standard screening method based on indicators of having a disease. Personalized risk-based allocation probability is built for adaptive randomization, and Bayesian adaptive decision rules are calibrated to preserve error rates. A simulation study shows that the proposed design controls error rates and yields a much smaller number of failures and a larger number of patients allocated to a better intervention compared to existing randomized controlled trial designs. Therefore, the proposed design performs well for randomized controlled clinical trials under personalized medicine.

Response adaptive designs for Phase II trials with binary endpoint based on context-dependent information measures

In many rare disease Phase II clinical trials, two objectives are of interest to an investigator: maximising the statistical power and maximising the number of patients responding to the treatment. These two objectives are competing, therefore, clinical trial designs offering a balance between them are needed. Recently, it was argued that response-adaptive designs such as families of multi-arm bandit (MAB) methods could provide the means for achieving this balance. Furthermore, response-adaptive designs based on a concept of context-dependent (weighted) information criteria were recently proposed with a focus on Shannon's differential entropy. The information-theoretic designs based on the weighted Renyi, Tsallis and Fisher informations are also proposed. Due to built-in parameters of these novel designs, the balance between the statistical power and the number of patients that respond to the treatment can be tuned explicitly. The asymptotic properties of these measures are studied in order to construct intuitive criteria for arm selection. A comprehensive simulation study shows that using the exact criteria over asymptotic ones or using information measures with more parameters, namely Renyi and Tsallis entropies, brings no sufficient gain in terms of the power or proportion of patients allocated to superior treatments. The proposed designs based on information-theoretical criteria are compared to several alternative approaches. For example, via tuning of the built-in parameter, one can find designs with power comparable to the fixed equal randomisation's but a greater number of patients responded in the trials.

Alternative models and randomization techniques for Bayesian response-adaptive randomization with binary outcomes

BACKGROUND

Bayesian response-adaptive designs, which data adaptively alter the allocation ratio in favor of the better performing treatment, are often criticized for engendering a non-trivial probability of a subject imbalance in favor of the inferior treatment, inflating type I error rate, and increasing sample size requirements. The implementation of these designs using the Thompson sampling methods has generally assumed a simple beta-binomial probability model in the literature; however, the effect of these choices on the resulting design operating characteristics relative to other reasonable alternatives has not been fully examined. Motivated by the Advanced R² Eperfusion STrategies for Refractory Cardiac Arrest trial, we posit that a logistic probability model coupled with an urn or permuted block randomization method will alleviate some of the practical limitations engendered by the conventional implementation of a two-arm Bayesian response-adaptive design with binary outcomes. In this article, we discuss up to what extent this solution works and when it does not.

METHODS

A computer simulation study was performed to evaluate the relative merits of a Bayesian response-adaptive design for the Advanced R² Eperfusion STrategies for Refractory Cardiac Arrest trial using the Thompson sampling methods based on a logistic regression probability model coupled with either an urn or permuted block randomization method that limits deviations from the evolving target allocation ratio. The different implementations of the response-adaptive design were evaluated for type I error rate control across various null response rates and power, among other performance metrics.

RESULTS

The logistic regression probability model engenders smaller average sample sizes with similar power, better control over type I error rate, and more favorable treatment arm sample size distributions than the conventional beta-binomial probability model, and designs using the alternative randomization methods have a negligible chance of a sample size imbalance in the wrong direction.

CONCLUSION

Pairing the logistic regression probability model with either of the alternative randomization methods results in a much improved response-adaptive design in regard to important operating characteristics, including type I error rate control and the risk of a sample size imbalance in favor of the inferior treatment.

A simple solution to the inadequacy of asymptotic likelihood-based inference for response-adaptive clinical trials

The present paper discusses drawbacks and limitations of likelihood-based inference in sequential clinical trials for treatment comparisons managed via Response-Adaptive Randomization. Taking into account the most common statistical models for the primary outcome—namely binary, Poisson, exponential and normal data—we derive the conditions under which (i) the classical confidence intervals degenerate and (ii) the Wald test becomes inconsistent and strongly affected by the nuisance parameters, also displaying a non monotonic power. To overcome these drawbacks, we provide a very simple solution that could preserve the fundamental properties of likelihood-based inference. Several illustrative examples and simulation studies are presented in order to confirm the relevance of our results and provide some practical recommendations.

