Abstract
Response-adaptive randomization is being used in COVID-19 trials, but it is unknown whether outcome rate changes during surges of COVID-19 will lead to bias in trial results. In response-adaptive randomization, allocation ratios are adjusted according to interim analyses to assign more patients to promising interventions. Although it is known that response-adaptive randomization may give biased estimates if outcome rates drift over time, observed mortality fluctuations in the COVID-19 pandemic are more extreme than any previously tested in simulation. We hypothesized that pandemic surges induce bias in trials using response-adaptive randomization, and that adjustment for time will alleviate that bias. Bayesian 4-arm superiority trials with a mortality outcome were simulated to investigate bias in treatment effect, comparing complete and response-adaptive randomization under different pandemic scenarios based on data from New York, Spain, and Italy. Relative bias in the odds ratio associated with treatment ranged from 0.3% to 11% and was largest in trials with a surge and an effective intervention that did not adjust for time. Bias was attenuated by adjustment for time without compromising the false-positive rate. Trials using response-adaptive randomization were more likely to identify effective interventions but were slower to drop ineffective interventions. Even with variation in outcome rates similar to observed pandemic surges, COVID-19 trials using response-adaptive randomization that adjust for time can provide accurate estimates of treatment effects.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research CGS-M program (Yarnell), the Clinician-Investigator Program of the University of Toronto (Yarnell), and the Eliot Phillipson Clinician Scientist Training Program of the University of Toronto (Yarnell).
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding and role of funders in study The study was funded by the Canadian Institutes for Health Research CGS-M program (Yarnell), the Clinician-Investigator Program of the University of Toronto (Yarnell), and the Eliot Phillipson Clinician Scientist Training Program of the University of Toronto (Yarnell).
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors