From the Studies for Translation, Ethics, and Medicine Group (STREAM), Biomedical Ethics Unit, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
Neurology. 2014 Jan 7;82(1):77-9. doi: 10.1212/01.wnl.0000438226.10353.1c. Epub 2013 Dec 4.
Randomization is the standard means for addressing known and unknown confounders within the patient population in clinical trials. Although random assignment to treatment arms on a 1:1 basis has long been the norm, many 2-armed confirmatory trials now use unequal allocation schemes where the number of patients receiving investigational interventions exceeds those in the comparator arm. In what follows, we offer 3 arguments for why investigators, institutional review boards, and data and safety monitoring boards should exercise caution when planning or reviewing 2-armed confirmatory trials involving unequal allocation ratios. We close by laying out some of the conditions where uneven allocation can be justified ethically.
随机化是在临床试验中解决患者人群中已知和未知混杂因素的标准方法。尽管在 1:1 的基础上对治疗组进行随机分组一直是规范,但现在许多 2 臂确证性试验使用不等分配方案,即接受研究干预的患者数量超过对照组。在下面,我们提出了 3 个论点,说明为什么研究人员、机构审查委员会和数据与安全监测委员会在计划或审查涉及不等分配比例的 2 臂确证性试验时应谨慎行事。最后,我们列出了一些可以在伦理上证明不均衡分配合理的条件。