1 / 18

PRE-STRATIFIED RANDOMIZATION IS NOT NECESSARY FOR LARGE CLINICAL TRIALS

PRE-STRATIFIED RANDOMIZATION IS NOT NECESSARY FOR LARGE CLINICAL TRIALS. Brent Leininger , Patrick Kurkiewicz , Lifeng Lin, Xiang Li, Bryan Trottier Jr , Yuanyuan Wang. Pre-stratification is Insurance. Risk of Chance Imbalance. As Sample Size Increases…. Administrative Burden.

vince
Download Presentation

PRE-STRATIFIED RANDOMIZATION IS NOT NECESSARY FOR LARGE CLINICAL TRIALS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. PRE-STRATIFIED RANDOMIZATION IS NOT NECESSARY FOR LARGE CLINICAL TRIALS Brent Leininger, Patrick Kurkiewicz, Lifeng Lin, Xiang Li, Bryan TrottierJr, Yuanyuan Wang

  2. Pre-stratification is Insurance

  3. Risk of Chance Imbalance As Sample Size Increases…..

  4. Administrative Burden • 1 Allocation Schedule per Strata • 1 stratification variable with 2 levels • Increased potential for errors

  5. Misclassification of Strata • Multi-center variability • Timing

  6. Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Stat Med. 2002 Oct 15;21(19):2917-30.

  7. 111 of 258 trials balanced on prognostic factors (other than center) • 36% of trials accounted for stratification in the analysis • Accounting for stratification variables in the analysis is recommended by both ICH and CONSORT guidelines

  8. Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Stat Med. 2002 Oct 15;21(19):2917-30.

  9. Alternatives • Post-stratification (i.e. adjusted analysis) • Efficiency Loss vs. Pre-Stratification? • 4 strata, 80 patients per strata • Efficiency loss is <4% McHugh R, Matts J. Post-stratification in the randomized clinical trial. Biometrics. 1983 Mar;39(1):217-25.

  10. Post-Stratification Criticism • Define covariates ‘a priori’ OR….. • Define plan for covariate selection ‘a priori’ Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, Kasten LE. Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Stat Med. 2002 Oct 15;21(19):2917-30.

  11. Conclusions

  12. Claim: Pre-stratified randomization is Often necessaryfor large (N > 100 per group) clinical trials • Helps ensure that compared groups are similar with respect to known important prognostic factors • Potential benefits, even in large clinical trials1 • Protection against Type 1 Error • Reduction of sample size in equivalence trials • Facilitation of interim analyses • Identification of subgroups prior to analysis • Protection against treatment assignment imbalance with recruitment-center dropout in multicenter trial 1 Kernan et al. J Clin Epidemiol (1999)

  13. UGANDA STUDY:IMMEDIATE VS. DELAYED IRON IN SEVERE MALARIA • Children with severe malaria randomized to immediate or delayed iron • Primary outcome = frequency of hospital admissions in next 12 months • Severe malaria includes cerebral malaria and severe malarial anemia • Children with severe malarial anemia have greater risk of readmission to hospital

  14. UGANDA STUDY:IMMEDIATE VS. DELAYED IRON IN SEVERE MALARIA THIS NOT THIS 156 SEVERE MALARIA 79 CM 77 SMA Pre-stratified randomization Un-stratified randomization R R R 39 Immediate 40 Immediate 78 Immediate ?? SMA ?? CM 78 Delayed ?? SMA ?? CM 39 Delayed 38 Delayed

  15. Benefits of Pre-stratification • Protection against Type 1 error1 1 Feinstein and Landis in Kernan et al. J Clin Epidemiol (1999)

  16. Benefits of Pre-stratification • Smaller sample size in equivalence trials • Reduction in sample size by 12-42% over a range of assumptions (Nam, Stat Med 1995) • Significant savings in both cost and time • Facilitation of interim analyses • Interim DSMB meeting for iron/malaria study March 2013 (!) • 79 CM (40 I, 39 D) ; 78 SMA (39 I, 38 D) • Frequency of serious adverse events in I vs. D. • If not balanced, potential safety concern undetected

  17. Benefits of Pre-stratification • Subgroup analysis • Strata identified before start of study • Protects against multiple comparisons • Strengthens a finding of treatment effectiveness within subgroups • Multicenter study—protection against drop-out • Because patients in each center are balanced for treatment assignment, withdrawal of a center will not result in imbalance among remainder of patients.

  18. Claim: Pre-stratified randomization is often necessaryfor large (N > 100 per group) clinical trials Against • Too many strata • Challenge to implement • Not necessary For • Protection against Type 1 error • Reduced sample size in equivalence trials • Balanced interim analyses • Pre-specified subgroup analyses • Protection against drop-out in multicenter studies

More Related