Evaluating Bayesian adaptive randomization procedures with adaptive clip methods for multi-arm trials

Bayesian adaptive randomization is a heuristic approach that aims to randomize more patients to the putatively superior arms based on the trend of the accrued data in a trial. Many statistical aspects of this approach have been explored and compared with other approaches; yet only a limited number of works has focused on improving its performance and providing guidance on its application to real trials. An undesirable property of this approach is that the procedure would randomize patients to an inferior arm in some circumstances, which has raised concerns in its application. Here, we propose an adaptive clip method to rectify the problem by incorporating a data-driven function to be used in conjunction with Bayesian adaptive randomization procedure. This function aims to minimize the chance of assigning patients to inferior arms during the early time of the trial. Moreover, we propose a utility approach to facilitate the selection of a randomization procedure. A cost that reflects the penalty of assigning patients to the inferior arm(s) in the trial is incorporated into our utility function along with all patients benefited from the trial, both within and beyond the trial. We illustrate the selection strategy for a wide range of scenarios.

Response-adaptive trial designs with accelerated Thompson sampling

In a clinical trial, sometimes it is desirable to allocate as many patients as possible to the best treatment, in particular, when a trial for a rare disease may contain a considerable portion of the whole target population. The Gittins index rule is a powerful tool for sequentially allocating patients to the best treatment based on the responses of patients already treated. However, its application in clinical trials is limited due to technical complexity and lack of randomness. Thompson sampling is an appealing approach, since it makes a compromise between optimal treatment allocation and randomness with some desirable optimal properties in the machine learning context. However, in clinical trial settings, multiple simulation studies have shown disappointing results with Thompson samplers. We consider how to improve short-run performance of Thompson sampling and propose a novel acceleration approach. This approach can also be applied to situations when patients can only be allocated by batch and is very easy to implement without using complex algorithms. A simulation study showed that this approach could improve the performance of Thompson sampling in terms of average total response rate. An application to a redesign of a preference trial to maximize patient's satisfaction is also presented.

A response-adaptive randomization procedure for multi-armed clinical trials with normally distributed outcomes

We propose a novel response‐adaptive randomization procedure for multi‐armed trials with continuous outcomes that are assumed to be normally distributed. Our proposed rule is non‐myopic, and oriented toward a patient benefit objective, yet maintains computational feasibility. We derive our response‐adaptive algorithm based on the Gittins index for the multi‐armed bandit problem, as a modification of the method first introduced in Villar et al. (Biometrics, 71, pp. 969‐978). The resulting procedure can be implemented under the assumption of both known or unknown variance. We illustrate the proposed procedure by simulations in the context of phase II cancer trials. Our results show that, in a multi‐armed setting, there are efficiency and patient benefit gains of using a response‐adaptive allocation procedure with a continuous endpoint instead of a binary one. These gains persist even if an anticipated low rate of missing data due to deaths, dropouts, or complete responses is imputed online through a procedure first introduced in this paper. Additionally, we discuss how there are response‐adaptive designs that outperform the traditional equal randomized design both in terms of efficiency and patient benefit measures in the multi‐armed trial context.

Rethinking the Gold Standard With Multi-armed Bandits: Machine Learning Allocation Algorithms for Experiments

In experiments, researchers commonly allocate subjects randomly and equally to the different treatment conditions before the experiment starts. While this approach is intuitive, it means that new information gathered during the experiment is not utilized until after the experiment has ended. Based on methodological approaches from other scientific disciplines such as computer science and medicine, we suggest machine learning algorithms for subject allocation in experiments. Specifically, we discuss a Bayesian multi-armed bandit algorithm for randomized controlled trials and use Monte Carlo simulations to compare its efficiency with randomized controlled trials that have a fixed and balanced subject allocation. Our findings indicate that a randomized allocation based on Bayesian multi-armed bandits is more efficient and ethical in most settings. We develop recommendations for researchers and discuss the limitations of our approach.

Time-trend impact on treatment estimation in two-arm clinical trials with a binary outcome and Bayesian response adaptive randomization

Clinical trial design and analysis often assume study population homogeneity, although patient baseline profile and standard of care may evolve over time, especially in trials with long recruitment periods. The time-trend phenomenon can affect the treatment estimation and the operating characteristics of trials with Bayesian response adaptive randomization (BRAR). The mechanism of time-trend impact on BRAR is increasingly being studied but some aspects remain unclear. The goal of this research is to quantify the bias in treatment effect estimation due to the use of BRAR in the presence of time-trend. In addition, simulations are conducted to compare the performance of three commonly used BRAR algorithms under different time-trend patterns with and without early stopping rules. The results demonstrate that using these BRAR methods in a two-arm trial with time-trend may cause type I error inflation and treatment effect estimation bias. The magnitude and direction of the bias are affected by the parameters of the BRAR algorithm and the time-trend pattern.

