Advertisement

Statistical Methods and Applications

, Volume 16, Issue 3, pp 321–346 | Cite as

A numerical study for comparing two response-adaptive designs for continuous treatment effects

  • Anna Maria Paganoni
  • Piercesare SecchiEmail author
Original Article

Abstract

We study two sequential, response-adaptive randomized designs for clinical trials; one has been proposed in Bandyopadhyay and Biswas (Biometrika 88: 409–419, 2001) and in Biswas and Basu (Sankhya Ser B 63:27–42, 2001), the other stems from the randomly reinforced urn introduced and studied in Muliere et al. (J Stat Plan Inference 136:1853–1874, 2006a). Both designs can be used in clinical trials where the response from each patient is a continuous variable. Comparison is conducted through numerical studies and along a new guideline for the evaluation of a response-adaptive design.

Keywords

Response adaptive designs Clinical trials Urn schemes 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aletti G, May C, Secchi P (2005) On the distribution of the limit proportion for a two-color, randomly reinforced urn with equal reinforcement distributions. MOX report no. 74, MOX-Dipartimento di Matematica, Politecnico di MilanoGoogle Scholar
  2. Atkinson AC, Biswas A (2005) Bayesian adaptive biased-coin design for clinical trials with normal repsonses. Biometrics 61:118–125zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. Bandyopadhyay U, Biswas A (2001) Adaptive designs for normal responses with prognostic factors. Biometrika 88:409–419zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  4. Biswas A, Basu A (2001) Robust adaptive designs in clinical trials for continuous responses. Sankhya Ser B 63:27–42zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  5. DeGroot MH (1970) Optimal statistical decisions. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Durham SC, Flournoy N, Li W (1998) A sequential design for maximizing the probability of a response. Can J Stat 26(3):479–495zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. Fishburn PC (1981) Subjective expected utility: a review of normative theories. Theory Decis 13:139–199zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  8. Flournoy N, Rosenberger WF (eds) (1995) Adaptive designs. IMS, HaywardzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Hu F, Rosenberger WF (2003) Optimality, variability, power: evaluating response-adaptive randomization procedures for treatment comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 98:671–678zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. Hu F, Zhang L (2004) Asymptotic properties of doubly adaptive biased coin designs for multitreatment clinical trials. Ann Stat 32:268–301zbMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. May C, Paganoni AM, Secchi P (2005) On a two-color generalized Polya urn. Metron LXIII: 115–134MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  12. Muliere P, Paganoni AM, Secchi P (2006a) A randomly reinforced urn. J Stat Plann Inference 136:1853–1874zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  13. Muliere P, Paganoni AM, Secchi P (2006b) Randomly reinforced urns for clinical trials with continuous responses. SIS—Proceedings of the XLIII Scientific Meeting, Invited Session 9, CLEUP Padova, pp 403–414Google Scholar
  14. Rosenberger WF (1996) New directions in adaptive designs. Stat Sci 11:137–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rosenberger WF (2002) Randomized urn models and sequential design. Seq Anal 21:1–28zbMATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. Rosenberger WF, Lachin JM (2005) Randomization in clinical trials. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  17. Wei LJ, Durham S (1978) The randomized play-the-winner rule in medical trials. J Am Stat Assoc 73:840–843zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Matematica “F. Brioschi”Politecnico di MilanoMilanoItaly

Personalised recommendations