» Articles » PMID: 35064595

Response Adaptive Intervention Allocation in Stepped-wedge Cluster Randomized Trials

Overview
Journal Stat Med
Publisher Wiley
Specialty Public Health
Date 2022 Jan 22
PMID 35064595
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial (SW-CRT) designs are often used when there is a desire to provide an intervention to all enrolled clusters, because of a belief that it will be effective. However, given there should be equipoise at trial commencement, there has been discussion around whether a pre-trial decision to provide the intervention to all clusters is appropriate. In pharmaceutical drug development, a solution to a similar desire to provide more patients with an effective treatment is to use a response adaptive (RA) design.

Methods: We introduce a way in which RA design could be incorporated in an SW-CRT, permitting modification of the intervention allocation during the trial. The proposed framework explicitly permits a balance to be sought between power and patient benefit considerations. A simulation study evaluates the methodology.

Results: In one scenario, for one particular RA design, the proportion of cluster-periods spent in the intervention condition was observed to increase from 32.2% to 67.9% as the intervention effect was increased. A cost of this was a 6.2% power drop compared to a design that maximized power by fixing the proportion of time in the intervention condition at 45.0%, regardless of the intervention effect.

Conclusions: An RA approach may be most applicable to settings for which the intervention has substantial individual or societal benefit considerations, potentially in combination with notable safety concerns. In such a setting, the proposed methodology may routinely provide the desired adaptability of the roll-out speed, with only a small cost to the study's power.

Citing Articles

Response adaptive intervention allocation in stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials.

Grayling M, Wason J, Villar S Stat Med. 2022; 41(6):1081-1099.

PMID: 35064595 PMC: 7612601. DOI: 10.1002/sim.9317.

References
1.
Chowell G, Viboud C . Ebola vaccine trials: a race against the clock. Lancet Infect Dis. 2015; 15(6):624-6. DOI: 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)70159-3. View

2.
Eyal N, Lipsitch M . Vaccine testing for emerging infections: the case for individual randomisation. J Med Ethics. 2017; 43(9):625-631. PMC: 5577361. DOI: 10.1136/medethics-2015-103220. View

3.
Curley M, Gedeit R, Dodson B, Amling J, Soetenga D, Corriveau C . Methods in the design and implementation of the Randomized Evaluation of Sedation Titration for Respiratory Failure (RESTORE) clinical trial. Trials. 2018; 19(1):687. PMC: 6296093. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-018-3075-8. View

4.
Edwards S . Response to Open Peer Commentaries on "Ethics of clinical science in a public health emergency: drug discovery at the bedside". Am J Bioeth. 2013; 13(9):W1-3. DOI: 10.1080/15265161.2013.825134. View

5.
Scott J, deCamp A, Juraska M, Fay M, B Gilbert P . Finite-sample corrected generalized estimating equation of population average treatment effects in stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2014; 26(2):583-597. PMC: 4411204. DOI: 10.1177/0962280214552092. View