Many randomized clinical trials may not be justified: a cross-sectional analysis of the ethics and science of randomized clinical trials

Use of transportability methods for real-world evidence generation: a review of current applications

Aim: To evaluate how transportability methods are currently used for real-world evidence (RWE) generation to inform good practices and support adoption and acceptance of these methods in the RWE context. Methods: We conducted a targeted literature review to identify studies that transported an effect estimate of the clinical effectiveness or safety of a biomedical exposure to a target real-world population. Records were identified from PubMed-indexed articles published any time before 25 July 2023 (inclusive). Two reviewers screened abstracts/titles and reviewed the full text of candidate studies to identify the final set of articles. Data on the therapeutic area, exposure(s), outcome(s), original and target populations and details of the transportability analysis (e.g., analytic method used, estimate transported, stated assumptions) were abstracted from each article. Results: Of 458 unique records identified, six were retained in the final review. Articles were published during 2021-2023, focused on the US/Canada context, and covered a range of therapeutic areas. Four studies transported an RCT effect estimate, while two transported effect estimates derived from real-world data. Almost all articles used weighting methods to transport estimates. Two studies discussed all transportability assumptions, and one evaluated the likelihood of meeting all assumptions and the impact of potential violations. Conclusion: The use of transportability methods for RWE generation is an emerging and promising area of research to address evidence gaps in settings with limited data and infrastructure. More transparent and rigorous reporting of methods, assumptions and limitations may increase the use and acceptability of transportability for producing robust evidence on treatment effectiveness and safety.

Network meta-analysis can inform the ethical evaluation of trials that randomise away from standard of care: The case of symptomatic carotid stenosis

OBJECTIVE

Little guidance exists on the conduct of randomised clinical trials (RCT) that seek to randomise patients away from standard of care. We sought to test the technique of network meta-analysis (NMA) to ascertain best available evidence for the purposes of informing the ethical evaluation of RCTs under these circumstances. We used the example of RCTs for patients with symptomatic, moderate to severe carotid stenosis that seek to compare surgical intervention plus medical therapy (standard of care) versus medical therapy (less than standard of care).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Network meta-analysis of RCTs of adults with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of 50%-99% who were treated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA), carotid artery stenting (CAS), or medical therapy (MT). The primary outcome was any stroke or death until end of follow-up, and secondary outcome was 30-day risk of ipsilateral stroke/death.

RESULTS

We analysed eight studies, with 7187 subjects with symptomatic moderate/severe stenosis (50%-99%). CEA was more efficacious than MT (HR = 0.82, 95% credible intervals [95% CrI] = 0.73-0.92) and CAS (HR 0.73, 95% CrI = 0.62-0.85) for the prevention of any stroke/death. At 30 days, the odds of experiencing an ipsilateral stroke/death were significantly lower in the CEA group compared to both MT (OR = 0.58, 95% CrI = 0.47-0.72) and CAS (OR = 0.68, 95% CrI = 0.55-0.83).

CONCLUSION

Our results support the feasibility of using NMA to assess best available evidence to inform the ethical evaluation of RCTs seeking to randomise patients away from standard of care. Our results suggest that a strong argument is required to ethically justify the conduct of RCTs that seek to randomise patients away from standard of care in the setting of symptomatic moderate to severe carotid stenosis.

Is equipoise a useful concept to justify randomised controlled trials in the cultural context of Pakistan? A survey of clinicians in relation to a trial of talking therapy for young people who self-harm

BACKGROUND

Clinical equipoise, also defined as the uncertainty principle, is considered essential when recruiting subjects to a clinical trial. However, equipoise is threatened when clinicians are influenced by their own preferences. Little research has investigated equipoise in the context of trial recruitment.

