Minimal sufficient balance - A new strategy to balance baseline covariates and preserve randomness of treatment allocation

Statistical Methods in Medical Research

Volumn 24, Issue 6, 2015, Pages 989-1002

  Zhao, Wenle ^a   Hill, Michael D ^b   Palesch, Yuko ^a  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY   (Canada)

Author keywords

baseline covariate imbalance; Clinical trial; minimal sufficient balance; randomization; treatment allocation randomness

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; COVARIANCE; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MATHEMATICAL COMPUTING; MINIMAL SUFFICIENT BALANCE; PROBABILITY; RANDOMIZATION; STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE; AGED; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PROCEDURES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SAMPLE SIZE; STANDARDS; STATISTICAL BIAS; STATISTICAL MODEL;

AGED; BIAS (EPIDEMIOLOGY); FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MODELS, STATISTICAL; RANDOM ALLOCATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; SAMPLE SIZE;

EID: 84948389624     PISSN: 09622802     EISSN: 14770334     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0962280212436447     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Psaty BM, Furberg CD, Pahor M, et al. National guidelines, clinical trials, and quality of evidence. Arch Intern Med 2000; 160: 2577-2580.
2. Berger V,. Selection bias and covariate imbalances in randomized clinical trials, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2005, pp. 74-75.
3. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke rt-PA Stroke Study Group. Tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. N Engl J Med 1995; 333: 1581-1587.
4. Hansson L, Lindholm LH, Niskanen L, et al. Effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition compared with conventional therapy on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Captopril Prevention Project (CAPPP) randomised trial. Lancet 1999; 353: 611-616.
5. Mann J, Gladstone D, Hill M,. (Letters to editor and response) tPA for acute stroke: balancing baseline imbalances. CAMJ 2002; 166: 1651-1653.
6. Mann J, Ingall T, O'Fallon WM, et al. (Letters to editor and response) NINDS reanalysis committee's reanalysis of the NINDS trial. Stroke 2005; 36: 230-231.
7. Saver J, Yafeh B,. Confirmation of tPA treatment effect by baseline severity-adjusted end point reanalysis of NINDS-tPA stroke trials. Stroke 2007; 38: 414-416.
8. Austin P, Manca A, Zwarenstein M, et al. A substantial and confusing variation exists in handling of baseline covariate in randomized controlled trials: a review of trials published in leading medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63: 142-153.
9. Mandava P, Kalkonde YV, Rochat RH, et al. A matching algorithm to address imbalances in study populations-application to the National Institute of Neurological Diseases and Stroke Recombinant Tissue Plasminogen Activator acute stroke trial. Stroke 2010; 41: 765-770.
10. Ingall TJ, O'Fallon WM, Asplund K, et al. Findings from the reanalysis of the NINDS tissue plasminogen activator for acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 2004; 35: 2418-2424.
11. Walton M. Clinical review for PLA 96-0350, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/ApprovalApplications/TherapeuticBiologicApplications/ucm080832.pdf (1996, accessed 16 January 2011).
12. Peto R,. Failure of randomization by "sealed" envelope. Lancet 1999; 354: 73-73.
13. Friedman L, Furberg C, Demets D,. Fundamentals of clinical trials, 3rd edn. New York, NY: Springer, 1998.
14. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products. Points to consider on adjustment for baseline covariates. Report no. CPMP/EWP/2863/99, 22 May 2003. London: The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products.
15. Zhao W, Weng Y, Wu Q, et al. Quantitative comparison of randomization designs in sequential clinical trials based on treatment balance and allocation randomness. Pharm Stat 2011; May 5. PMID: 21544929.
16. Fayers P, King M,. In reply to Berger "don't test for baseline imbalance unless they are unknown to be present?". Qual Life Res 2009; 18: 401-402.
17. Altman D, Dore C,. Randomisation and baseline comparison in clinical trials. Lancet 1990; 335: 149-153.
18. Pocock SJ, Assmann SE, Enos LE, et al. Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparison in clinical trial reporting: current practice and problems. Stat Med 2002; 21: 2917-2930.
19. Taves DR,. Minimization: a new method of assigning patients to treatment and control groups. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1974; 15: 443-453.
20. Pocock SJ, Simon R,. Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics 1975; 31: 103-115.
21. Berger V,. Minimization, by its nature, precludes allocation concealment, and invites selection bias. Contemp Clin Trials 2010; 31: 406-406.
22. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). Points to consider on adjustment for baseline covariates. Report no. CPMP/EWP/2863/99, 2003, pp.1-10. London: European Medicines Evaluation Agency.
23. Atkinson A,. Optimum biased coin design for sequential clinical trials with prognostic factors. Biometrika 1982; 69: 61-67.
24. Atkinson A,. Optimum biased-coin designs for sequential treatment allocation with covariate information. Stat Med 1999; 18: 1741-1752.
25. Senn S, Anisimov VV, Fedorov VV,. Comparison of minimization and Atkinson's algorithm. Stat Med 2010; 29: 721-730.
26. Senn S,. Covariate imbalance and random allocation in clinical trials. Stat Med 1989; 8: 467-475.
27. Senn S,. Testing for baseline balance in clinical trials. Stat Med 1994; 13: 1715-1726.
28. Senn S,. Statistical issues in drug development, 2nd edn. New York, NY: Wiley, 2007.
29. Assmann S, Pocock S, Ennos L, et al. Subgroup analysis and other (mis)uses of baseline data in clinical trials. Lancet 2000; 335: 1064-1069.
30. Soares JF, Wu CF,. Some restricted randomization rules in sequential designs. Commun Stat Theory Methods 1983; 12: 2017-2034.
31. Berger VM, Ivanova A, Knoll MD,. Minimizing predictability while retaining balance through the use of less restrictive randomization procedures. Stat Med 2003; 22: 3017-3028.
32. Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM,. Randomization in clinical trials theory and practice, New York, NY: Wiley Interscience, 2002.
33. Ciolino J, Zhao W, Martin R, et al. Quantifying the cost in power of ignoring continuous covariate imbalances in clinical trial randomization. Contemp Clin Trials 2011; 32 (2):250-259.
34. Rosenkranz GK,. The impact of randomization on the analysis of clinical trials. Stat Med 2011; 30: 3475-3487.
35. Dachs R, Burton J, Joslin J,. A user's guide to the NINDS rt-PA stroke trial database. PLoS Med 2008; 5 (5): e113-e113.
36. Hernandez A, Steyerberg E, Butcher I, et al. Adjustment for strong predictors of outcome in traumatic brain injury trials: 25% reduction in the IMPACT study. J Neurotrauma 2006; 23: 1295-1303.
37. Gray LJ, Bath PM, et al. The Optimising the Analysis of Stroke Trials (OAST) Collaboration. Should stroke trials adjust functional outcome for baseline prognostic factors? Stroke 2009; 40: 888-894.
38. Saver J, Yafeh B,. Confirmation of tPA treatment effect by baseline severity-adjusted end point reanalysis of NINDS-tPA stroke trials. Stroke 2007; 38: 414-416.
39. Silverman E. Clinical trial cost are rising rapidly. Pharmalot's, July 2011, http://www.pharmalot.com/2011/07/clinical-trial-costs-for-each-patient-rose-rapidly/ (2011, accessed 9 December 2011).