Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T22:38:38.664Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studying Effects of Medical Treatments: Randomized Clinical Trials and the Alternatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Susan S. Ellenberg  and
Steven Joffe
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The random]ized clinical trial is widely accepted as the optimal approach to evaluating the safety and efficacy of medical treatments. Resistance to randomized treatment assignment arises regularly, most commonly in situations where the disease is life-threatening and treatments are either unavailable or unsatisfactory. Historical control designs, in which all participants receive the experimental treatment with results compared to a prior cohort, are advocated by some as more ethical in such circumstances; however, such studies are often highly biased in favor of the new treatment and frequently yield misleading results. Alternative controlled designs motivated by the desire to maximize the number of patients with the treatment ultimately determined to be superior have been proposed, but have been challenged on both methodological and ethical grounds. Debates about appropriate and ethical study designs recurred during the recent Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) epidemic in West Africa. Despite its devastating nature, the EVD epidemic showed the ongoing necessity of conducting randomized trials to obtain convincing evidence of the safety and efficacy of therapeutic interventions.

Type
Symposium Articles
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 45 , Issue 3: Symposium - Controversies in Clinical Research Ethics , Fall 2017 , pp. 375 - 381
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2017

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Von Helmont, J. A., Oriatrike, or Physick Refined: The Common Errors Therein Refuted and the Whole Art Reformed and Rectified (London: Lodowick-Loyd, 1662): at 526; Doll, R., “Controlled Trials: The 1948 Watershed,” British Medical Journal 317, no. 7167 (1998): 1217-1220.Google Scholar
Fisher, R. A., “The Arrangement of Field Experiments,” Journal of the Ministry of Agriculture of Great Britain 33 (1926): 503-513; Hill, A. B., “The Clinical Trial,” New England Journal of Medicine 247, no. 4 (1952): 113–130.Google Scholar
See Hill, supra note 2.Google Scholar
Streptomycin in Tuberculosis Trials Committee, “Streptomycin Treatment of Pulmonary Tuberculosis,” British Medical Journal 2 (1948): 769-782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feinstein, A. R., “Current Problems and Future Challenges in Randomized Clinical Trials,” Circulation 70, no. 5 (1984): 767-774; Concato, J., Shah, J., and Horowitz, R. I., “Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs,” New England Journal of Medicine 342, no. 25 (2000): 1887–1892; Rosati, R. A., McNeer, J. F., Starmer, C. F., Mittler, B. S., Morris, J. J., and Wallace, A. G., “A New Information System for Medical Practice,” Archives of Internal Medicine 135, no. 8 (1975): 1017–24; Starmer, C. F., Rosati, R. A., and McNeer, J. F., “A Comparison of Frequency Distributions for Use in a Model for Selecting Treatment in Coronary Artery Disease,” Computers and Biomedical Research 7, no. 3 (1974): 278–293.Google Scholar
Horwitz, R. I. and Feinstein, A. R., “Improved Observational Method for Studying Therapeutic Efficacy Suggestive Evidence That Lidocaine Prophylaxis Prevents Death in Acute Myocar-dial Infarction,” New England Journal of Medicine 246, no. 21 (1981): 2455-2459.Google Scholar
Sadowski, Z. P. et al., “Multicenter Randomized Trial and a Systematic Overview of Lidocaine in Acute Myocardial Infarction,” American Heart Journal 137, no. 5 (1999): 792-798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gehan, E. A. and Freirich, E. J., “Non-randomized Controls in Cancer Clinical Trials,” New England Journal of Medicine 290, no. 4 (1974): 198-203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, H., Chalmers, T. C., and Smith, H., “Randomized Versus Historical Controls for Clinical Trials,” American Journal of Medicine 72, no. 2 (1982): 233-240; Zia, M. I., Siu, L. L., Pond, G. R., and Chen, E. X., “Comparison of Outcomes of Phase II Studies and Subsequent Randomized Control Studies Using Identical Chemotherapeutic Regimens,” Journal of Clinical Oncology 23, no. 28 (2005): 6982–6991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weinstein, W. C., “Allocation of Subjects in Medical Experiments,” New England Journal of Medicine 291, no. 24 (1974): 1278-1285; Hellman, S., and Hellman, D. S., “Of Mice but Not Men: Problems of the Randomized Clinical Trial,” New England Journal of Medicine 324, no. 22 (1991): 1585–1589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrington, M., Comment on “Statistical Issues Arising in AIDS Clinical Trials,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 87, no. 418 (1992): 573-576.Google Scholar
