Comparison of randomization techniques for clinical trials with data from the HOMERUS-trial

被引:8
作者
Verberk, WJ
Kroon, AA
Kessels, AGH
Nelemans, PJ
Van Ree, JW
Lenders, JWM
Thien, T
Bakx, JC
Van Montfrans, GA
Smit, AJ
Beltman, FW
De Leeuw, PW
机构
[1] Univ Hosp Maastricht, Dept Internal Med, NL-6202 AZ Maastricht, Netherlands
[2] Cardiovasc Res Inst Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands
[3] Maastricht Univ, Dept Gen Practice, Maastricht, Netherlands
[4] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Dept Gen Internal Med, Med Ctr, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[5] Radboud Univ Nijmegen, Dept Gen Practice, Med Ctr, Nijmegen, Netherlands
[6] Acad Med Ctr Amsterdam, Dept Internal Med, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[7] Univ Hosp Med Ctr Groningen, Dept Internal Med, Groningen, Netherlands
[8] Univ Hosp Med Ctr Groningen, Dept Gen Practice, Groningen, Netherlands
[9] Maastricht Univ, Dept Clin Epidemiol & Med Technol Assessment, Maastricht, Netherlands
[10] Maastricht Univ, Dept Epidemiol, Maastricht, Netherlands
关键词
blood pressure; hypertension; home monitoring; minimization; randomization; self-measurements;
D O I
10.1080/08037050500331538
中图分类号
R6 [外科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100210 ;
摘要
Background. Several methods of randomization are available to create comparable intervention groups in a study. In the HOMERUS-trial, we compared the minimization procedure with a stratified and a non-stratified method of randomization in order to test which one is most appropriate for use in clinical hypertension trials. A second objective of this article was to describe the baseline characteristics of the HOMERUS-trial. Methods. The HOMERUS population consisted of 459 mild-to-moderate hypertensive subjects (54% males) with a mean age of 55 years. These patients were prospectively randomized with the minimization method to either the office pressure (OP) group, where antihypertensive treatment was based on office blood pressure (BP) values, or to the self-pressure (SP) group, where treatment was based on self-measured BP values. Minimization was compared with two other randomization methods, which were performed post-hoc: (i) non-stratified randomization with four permuted blocks, and (ii) stratified randomization with four permuted blocks and 16 strata. In addition, several factors that could influence outcome were investigated for their effect on BP by 24-h ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (ABPM). Results. Minimization and stratified randomization did not lead to significant differences in 24-h ABPM values between the two treatment groups. Non-stratified randomization resulted in a significant difference in 24-h diastolic ABPM between the groups. Factors that caused significant differences in 24-h ABPM values were: region, centre of patient recruitment, age, gender, microalbuminuria, left ventricular hypertrophy and obesity. Conclusion. Minimization and stratified randomization are appropriate methods for use in clinical trials. Many outcome factors should be taken into account for their potential influence on BP levels. Recommendation. Due to the large number of potential outcome factors that can influence BP levels, minimization should be the preferred method for use in clinical hypertension trials, as it has the potential to randomize more outcome factors than stratified randomization.
引用
收藏
页码:306 / 314
页数:9
相关论文
共 37 条
  • [1] Dynamic randomization and a randomization model for clinical trials data
    Kaiser, Lee D.
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2012, 31 (29) : 3858 - 3873
  • [2] The pursuit of balance: An overview of covariate-adaptive randomization techniques in clinical trials
    Lin, Yunzhi
    Zhu, Ming
    Su, Zheng
    CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS, 2015, 45 : 21 - 25
  • [3] Randomization tests in clinical trials with multiple imputation for handling missing data
    Ivanova, Anastasia
    Lederman, Seth
    Stark, Philip B.
    Sullivan, Gregory
    Vaughn, Ben
    JOURNAL OF BIOPHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2022, 32 (03) : 441 - 449
  • [4] Issues in outcomes research: An overview of randomization techniques for clinical trials
    Kang, Minsoo
    Ragan, Brian G.
    Park, Jae-Hyeon
    JOURNAL OF ATHLETIC TRAINING, 2008, 43 (02) : 215 - 221
  • [5] A Comparison of Randomization Methods for Multi-Arm Clinical Trials
    Azher, Ruqayya A.
    Wason, James M. S.
    Grayling, Michael J.
    STATISTICS IN BIOPHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH, 2024, 16 (02): : 205 - 217
  • [6] A Comparison of Randomization Methods for Multi-Arm Clinical Trials
    Azher, Ruqayya A.
    Wason, James M. S.
    Grayling, Michael J.
    STATISTICS IN BIOPHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH, 2023,
  • [7] Comparison of Pocock and Simon's covariate-adaptive randomization procedures in clinical trials
    Shan, Guogen
    Li, Yulin
    Lu, Xinlin
    Zhang, Yahui
    Wu, Samuel S.
    BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2024, 24 (01)
  • [8] RANDOMIZATION PROCEDURES FOR ANALYZING CLINICAL-TRIAL DATA WITH TREATMENT RELATED WITHDRAWALS
    ENTSUAH, AR
    COMMUNICATIONS IN STATISTICS-THEORY AND METHODS, 1990, 19 (10) : 3859 - 3880
  • [9] Imbalance control in clinical trial subject randomization-from philosophy to strategy
    Zhao, Wenle
    Berger, Vance
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2018, 101 : 116 - 118
  • [10] Assessment of Blood Pressure: Techniques and Implications From Clinical Trials
    Waguespack, Dia R.
    Dwyer, Jamie P.
    ADVANCES IN CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE, 2019, 26 (02) : 87 - 91