Response-adaptive randomization, which changes the randomization ratio as a randomized clinical trial progresses, is inefficient as compared to a fixed 1:1 randomization ratio in terms of increased required sample size. It is also known that response-adaptive randomization leads to biased treatment effects if there are time trends in the accruing outcome data, for example, due to changes in the patient population being accrued, evaluation methods, or concomitant treatments. Response-adaptive-randomization analysis methods that account for potential time trends, such as time-block stratification or re-randomization, can eliminate this bias. However, as shown in this Commentary, these analysis methods cause a large additional inefficiency of response-adaptive randomization, regardless of whether a time trend actually exists.

1. Zelen, M. Play the winner rule and the controlled clinical trial. J Am Stat Assoc 1969; 64: 131–146.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI2. Cornfield, J, Halperin, M, Greenhouse, SW. An adaptive procedure for sequential clinical trials. J Am Stat Assoc 1969; 64: 759–770.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI3. Wei, LJ, Durham, S. The randomized play-the-winner rule in medical trials. J Am Stat Assoc 1978; 73: 840–843.
Google Scholar | Crossref | ISI4. Berry, DA, Eick, SG. Adaptive assignment versus balanced randomization in clinical trials: a decision analysis. Stat Med 1995; 14: 231–246.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI5. Thall, PF, Wathen, JK. Practical Bayesian adaptive randomisation in clinical trials. Eur J Cancer 2007; 43(5): 859–866.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI6. Korn, EL, Freidlin, B. Outcome-adaptive randomization: Is it useful? J Clin Oncol 2011; 29: 771–776.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI7. Hey, SP, Kimmelman, J. Are outcome-adaptive allocation trials ethical. Clin Trials 2015; 12(2): 102–106.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI8. Thall, P, Fox, P, Wathen, J. Statistical controversies in clinical research: scientific and ethical problems with adaptive randomization in comparative clinical trials. Ann Oncol 2015; 26(8): 1621–1628.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline9. Proper, J, Connett, J, Murray, T. Alternative models and randomization techniques for Bayesian response-adaptive randomization with binary outcomes. Clin Trials 2021; 18(4): 417–426.
Google Scholar | SAGE Journals | ISI10. Simon, R. Adaptive treatment assignment and clinical trials. Biometrics 1977; 33: 743–749.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI11. Korn, EL, Frejdlin, B. Adaptive clinical trials: advantages and disadvantages of various adaptive design elements. J Natl Cancer Inst 2017; 109(6): djx013.
Google Scholar | Crossref12. Karrison, TG, Huo, D, Chappell, R. A group sequential, response-adaptive design for randomized clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 2003; 24(5): 506–522.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline13. Jennison, C, Turnbull, BW. Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. New York: Chapman & Hall, 2000, pp. 331–333.
Google Scholar14. Simon, R, Simon, NR. Using randomization tests to preserve type 1 error with response-adaptive and covariate-adaptive randomization. Stat Probab Lett 2011; 81: 767–772.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline | ISI15. Villar, SS, Bowden, J, Wason, J. Response-adaptive designs for binary responses: how to offer patient benefit while being robust to time trends. Pharm Stat 2018; 17(2): 182–197.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline16. Dodd, LE, Freidlin, B, Korn, EL. Platform trials—beware the noncomparable control group. New Eng J Med 2021; 384: 1572–1573.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline17. Galbete, A, Rosenberger, WF. On the use of randomization tests following adaptive designs. J Biopharm Stat 2016; 26(3): 466–474.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline18. Proschan, MA, Dodd, LE. Re-randomization tests in clinical trials. Stat Med 2019; 38: 2292–2302.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline19. Arabi, YM, Gordon, AC, Derde, LPG et al. Lopinavir-ritonavir and hydroxychloroquine for critically ill patients with COVID-19: REMAP-CAP randomized controlled trial. Intensive Care Med 2021; 47(8): 867–886.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline20. Rahman, R, Ventz, S, McDunn, J et al. Leveraging external data in the design and analysis of clinical trials in neuro-oncology. Lancet Oncol 2021; 22(10): e456–e465.
Google Scholar | Crossref | Medline