Uhlman, M., “Revolt by Patients Threatens Test of Lou Gehrig Drug Some Who Suspect They Are on Placebos Are Demanding the Medicine,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, March 21, 1994.Google Scholar
Haygarth, J., Of the Imagination, as a Cause and as a Cure of Disorders of the Body: Exemplified by Fictitious Tractors, and Epidemical Convulsions (Bath: R Crutwell, 1800).Google Scholar
Moseley, J. B., O'Malley, K., Petersen, N. J., et al., “A Controlled Trial of Arthroscopic Surgery for Osteoarthritis of the Knee,” New England Journal of Medicine 347, no. 2 (2002): 81-88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olanow, C. W., Goetz, C. G., Kordower, J. H., et al., “A Double-Blind Controlled Trial of Bilateral Fetal Nigral Transplantation in Parkinson's Disease,” Annals of Neurology 54, no. 3 (2003): 403-414.Google Scholar
Stadtmauer, E. A. et al., “Conventional-Dose Chemotherapy Compared with High-Dose Chemotherapy Plus Autologous Hematopoietic Stem-Cell Transplantation for Metastatic Breast Cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine 342, no. 15 (2000): 1069-1076; Cobb, L. A. et al., “An Evaluation of Internal-Mammary-Artery Ligation by a Double-Blind Technic,” New England Journal of Medicine 260, no. 22 (1959): 1115–1118; Dimond, E. G. et al., “Comparison of Internal Mammary Artery Ligation and Sham Operation for Angina Pectoris,” American Journal of Cardiology 5, no. 4 (1960): 483–486; Moertel, C. G., Fleming, T. R., Rubin, J., et al., “A Clinical Trial of Amygdalin (Laetrile) in the Treatment of Human Cancer,” New England Journal of Medicine 306, no. 4 (1982): 201–206; Moertel, C. G., Fleming, T. R., Creagan, E. T., Rubin, J., et al., “High-Dose Vitamin C Versus Placebo in the Treatment of Patients with Advanced Cancer Who Have Had No Prior Chemotherapy. A Randomized Double-Blind Comparison,” New England Journal of Medicine 312, no. 3 (1985): 137–141; Creagan, E. T. et al., “Failure of High-Dose Vitamin C (Ascorbic Acid) Therapy to Benefit Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Controlled Trial,” New England Journal of Medicine 301, no. 13 (1979): 687–690; Lu, C. et al., “Chemoradiotherapy with or without AE-941 in Stage III Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Randomized Phase III Trial,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 102, no. 12 (2010): 859–865.Google Scholar
Peppercorn, J. M., Weeks, J. C., Cook, E. F., and Joffe, S., “Comparison of Outcomes in Cancer Patients Treated within and outside Clinical Trials: Conceptual Framework and Structured Review,” Lancet 363, no. 9405 (2004): 263-270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) Investigators, “Preliminary Report: Effect of Encainide and Flecainide on Mortality in a Randomized Trial of Arrhythmia Suppression after Myocardial Infarction: The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial (CAST) Investigators,” New England Journal of Medicine 321, no. 6 (1989): 406-412.Google Scholar
Byar, D. P. et al., “Design considerations for AIDS trials,” New England Journal of Medicine 323, no. 19 (1990): 1343-1348.Google Scholar
Zelen, M., “Play the Winner Rule and the Controlled Clinical Trial,” Journal of the American Statistical Association 64, no. 325 (1969): 131-146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberger, W. F. and Lachin, J. M., “The Use of Response-Adaptive Designs in Clinical Trials,” Controlled Clinical Trials 14, no. 6 (1993): 471-484; Meurer, W. J., Lewis, R. J., and Berry, D. A., “Adaptive Clinical Trials: A Partial Remedy for the Therapeutic Misconception?” JAMA 307, no. 22 (2012): 2377-2378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hey, S. P. and Kimmelman, J., “Are Outcome-Adaptive Allocation Trials Ethical?” Clinical Trials 12, no. 2 (2015): 102-106; Korn, E. L., and Freidlin, B., “Commentary on Hey and Kimmelman,” Clinical Trials 12, no. 2 (2015): 122–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Begg, C. B., “Ethical Concerns about Adaptive Randomization,” Clinical Trials 12, no. 2 (2015): 101; Joffe, S., and Ellenberg, S. S., “Commentary on Hey and Kimmelman,” Clinical Trials 12, no. 2 (2015): 116–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schieffelin, J. S. et al., “Clinical Illness and Outcomes in Patients with Ebola in Sierra Leone,” New England Journal of Medicine 371, no. 22 (2014): 2092-2100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ansumana, R. et al., “Ebola in Freetown Area, Sierra Leone: A Case Study of 581 Patients,” New England Journal of Medicine 372, no. 6 (2015): 587-588.Google Scholar