The Performance of Fixed-Horizon, Look-Ahead Procedures Compared to Backward Induction in Bayesian Adaptive-Randomization Decision-Theoretic Clinical Trial Design

Designing optimal, Bayesian decision-theoretic trials has traditionally required the use of computationally-intensive backward induction. While methods for addressing this barrier have been put forward, few are both computationally tractable and non-myopic, with applications of the Gittins index being one notable example. Here we explore the look-ahead approach with adaptive-randomization, with designs ranging from the fully myopic to the fully informed. We compare the operating characteristics of the look-ahead designed trials, in which decision rules are based on a fixed number of future blocks, with those of trials designed using traditional backward induction. The less-myopic designs performed well. As the designs become more myopic or the trials longer, there were disparities in regions of the decision space that are transition zones between continuation and stopping decisions. The more myopic trials generally suffered from early stopping as compared to the less myopic and backward induction trials. Myopic trials with adaptive randomization also saw as many as 28 % of their continuation decisions change to a different randomization ratio as compared to the backward induction designs. Finally, early stages of myopic-designed trials may have disproportionate effect on trial characteristics.

Bandit strategies evaluated in the context of clinical trials in rare life-threatening diseases

In a rare life-threatening disease setting the number of patients in the trial is a high proportion of all patients with the condition (if not all of them). Further, this number is usually not enough to guarantee the required statistical power to detect a treatment effect of a meaningful size. In such a context, the idea of prioritizing patient benefit over hypothesis testing as the goal of the trial can lead to a trial design that produces useful information to guide treatment, even if it does not do so with the standard levels of statistical confidence. The idealised model to consider such an optimal design of a clinical trial is known as a classic multi-armed bandit problem with a finite patient horizon and a patient benefit objective function. Such a design maximises patient benefit by balancing the learning and earning goals as data accumulates and given the patient horizon. On the other hand, optimally solving such a model has a very high computational cost (many times prohibitive) and more importantly, a cumbersome implementation, even for populations as small as a hundred patients. Several computationally feasible heuristic rules to address this problem have been proposed over the last 40 years in the literature. In this article we study a novel heuristic approach to solve it based on the reformulation of the problem as a Restless bandit problem and the derivation of its corresponding Whittle index rule. Such rule was recently proposed in the context of a clinical trial in Villar et al (2015). We perform extensive computational studies to compare through both exact value calculations and simulated values the performance of this rule, other index rules and simpler heuristics previously proposed in the literature. Our results suggest that for the two and three-armed case and a patient horizon less or equal than a hundred patients, all index rules are a priori practically identical in terms of the expected proportion of success attained when all arms start with a uniform prior. However, we find that a posteriori, for specific values of the parameters of interest, the index policies outperform the simpler rules in every instance and specially so in the case of many arms and a larger, though still relatively small, total number of patients with the diseases. The very good performance of bandit rules in terms of patient benefit (i.e. expected number of successes and mean number of patients allocated to the best arm, if it exists) makes them very appealing in context of the challenge posed by drug development for rare life threatening diseases.

Response-adaptive designs for binary responses: How to offer patient benefit while being robust to time trends?

Response‐adaptive randomisation (RAR) can considerably improve the chances of a successful treatment outcome for patients in a clinical trial by skewing the allocation probability towards better performing treatments as data accumulates. There is considerable interest in using RAR designs in drug development for rare diseases, where traditional designs are not either feasible or ethically questionable. In this paper, we discuss and address a major criticism levelled at RAR: namely, type I error inflation due to an unknown time trend over the course of the trial. The most common cause of this phenomenon is changes in the characteristics of recruited patients—referred to as patient drift. This is a realistic concern for clinical trials in rare diseases due to their lengthly accrual rate. We compute the type I error inflation as a function of the time trend magnitude to determine in which contexts the problem is most exacerbated. We then assess the ability of different correction methods to preserve type I error in these contexts and their performance in terms of other operating characteristics, including patient benefit and power. We make recommendations as to which correction methods are most suitable in the rare disease context for several RAR rules, differentiating between the 2‐armed and the multi‐armed case. We further propose a RAR design for multi‐armed clinical trials, which is computationally efficient and robust to several time trends considered.

