A burn-in(g) question: How long should an initial equal randomization stage be before Bayesian response-adaptive randomization?
Authors:
Edwin Y. N. Tang,
Stef Baas,
Daniel Kaddaj,
Lukas Pin,
David S. Robertson,
Sofía S. Villar
Abstract:
Response-adaptive (RA) trials offer the potential to enhance participant benefit but also complicate valid statistical analysis and potentially lead to a higher proportion of participants receiving an inferior treatment. A common approach to mitigate these disadvantages is to introduce a fixed non-adaptive randomization stage at the start of the RA design, known as the burn-in period. Currently, i…
▽ More
Response-adaptive (RA) trials offer the potential to enhance participant benefit but also complicate valid statistical analysis and potentially lead to a higher proportion of participants receiving an inferior treatment. A common approach to mitigate these disadvantages is to introduce a fixed non-adaptive randomization stage at the start of the RA design, known as the burn-in period. Currently, investigations and guidance on the effect of the burn-in length are scarce. To this end, this paper provides an exact evaluation approach to investigate how the burn-in length impacts the statistical properties of two-arm binary RA designs. We show that (1) for commonly used calibration and asymptotic tests an increase in the burn-in length reduces type I error rate inflation but does not lead to strict type I error rate control, necessitating exact tests; (2) the burn-in length substantially influences the power and participant benefit, and these measures are often not maximized at the maximum or minimum possible burn-in length; (3) the conditional exact test conditioning on total successes provides the highest average and minimum power for both small and moderate burn-in lengths compared to other tests. Using our exact analysis method, we re-design the ARREST trial to improve its statistical properties.
△ Less
Submitted 25 March, 2025;
originally announced March 2025.
Thompson, Ulam, or Gauss? Multi-criteria recommendations for posterior probability computation methods in Bayesian response-adaptive trials
Authors:
Daniel Kaddaj,
Lukas Pin,
Stef Baas,
Edwin Y. N. Tang,
David S. Robertson,
Sofía S. Villar
Abstract:
To implement a Bayesian response-adaptive trial it is necessary to evaluate a sequence of posterior probabilities. This sequence is often approximated by simulation due to the unavailability of closed-form formulae to compute it exactly. Approximating these probabilities by simulation can be computationally expensive and impact the accuracy or the range of scenarios that may be explored. An altern…
▽ More
To implement a Bayesian response-adaptive trial it is necessary to evaluate a sequence of posterior probabilities. This sequence is often approximated by simulation due to the unavailability of closed-form formulae to compute it exactly. Approximating these probabilities by simulation can be computationally expensive and impact the accuracy or the range of scenarios that may be explored. An alternative approximation method based on Gaussian distributions can be faster but its accuracy is not guaranteed. The literature lacks practical recommendations for selecting approximation methods and comparing their properties, particularly considering trade-offs between computational speed and accuracy. In this paper, we focus on the case where the trial has a binary endpoint with Beta priors. We first outline an efficient way to compute the posterior probabilities exactly for any number of treatment arms. Then, using exact probability computations, we show how to benchmark calculation methods based on considerations of computational speed, patient benefit, and inferential accuracy. This is done through a range of simulations in the two-armed case, as well as an analysis of the three-armed Established Status Epilepticus Treatment Trial. Finally, we provide practical guidance for which calculation method is most appropriate in different settings, and how to choose the number of simulations if the simulation-based approximation method is used.
△ Less
Submitted 29 November, 2024;
originally announced November 2024.
