The Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trial for Controlling Infectious Diseases: A Review of Recent Developments

Incorporating participants' welfare into sequential multiple assignment randomized trials

Dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs) are sequences of decision rules that recommend treatments based on patients' time-varying clinical conditions. The sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trial (SMART) is an experimental design that can provide high-quality evidence for constructing optimal DTRs. In a conventional SMART, participants are randomized to available treatments at multiple stages with balanced randomization probabilities. Despite its relative simplicity of implementation and desirable performance in comparing embedded DTRs, the conventional SMART faces inevitable ethical issues, including assigning many participants to the empirically inferior treatment or the treatment they dislike, which might slow down the recruitment procedure and lead to higher attrition rates, ultimately leading to poor internal and external validities of the trial results. In this context, we propose a SMART under the Experiment-as-Market framework (SMART-EXAM), a novel SMART design that holds the potential to improve participants' welfare by incorporating their preferences and predicted treatment effects into the randomization procedure. We describe the steps of conducting a SMART-EXAM and evaluate its performance compared to the conventional SMART. The results indicate that the SMART-EXAM can improve the welfare of the participants enrolled in the trial, while also achieving a desirable ability to construct an optimal DTR when the experimental parameters are suitably specified. We finally illustrate the practical potential of the SMART-EXAM design using data from a SMART for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

Interpreting Randomized Controlled Trials

This article describes rationales and limitations for making inferences based on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We argue that obtaining a representative random sample from a patient population is impossible for a clinical trial because patients are accrued sequentially over time and thus comprise a convenience sample, subject only to protocol entry criteria. Consequently, the trial's sample is unlikely to represent a definable patient population. We use causal diagrams to illustrate the difference between random allocation of interventions within a clinical trial sample and true simple or stratified random sampling, as executed in surveys. We argue that group-specific statistics, such as a median survival time estimate for a treatment arm in an RCT, have limited meaning as estimates of larger patient population parameters. In contrast, random allocation between interventions facilitates comparative causal inferences about between-treatment effects, such as hazard ratios or differences between probabilities of response. Comparative inferences also require the assumption of transportability from a clinical trial's convenience sample to a targeted patient population. We focus on the consequences and limitations of randomization procedures in order to clarify the distinctions between pairs of complementary concepts of fundamental importance to data science and RCT interpretation. These include internal and external validity, generalizability and transportability, uncertainty and variability, representativeness and inclusiveness, blocking and stratification, relevance and robustness, forward and reverse causal inference, intention to treat and per protocol analyses, and potential outcomes and counterfactuals.