Li, J. et al., “Age and Ebola Viral Load Correlate with Mortality and Survival Time in 288 Ebola Virus Disease Patients,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases 42 (2016): 34-39; see Schieffelin et al., supra note 24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adebamowo, C., Bah-Sow, O., Binka, F., et al., “Randomised Controlled Trials for Ebola: Practical and Ethical Issues,” Lancet 384, no. 9952 (2014): 1423-1424; Joffe, S., “Evaluating Novel Therapies during the Ebola Epidemic,” JAMA 312, no. 13 (2014): 1299–1300.Google Scholar
Dodd, L. E., “Clinical Trials during the Ebola Crisis,” Clinical Trials 13, no. 1 (2016): 5.Google Scholar
Sissoko, D., Laouenan, C., Folkesson, E., et al., “Experimental Treatment with Favipiravir for Ebola Virus Disease (theJIKITrial): A Historically Controlled, Single-Arm Proof-of-Concept Trial in Guinea,” PLoS Medicine 13, no. 3 (2016): e1001967; van Griensven, J., Edwards, T., de Lamballerie, X., et al., “Evaluation of Convalescent Plasma for Ebola Virus Disease in Guinea,” New England Journal of Medicine 374, no. 1 (2016): 33–42; Dunning, J., Kennedy, S. B., Antierens, A., et al., “Experimental Treatment ofEbolaVirus Disease with Brincidofovir,” PLoS One 11, no. 9 (2016): e0162199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, E., Borio, L., and Temple, R., “Evaluating Ebola Therapies: The Case for RCTs,” New England Journal of Medicine 371, no. 25 (2014): 2350-2351; Lane, H. C., Marston, H. D., and Fauci, A. S., “Conducting Clinical Trials in Outbreak Settings: Points to Consider,” Clinical Trials 13, no. 1 (2016): 92–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitehead, J., Olliaro, P., Lang, T., and Horby, P., “Trial Design for Evaluating Novel Treatments during an Outbreak of an Infectious Disease,” Clinical Trials 13, no. 1 (2016): 31-38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Dunning, , supra note 29; Dunning, J., Sahr, F., Rojek, A. et al., “Experimental Treatment of Ebola Virus Disease with TKM-130803: A Single-Arm Phase 2 Clinical Trial,” PLoS Medicine 13, no. 4 (2016): e1001997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, A. C., “Academics Are from Mars, Humanitarians Are from Venus: Finding Common Ground to Improve Research during Humanitarian Emergencies,” Clinical Trials 13, no. 1 (2016): 79-82; Kennedy, S. B., Neaton, J. D., Lane, H. C., et al., “Implementation of anEbolaVirus Disease VaccineClinicalTrialduring theEbolaEpidemic in Liberia: Design, Procedures, and Challenges,” Clinical Trials 13, no. 1 (2016): 49–56; Dodd, L. E., Proschan, M. A., Neuhaus, J., et al., “Design of a Randomized Controlled Trial for Ebola Virus Disease Medical Countermeasures: PREVAIL II, the Ebola MCM Study,” Journal of Infectious Diseases 213, no. 12 (2016): 1906–13; PREVAIL II Writing Group, and Multi-National PREVAIL II Study Team, “A Randomized, Controlled Trial of ZMapp for Ebola Virus Infection,” New England Journal of Medicine 375, no. 15 (2016), 1448-1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. and Enserink, M., “Special Report: Ebola's Thin Harvest,” Science 349, no. 6254 (2015): 1272-1273.Google Scholar
See Dodd, supra note 28; see Levine, supra note 33.Google Scholar
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences (CIOMS), International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects (2002), updated 2016.Google Scholar
Fischl, M. A., Richman, D. D, Greico, M. H., et al., “The Efficacy of Azidothymidine (AZT) in the Treatment of Patients with AIDS and AIDS-Related Complex. A Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial,” New England Journal of Medicine 317, no. 4 (1987): 185-191; Kahn, J. O., Lagakos, S. W., Richman, D. D., et al., “A Controlled Trial Comparing Continued Zidovudine with Didanosine in Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection,” New England Journal of Medicine 327, no. 9 (1992): 581–587; Abrams, D. I., Goldman, A. I., Launer, C. et al., “A Comparative Trial of Didanosine or Zalcitabine after Treatment with Zidovudine in Patients with Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection,” New England Journal of Medicine 330, no. 10 (1994): 657–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Brien, P. C., and Fleming, T. R., “A Multiple Testing Procedure for Clinical Trials,” Biometrics 35, no. 3 (1979): 549-556.Google Scholar
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, Integrating Clinical Research into Epidemic Response: The Ebola Experience (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 2017).Google Scholar