Search

Abstract Background When running a randomized controlled trial (RCT), a clinical site may face a situation when an eligible trial participant is to be randomized to the treatment that is not available at the site. In this case, there are two options: not to enroll the participant, or, without disclosing to the site, allocate the participant to a treatment arm with drug available at the site using a built-in feature of the interactive response technology (IRT). In the latter case, one has employed a “forced randomization” (FR). There seems to be an industry-wide consensus that using FR can be acceptable in confirmatory trials provided there are “not too many” instances of forcing. A better understanding of statistical properties of FR is warranted. Methods We described four different IRT configurations with or without FR and illustrated them using a simple example. We discussed potential merits of FR and outlined some relevant theoretical risks and risk mitigation strategies. We performed a search using Cortellis Regulatory Intelligence database (IDRAC) ( www.cortellis.com ) to understand the prevalence of FR in clinical trial practice. We also proposed a structured template for development and evaluation of randomization designs featuring FR and showcased an application of this template for a hypothetical multi-center 1:1 RCT under three experimental settings (“base case”, “slower recruitment”, and “faster recruitment”) to explore the effect of four different IRT configurations in combination with three different drug supply/re-supply strategies on some important operating characteristics of the trial. We also supplied the Julia code that can be used to reproduce our simulation results and generate additional results under user-specified experimental scenarios. Results FR can eliminate refusals to randomize patients, which can cause frustration for patients and study site personnel, improve the study logistics, drug supply management, cost-efficiency, and recruitment time. Nevertheless, FR carries some potential risks that should be reviewed at the study planning stage and, ideally, prospectively addressed through risk mitigation planning. The Cortellis search identified only 9 submissions that have reported the use of FR; typically, the FR option was documented in IRT specifications. Our simulation evidence showed that under the considered realistic experimental settings, the percentage of FR is expected to be low. When FR with backfilling was used in combination with high re-supply strategy, the final treatment imbalance was negligibly small, the proportion of patients not randomized due to the lack of drug supply was close to zero, and the time to complete recruitment was shortened compared to the case when FR was not allowed. The drug overage was primarily determined by the intensity of the re-supply strategy and to a smaller extent by the presence or absence of the FR feature in IRT. Conclusion FR with a carefully chosen drug supply/re-supply strategy can result in quantifiable improvements in the patients’ and site personnel experience, trial logistics and efficiency while preventing an undesirable refusal to randomize a patient and a consequential unblinding at the site. FR is a useful design feature of multi-center RCTs provided it is properly planned for and carefully implemented.

Abstract Background The design of a multi-center randomized controlled trial (RCT) involves multiple considerations, such as the choice of the sample size, the number of centers and their geographic location, the strategy for recruitment of study participants, amongst others. There are plenty of methods to sequentially randomize patients in a multi-center RCT, with or without considering stratification factors. The goal of this paper is to perform a systematic assessment of such randomization methods for a multi-center 1:1 RCT assuming a competitive policy for the patient recruitment process. Methods We considered a Poisson-gamma model for the patient recruitment process with a uniform distribution of center activation times. We investigated 16 randomization methods (4 unstratified, 4 region-stratified, 4 center-stratified, 3 dynamic balancing randomization (DBR), and a complete randomization design) to sequentially randomize $$n=500$$ n = 500 patients. Statistical properties of the recruitment process and the randomization procedures were assessed using Monte Carlo simulations. The operating characteristics included time to complete recruitment, number of centers that recruited a given number of patients, several measures of treatment imbalance and estimation efficiency under a linear model for the response, the expected proportions of correct guesses under two different guessing strategies, and the expected proportion of deterministic assignments in the allocation sequence. Results Maximum tolerated imbalance (MTI) randomization methods such as big stick design, Ehrenfest urn design, and block urn design result in a better balance–randomness tradeoff than the conventional permuted block design (PBD) with or without stratification. Unstratified randomization, region-stratified randomization, and center-stratified randomization provide control of imbalance at a chosen level (trial, region, or center) but may fail to achieve balance at the other two levels. By contrast, DBR does a very good job controlling imbalance at all 3 levels while maintaining the randomized nature of treatment allocation. Adding more centers into the study helps accelerate the recruitment process but at the expense of increasing the number of centers that recruit very few (or no) patients—which may increase center-level imbalances for center-stratified and DBR procedures. Increasing the block size or the MTI threshold(s) may help obtain designs with improved randomness–balance tradeoff. Conclusions The choice of a randomization method is an important component of planning a multi-center RCT. Dynamic balancing randomization with carefully chosen MTI thresholds could be a very good strategy for trials with the competitive policy for patient recruitment.

Abstract Background Randomization is the foundation of any clinical trial involving treatment comparison. It helps mitigate selection bias, promotes similarity of treatment groups with respect to important known and unknown confounders, and contributes to the validity of statistical tests. Various restricted randomization procedures with different probabilistic structures and different statistical properties are available. The goal of this paper is to present a systematic roadmap for the choice and application of a restricted randomization procedure in a clinical trial. Methods We survey available restricted randomization procedures for sequential allocation of subjects in a randomized, comparative, parallel group clinical trial with equal (1:1) allocation. We explore statistical properties of these procedures, including balance/randomness tradeoff, type I error rate and power. We perform head-to-head comparisons of different procedures through simulation under various experimental scenarios, including cases when common model assumptions are violated. We also provide some real-life clinical trial examples to illustrate the thinking process for selecting a randomization procedure for implementation in practice. Results Restricted randomization procedures targeting 1:1 allocation vary in the degree of balance/randomness they induce, and more importantly, they vary in terms of validity and efficiency of statistical inference when common model assumptions are violated (e.g. when outcomes are affected by a linear time trend; measurement error distribution is misspecified; or selection bias is introduced in the experiment). Some procedures are more robust than others. Covariate-adjusted analysis may be essential to ensure validity of the results. Special considerations are required when selecting a randomization procedure for a clinical trial with very small sample size. Conclusions The choice of randomization design, data analytic technique (parametric or nonparametric), and analysis strategy (randomization-based or population model-based) are all very important considerations. Randomization-based tests are robust and valid alternatives to likelihood-based tests and should be considered more frequently by clinical investigators.