Covariate-adjusted response-adaptive randomization for multi-arm clinical trials using a modified forward looking Gittins index rule

We introduce a non-myopic, covariate-adjusted response adaptive (CARA) allocation design for multi-armed clinical trials. The allocation scheme is a computationally tractable procedure based on the Gittins index solution to the classic multi-armed bandit problem and extends the procedure recently proposed in Villar et al. (2015). Our proposed CARA randomization procedure is defined by reformulating the bandit problem with covariates into a classic bandit problem in which there are multiple combination arms, considering every arm per each covariate category as a distinct treatment arm. We then apply a heuristically modified Gittins index rule to solve the problem and define allocation probabilities from the resulting solution. We report the efficiency, balance, and ethical performance of our approach compared to existing CARA methods using a recently published clinical trial as motivation. The net savings in terms of expected number of treatment failures is considerably larger and probably enough to make this design attractive for certain studies where known covariates are expected to be important, stratification is not desired, treatment failures have a high ethical cost, and the disease under study is rare. In a two-armed context, this patient benefit advantage comes at the expense of increased variability in the allocation proportions and a reduction in statistical power. However, in a multi-armed context, simple modifications of the proposed CARA rule can be incorporated so that an ethical advantage can be offered without sacrificing power in comparison with balanced designs.

Bayesian adaptive bandit-based designs using the Gittins index for multi-armed trials with normally distributed endpoints

Adaptive designs for multi-armed clinical trials have become increasingly popular recently because of their potential to shorten development times and to increase patient response. However, developing response-adaptive designs that offer patient-benefit while ensuring the resulting trial provides a statistically rigorous and unbiased comparison of the different treatments included is highly challenging. In this paper, the theory of Multi-Armed Bandit Problems is used to define near optimal adaptive designs in the context of a clinical trial with a normally distributed endpoint with known variance. We report the operating characteristics (type I error, power, bias) and patient-benefit of these approaches and alternative designs using simulation studies based on an ongoing trial. These results are then compared to those recently published in the context of Bernoulli endpoints. Many limitations and advantages are similar in both cases but there are also important differences, specially with respect to type I error control. This paper proposes a simulation-based testing procedure to correct for the observed type I error inflation that bandit-based and adaptive rules can induce.

Designing fecal microbiota transplant trials that account for differences in donor stool efficacy

Fecal microbiota transplantation is a highly effective intervention for patients suffering from recurrent Clostridium difficile, a common hospital-acquired infection. Fecal microbiota transplantation’s success as a therapy for C. difficile has inspired interest in performing clinical trials that experiment with fecal microbiota transplantation as a therapy for other conditions like inflammatory bowel disease, obesity, diabetes, and Parkinson’s disease. Results from clinical trials that use fecal microbiota transplantation to treat inflammatory bowel disease suggest that, for at least one condition beyond C. difficile, most fecal microbiota transplantation donors produce stool that is not efficacious. The optimal strategies for identifying and using efficacious donors have not been investigated. We therefore examined the optimal Bayesian response-adaptive strategy for allocating patients to donors and formulated a computationally tractable myopic heuristic. This heuristic computes the probability that a donor is efficacious by updating prior expectations about the efficacy of fecal microbiota transplantation, the placebo rate, and the fraction of donors that produce efficacious stool. In simulations designed to mimic a recent fecal microbiota transplantation clinical trial, for which traditional power calculations predict [Formula: see text] statistical power, we found that accounting for differences in donor stool efficacy reduced the predicted statistical power to [Formula: see text]. For these simulations, using the heuristic Bayesian allocation strategy more than quadrupled the statistical power to [Formula: see text]. We use the results of similar simulations to make recommendations about the number of patients, the number of donors, and the choice of clinical endpoint that clinical trials should use to optimize their ability to detect if fecal microbiota transplantation is effective for treating a condition.

A Bayesian adaptive design for clinical trials in rare diseases

Development of treatments for rare diseases is challenging due to the limited number of patients available for participation. Learning about treatment effectiveness with a view to treat patients in the larger outside population, as in the traditional fixed randomised design, may not be a plausible goal. An alternative goal is to treat the patients within the trial as effectively as possible. Using the framework of finite-horizon Markov decision processes and dynamic programming (DP), a novel randomised response-adaptive design is proposed which maximises the total number of patient successes in the trial and penalises if a minimum number of patients are not recruited to each treatment arm. Several performance measures of the proposed design are evaluated and compared to alternative designs through extensive simulation studies using a recently published trial as motivation. For simplicity, a two-armed trial with binary endpoints and immediate responses is considered. Simulation results for the proposed design show that: (i) the percentage of patients allocated to the superior arm is much higher than in the traditional fixed randomised design; (ii) relative to the optimal DP design, the power is largely improved upon and (iii) it exhibits only a very small bias and mean squared error of the treatment effect estimator. Furthermore, this design is fully randomised which is an advantage from a practical point of view because it protects the trial against various sources of bias. As such, the proposed design addresses some of the key issues that have been suggested as preventing so-called bandit models from being implemented in clinical practice.