Cargando…

Outcome-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: issues of participant welfare and autonomy

Outcome-adaptive randomization (OAR) has been proposed as a corrective to certain ethical difficulties inherent in the traditional randomized clinical trial (RCT) using fixed-ratio randomization. In particular, it has been suggested that OAR redresses the balance between individual and collective et...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Sim, Julius
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Netherlands 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6478640/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30778720
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11017-019-09481-0
_version_ 1783413179001339904
author Sim, Julius
author_facet Sim, Julius
author_sort Sim, Julius
collection PubMed
description Outcome-adaptive randomization (OAR) has been proposed as a corrective to certain ethical difficulties inherent in the traditional randomized clinical trial (RCT) using fixed-ratio randomization. In particular, it has been suggested that OAR redresses the balance between individual and collective ethics in favour of the former. In this paper, I examine issues of welfare and autonomy arising in relation to OAR. A central issue in discussions of welfare in OAR is equipoise, and the moral status of OAR is crucially influenced by the way in which this concept is construed. If OAR is based on a model of equipoise that demands strict indifference between competing interventions throughout the trial, such equipoise is disturbed by accruing data favouring one treatment over another; OAR seeks to redress this by weighting randomization to the seemingly superior treatment. However, this is a partial response, as patients continue to be allocated to the inferior therapy. Moreover, it rests upon considerations of aggregate harms and benefits, and does not therefore uphold individual ethics. Issues of fairness also arise, as early and late enrollees are randomized on a different basis. Fixed-ratio randomization represents a fuller and more consistent response to a loss of equipoise, as so construed. With regard to consent, the complexity of OAR poses challenges to adequate disclosure and comprehension. Additionally, OAR does not offer a remedy to the therapeutic misconception—participants’ tendency to attribute treatment allocation in an RCT to individual clinical judgments, rather than to scientific considerations—and, if anything, accentuates rather than alleviates this misconception. In relation to these issues, OAR fails to offer ethical advantages over fixed-ratio randomization. More broadly, the ethical basis of OAR can be seen to lie more in collective than in individual ethics, and overall it fares worse in this territory than fixed-ratio randomization.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6478640
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Springer Netherlands
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64786402019-05-14 Outcome-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: issues of participant welfare and autonomy Sim, Julius Theor Med Bioeth Article Outcome-adaptive randomization (OAR) has been proposed as a corrective to certain ethical difficulties inherent in the traditional randomized clinical trial (RCT) using fixed-ratio randomization. In particular, it has been suggested that OAR redresses the balance between individual and collective ethics in favour of the former. In this paper, I examine issues of welfare and autonomy arising in relation to OAR. A central issue in discussions of welfare in OAR is equipoise, and the moral status of OAR is crucially influenced by the way in which this concept is construed. If OAR is based on a model of equipoise that demands strict indifference between competing interventions throughout the trial, such equipoise is disturbed by accruing data favouring one treatment over another; OAR seeks to redress this by weighting randomization to the seemingly superior treatment. However, this is a partial response, as patients continue to be allocated to the inferior therapy. Moreover, it rests upon considerations of aggregate harms and benefits, and does not therefore uphold individual ethics. Issues of fairness also arise, as early and late enrollees are randomized on a different basis. Fixed-ratio randomization represents a fuller and more consistent response to a loss of equipoise, as so construed. With regard to consent, the complexity of OAR poses challenges to adequate disclosure and comprehension. Additionally, OAR does not offer a remedy to the therapeutic misconception—participants’ tendency to attribute treatment allocation in an RCT to individual clinical judgments, rather than to scientific considerations—and, if anything, accentuates rather than alleviates this misconception. In relation to these issues, OAR fails to offer ethical advantages over fixed-ratio randomization. More broadly, the ethical basis of OAR can be seen to lie more in collective than in individual ethics, and overall it fares worse in this territory than fixed-ratio randomization. Springer Netherlands 2019-02-18 2019 /pmc/articles/PMC6478640/ /pubmed/30778720 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11017-019-09481-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Article
Sim, Julius
Outcome-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: issues of participant welfare and autonomy
title Outcome-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: issues of participant welfare and autonomy
title_full Outcome-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: issues of participant welfare and autonomy
title_fullStr Outcome-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: issues of participant welfare and autonomy
title_full_unstemmed Outcome-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: issues of participant welfare and autonomy
title_short Outcome-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: issues of participant welfare and autonomy
title_sort outcome-adaptive randomization in clinical trials: issues of participant welfare and autonomy
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6478640/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30778720
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11017-019-09481-0
work_keys_str_mv AT simjulius outcomeadaptiverandomizationinclinicaltrialsissuesofparticipantwelfareandautonomy