Ethics of Adaptive Designs for Randomized Controlled Trials

Abstract

Over recent decades, adaptive trial designs have been used more and more often for clinical trials, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This rise in the use of adaptive RCTs has been accompanied by debates about whether such trials offer ethical and methodological advantages over traditional, fixed RCTs. This study examined how experts on clinical trial methods and ethics believe that adaptive RCTs, compared to fixed ones, affect the ethical character of clinical research. We conducted in‐depth interviews with 17 researchers from bioethics, epidemiology, biostatistics, and/or medical backgrounds. While about half believed that adaptive trials are more complex and may thus threaten autonomy, these respondents also expressed that this challenge is not insurmountable. Most respondents expressed that efficiency and potential for participant benefit were the main justifications for adaptive trials. There was tension about whether adaptive randomization in response to increasing information disrupts clinical equipoise, with some respondents insisting that uncertainty still exists and therefore clinical equipoise is not disrupted. These findings suggest that further discussion is needed to increase the awareness and utility of these study designs.

Towards achieving transnational research partnership equity: lessons from implementing adaptive platform trials in low- and middle-income countries

“…There is a need for more familiarity with adaptive platform trial designs amongst RECs, including unique ethical considerations of these different methodologies 79 . Another article in this series provides additional analyses of the ethical considerations unique to adaptive platform trials 50 .…”

The critical need to accelerate cerebral palsy research with consumer engagement, global networks, and adaptive designs

“…While most experts would likely agree that adaptive designs are more efficient, it is their complexity that causes tension. Complexity impacts respect for persons, specifically valid informed consent and subsequent threats to the key principle of autonomy [ 37 ]. After all, if considerations of adaptive design components are highly complex for an institutional review board, how much more confusing may the process seem to a layperson?…”

“…Beneficence : Both efficiency and prospective participant benefit are reasons for preferring adaptive designs over RCTs [ 37 ]. However, the disruption of clinical equipoise from data accrual and ongoing modifications to intervention arms is challenging for some participants and clinicians.…”