Randomization in the age of platform trials: unexplored challenges and some potential solutions

While platform trials have several benefits with their adaptive features, randomization challenges become of central relevance to the design and execution of a platform trial. This paper intends to address these challenges and explore some potential solutions. A platform type of clinical trial is a clinical trial design where multiple interventions are investigated simultaneously often against partly or fully shared controls, with new treatment arms added and completed treatment arms removed. Unequal allocation is often used in platform trials to improve statistical efficiency, deliver benefits to trial participants, and control the speed of enrollment in different treatment arms. Changes to the allocation ratio may be required after an interim analysis even when the number of treatment arms remains constant, for example, in a platform trial with response-adaptive randomization. To deliver the design efficiencies promised by the carefully optimized allocation ratio or simply to ensure a pre-determined allocation ratio, randomization methods that keep allocation proportions close to the target allocation ratio throughout randomization are helpful. Other situations commonly occurring in platform trials require special considerations for randomization methods and in some cases new classes of randomization methods. Such specific platform features include the requirement to accommodate differences in eligibility for different treatments, the need to ensure partial blinding with a 2-step randomization when mode of administration for different interventions is conspicuously different and full blinding is unfeasible, the objective to balance through dynamic randomization multiple prognostic factors or the need to accommodate limited drug supplies at the numerous trial centers, among others. The key to a successful execution of a complex randomization in the platform trial is the expert design of the Interactive Response Technology (IRT) system, where the system is built at the master protocol level and existing and potential randomization needs are incorporated from the outset. An additional, often overlooked, challenge when working with unequal allocation ratios and randomization methods to attain these, is the importance of preserving the unconditional allocation ratio at every allocation. Failure to do so might lead to a selection and evaluation bias even in double-blind trials, accidental bias, and reduced power of the re-randomization test.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Published
2025-11-22
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-025-02693-0
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.63
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Randomization in the age of platform trials: unexplored challenges and some potential solutions

Freda Cooner, Peter Jacko, Johannes Krisam, Sofía S. Villar et al.
1 citations
BMC Medical Research Methodology
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
2.63
article

Randomization in the age of platform trials: unexplored challenges and some potential solutions

Freda Cooner, Peter Jacko, Johannes Krisam, Sofía S. Villar, Tobias Mielke, Jonathan Chipman, Wenle Zhao, Oleksandr Sverdlov, Yevgen Ryeznik, Jennifer Ross, Yuqun Luo, Olga M. Kuznetsova, D. S. Robertson, Daniel Bodden
article en
1 citations

Abstract

While platform trials have several benefits with their adaptive features, randomization challenges become of central relevance to the design and execution of a platform trial. This paper intends to address these challenges and explore some potential solutions. A platform type of clinical trial is a clinical trial design where multiple interventions are investigated simultaneously often against partly or fully shared controls, with new treatment arms added and completed treatment arms removed. Unequal allocation is often used in platform trials to improve statistical efficiency, deliver benefits to trial participants, and control the speed of enrollment in different treatment arms. Changes to the allocation ratio may be required after an interim analysis even when the number of treatment arms remains constant, for example, in a platform trial with response-adaptive randomization. To deliver the design efficiencies promised by the carefully optimized allocation ratio or simply to ensure a pre-determined allocation ratio, randomization methods that keep allocation proportions close to the target allocation ratio throughout randomization are helpful. Other situations commonly occurring in platform trials require special considerations for randomization methods and in some cases new classes of randomization methods. Such specific platform features include the requirement to accommodate differences in eligibility for different treatments, the need to ensure partial blinding with a 2-step randomization when mode of administration for different interventions is conspicuously different and full blinding is unfeasible, the objective to balance through dynamic randomization multiple prognostic factors or the need to accommodate limited drug supplies at the numerous trial centers, among others. The key to a successful execution of a complex randomization in the platform trial is the expert design of the Interactive Response Technology (IRT) system, where the system is built at the master protocol level and existing and potential randomization needs are incorporated from the outset. An additional, often overlooked, challenge when working with unequal allocation ratios and randomization methods to attain these, is the importance of preserving the unconditional allocation ratio at every allocation. Failure to do so might lead to a selection and evaluation bias even in double-blind trials, accidental bias, and reduced power of the re-randomization test.

BMC Medical Research MethodologyVol. 25(1)
Uppsala University (SE), Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA (United States) (US), United States Food and Drug Administration (US), Boehringer Ingelheim (Germany) (DE), Medical University of South Carolina (US), University of Utah (US), University of Cambridge (GB), Novartis (United States) (US), Janssen (Germany) (DE), Alma Consulting Group (FR), MRC Biostatistics Unit (GB), Lancaster University (GB), RWTH Aachen University (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 8%
Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
2.63
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.