There has been a split in the statistics community about the need for taking covariates into account in the design phase of a clinical trial. There are many advocates of using stratification and covariate-adaptive randomization to promote balance on certain known covariates. However, balance does not always promote efficiency or ensure more patients are assigned to the better treatment. We describe these procedures, including model-based procedures, for incorporating covariates into the design of clinical trials, and give examples where balance, efficiency and ethical considerations may be in conflict. We advocate a new class of procedures, covariate-adjusted response-adaptive (CARA) randomization procedures that attempt to optimize both efficiency and ethical considerations, while maintaining randomization. We review all these procedures, present a few new simulation studies, and conclude with our philosophy.Comment: Published in at http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/08-STS269 the Statistical Science (http://www.imstat.org/sts/) by the Institute of Mathematical Statistics (http://www.imstat.org

Digital therapeutics represent a new treatment modality in which digital systems such as smartphone apps are used as regulatory-approved, prescribed therapeutic interventions to treat medical conditions. In this article we provide a critical overview of the rationale for investing in such novel modalities, including the unmet medical needs addressed by digital therapeutics and the potential for reducing current costs of medical care. We also discuss emerging pathways to regulatory approval and how innovative business models are enabling further growth in the development of digital therapeutics. We conclude by providing some recent examples of digital therapeutics that have gained regulatory approval and highlight opportunities for the near future.

No abstract

In February 2010, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA, 2010 ) drafted guidance that discusses the statistical, clinical, and regulatory aspects of various adaptive designs for clinical trials. An important class of adaptive designs is adaptive randomization, which is considered very briefly in subsection VI.B of the guidance. The objective of this paper is to review several important new classes of adaptive randomization procedures and convey information on the recent developments in the literature on this topic. Much of this literature has been focused on the development of methodology to address past criticisms and concerns that have hindered the broader use of adaptive randomization. We conclude that adaptive randomization is a very broad area of experimental design that has important application in modern clinical trials.

We considered design issues for multiple treatment arms in survival intervention trials and used optimal design theory to allocate patients adaptively in such trials. We proposed three types of optimal designs: one ensures that we have the most precise estimates of the treatment effects, another guarantees that we have the minimal sample size subject to user-specified allocation ratio assignments among treatment arms, and the third ensures that the design has minimal total hazard for the cohort. The latter two types of optimal designs are also subject to user-specified power constraints for testing contrasts among treatment effects. The operating characteristics of these optimal designs along with balanced designs are compared theoretically and by simulation, including their robustness properties with respect to model misspecifications. Our results show that the proposed optimal designs are frequently unbalanced and that they are generally more efficient and more ethical than the popular balanced designs. We also apply our response-adaptive allocation strategy to redesign a three-arm head and neck cancer trial and make comparisons.