Covariate-constrained randomization for cluster randomized trials in the long-term care setting: Application to the TRAIN-AD trial

Michele L Shaffer, Erika M C D'Agata, Daniel Habtemariam, Susan L Mitchell, Michele L Shaffer, Erika M C D'Agata, Daniel Habtemariam, Susan L Mitchell

Abstract

Little has been reported on strategies to ensure key covariate balance in cluster randomized trials in the nursing home setting. Facilities vary widely on key characteristics, small numbers may be randomized, and staggered enrollment is often necessary. A covariate-constrained algorithm was used to randomize facilities in the Trial to Reduce Antimicrobial use In Nursing home residents with Alzheimer's Disease and other Dementias (TRAIN-AD), an ongoing trial in Boston-area facilities (14 facilities/arm). Publicly available 2015 LTCfocus.org data were leveraged to inform the distribution of key facility-level covariates. The algorithm was applied in waves (2-8 facilities/wave) June 2017-March 2019. To examine the algorithm's general performance, simulations calculated an imbalance score (minimum 0) for similar trial designs. The algorithm provided good balance for profit status (Arm 1, 7 facilities; Arm 2, 6 facilities). Arm 2 was allocated more nursing homes with the number of severely cognitive impaired residents above the median (Arm 1, 7 facilities; Arm 2, 10 facilities), resulting in an imbalance in total number of residents enrolled (Arm 1, 196 residents; Arm 2, 228 residents). Facilities with number of black residents above the median were balanced (7 facilities/arm), while the numbers of black residents enrolled differed slightly between arms (Arm 1, 26 residents (13%); Arm 2, 22 residents (10%)). Simulations showed the median imbalance for TRAIN-AD's original randomization scheme (score = 3), was similar to the observed imbalance (score = 4). Covariate-constrained randomization flexibly accommodates logistical complexities of cluster trials in the nursing home setting, where LTCfocus.org is a valuable source of baseline data.

Trial registration number and trial register: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03244917.

Keywords: Cluster randomized trial; Covariate-constrained randomization; Minimization; Study design.

© 2020 The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Estimated number of black residents versus actual number of black residents enrolled for each nursing home. Points are jittered to avoid overlap. The dashed line represents the median estimated number of black residents for all eligible TRAIN-AD facilities at the start of study recruitment. The solid line is the line of agreement (y = x). Intervention arm is partially masked, and reported as Arms 1 and 2.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Estimated number of residents versus actual number of residents enrolled for each nursing home. Points are jittered to avoid overlap. The dashed line represents the median estimated number of residents for all eligible TRAIN-AD facilities at the start of study recruitment. The solid line is the line of agreement (y = x). Intervention arm is partially masked, and reported as Arms 1 and 2.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Distribution of imbalance score for 10,000 simulations randomizing 24 nursing homes from the list of all eligible facilities for TRAIN-AD at the start of study recruitment using the original randomization scheme for TRAIN-AD of four waves of six nursing homes.

References

    1. Ivers N.M., Halperin I.J., Barnsley J. Allocation techniques for balance at baseline in cluster randomized trials: a methodological review. Trials. 2012;13:120–6215.
    1. Altman D.G., Bland J.M. How to randomise. BMJ. 1999;319(7211):703–704.
    1. Altman D.G., Bland J.M. Treatment allocation by minimisation. BMJ. 2005;330(7495):843. doi: 330/7495/843 [pii]
    1. Senn S., Anisimov V.V., Fedorov V.V. Comparisons of minimization and Atkinson’s algorithm. Stat. Med. 2010;29(7–8):721–730.
    1. Hofmeijer J., Anema P.C., van der Tweel I. New algorithm for treatment allocation reduced selection bias and loss of power in small trials. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 2008;61(2):119–124.
    1. Nietert P.J., Jenkins R.G., Nemeth L.S., Ornstein S.M. An application of a modified constrained randomization process to a practice-based cluster randomized trial to improve colorectal cancer screening. Contemp. Clin. Trials. 2009;30(2):129–132.
    1. Carter B.R., Hood K. Balance algorithm for cluster randomized trials. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2008;8:65–2288.
    1. Engel S.E., Kiely D.K., Mitchell S.L. Satisfaction with end-of-life care for nursing home residents with advanced dementia. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2006;54(10):1567–1572. doi: JGS900 [pii]
    1. Mitchell S.L., Teno J.M., Roy J., Kabumoto G., Mor V. Clinical and organizational factors associated with feeding tube use among nursing home residents with advanced cognitive impairment. J. Am. Med. Assoc. 2003;290(1):73–80.
    1. Loizeau A.J., D’Agata E.M.C., Shaffer M.L. The trial to reduce antimicrobial use in nursing home residents with Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias: study protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2019;20(1) 594-019.
    1. Brown University Center for Gerontology and Healthcare Research. Long-term Care, Facts on Care in the US –, . .
    1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services CASPER reporting provider user guide. 2010.
    1. Health Resources & Services Administration Area health resource files. 2018.
    1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services The state medicaid manual.
    1. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Minimum data set 3.0 public reports. 2012.
    1. Thomas K.S., Dosa D., Wysocki A., Mor V. The minimum data set 3.0 cognitive function scale. Med. Care. 2017;55(9):e68–e72.
    1. Smith D.B., Feng Z., Fennell M.L., Zinn J.S., Mor V. Separate and unequal: racial segregation and disparities in quality across U.S. nursing homes. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007;26(5):1448–1458. doi: 26/5/1448 [pii]
    1. Volicer L., Hurley A.C., Lathi D.C., Kowall N.W. Measurement of severity in advanced Alzheimer’s disease. J. Gerontol. 1994;49(5):M223–M226.
    1. Lin L.I. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics. 1989;45(1):255–268.
    1. Pocock S.J., Simon R. Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics. 1975;31:103–115.
    1. Li F., Lokhnygina Y., Murray D.M., Heagerty P.J., DeLong E.R. An evaluation of constrained randomization for the design and analysis of group-randomized trials. Stat. Med. 2016;35(10):1565–1579.
    1. Brown C.A., Lilford R.J. The stepped wedge trial design: a systematic review. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2006;6:54–2288. doi: 1471-2288-6-54 [pii]
    1. de Hoop E., van der Tweel I., van der Graaf R. The need to balance merits and limitations from different disciplines when considering the stepped wedge cluster randomized trial design. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2015;15:93–9015.
    1. Hussey M.A., Hughes J.P. Design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. Contemp. Clin. Trials. 2007;28(2):182–191. doi: S1551-7144(06)00063-2 [pii]
    1. Hemming K., Taljaard M., McKenzie J.E. Reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomised trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement with explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2018;363:k1614.
    1. Mitchell S.L., Teno J.M., Kiely D.K. The clinical course of advanced dementia. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009;361(16):1529–1538.
    1. Hemming K., Haines T.P., Chilton P.J., Girling A.J., Lilford R.J. The stepped wedge cluster randomised trial: rationale, design, analysis, and reporting. BMJ. 2015;350:h391.
    1. Mitchell S.L., Shaffer M.L., Cohen S., Hanson L.C., Habtemariam D., Volandes A.E. An advance care planning video decision support tool for nursing home residents with advanced dementia: a cluster randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern. Med. 2018;178(7):961–969.
    1. Hanson L.C., Zimmerman S., Song M.K. Effect of the goals of care intervention for advanced dementia: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Intern. Med. 2017;177(1):24–31.

Source: PubMed

3
Předplatit