METHODS

This cross-sectional survey sought clinicians' views (operationalised as 11 statements relating to treatments offered in a trial of a psychological intervention for young people) about equipoise and individual treatment preferences in the context of moral justification for recruiting young people at risk of self-harm or suicide to a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the Youth Culturally Adapted Manual Assisted Psychological Intervention (Y-CMAP) in Pakistan. We compared the views of clinicians involved in Y-CMAP RCT recruitment to those of a sample of clinicians not involved in trial recruitment but treating similar patients, comparing their sociodemographic characteristics and the proportions of those in each group agreeing with each statement.

RESULTS

There was a response rate of 96% (75/78). Findings showed that, during trial recruitment and before the RCT results were known, the majority of all responding clinicians (73.3%) considered Y-CMAP to be an effective treatment for young people at risk of self-harm or suicide. Although there was an acknowledgement of individual preferences for the intervention, there was near consensus (90%) on the need to conduct an RCT for reaching an evidence-based decision. However, there were no significant differences in the proportion of recruiting clinicians reporting a treatment preference for Y-CMAP than non-recruiting clinicians (31 (88.6%) versus 36 (90%), p = 0.566). A significantly higher proportion of non-recruiting clinicians (87.5%) as compared to (48.5%) in the trial (p = 0.000) stated that there may be other treatments that may be equally good for the patients, seemingly undermining a preference for the intervention. Those reporting a treatment preference also acknowledged that there was nothing on which this preference was based, however confident they felt about them, thus accepting clinical equipoise as ethical justification for conducting the RCT. There was a significant group difference in views that treatment overall is better as a result of young patients' participation in the Y-CMAP trial (p = 0.015) (i.e. more clinicians not involved in the trial agreed with this statement). Similarly, more clinicians not involved in the trial agreed on the perceived availability of other treatment options that were good for young people at risk of self-harm (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The paper highlights that clinicians in Pakistan accept the notion of clinical equipoise as an ethical justification for patient participation in RCTs. The need for conducting RCTs to generate evidence base and to reduce bias was considered important by the clinical community.

What do we talk about when we talk about "equipoise"? Stakeholder interviews assessing the use of equipoise in clinical research ethics

INTRODUCTION

Equipoise, generally defined as uncertainty about the relative effects of the treatments being compared in a trial, is frequently referenced as an ethical standard for the conduct of randomized clinical trials. However, it seems to be defined in several different ways and may be used differently by different individuals. We explored how clinical researchers, chairs of research ethics boards, and philosophers of science define and reason with this term.

METHODS

We completed semi-structured interviews about clinical trial ethics with 15 clinical researchers, 15 research ethics board chairs, and 15 philosophers of science/bioethicists. Each participant was asked a standardized set of 10 questions, 4 of which were specifically about equipoise. All interviews were conducted telephonically and transcribed. Responses were grouped and analysed via a modified grounded theory method.

RESULTS

Forty-three respondents defined equipoise in 7 logically distinct ways, and 2 respondents could not explicitly define it. The most common definition, offered by 14 respondents (31%), defined "equipoise" as a disagreement at the level of a community of physicians. There was significant variability in definitions offered between and within groups. When asked how they would "operationalize" equipoise - i.e. check or test for its presence - respondents provided 7 alternatives, the most common being in relation to a literature review (15/45, 33%). The vast majority of respondents (35/45, 78%) felt the concept was helpful, though many acknowledged that the lack of a clear definition or operationalization was problematic.

CONCLUSION

There is significant variation in definitions of equipoise offered by respondents, suggesting that parties within groups and between groups may be referring to different concepts when they reference "equipoise". This non-uniformity may impact fairness and transparency and opens the door to potential ethical problems in the evaluation of clinical trials - for instance, a patient may understand equipoise very differently than the researchers enrolling her in a trial, which could cause her agreement to participate to be based upon false premises.

Justification of research using systematic reviews continues to be inconsistent in clinical health science-A systematic review and meta-analysis of meta-research studies

BACKGROUND

Redundancy is an unethical, unscientific, and costly challenge in clinical health research. There is a high risk of redundancy when existing evidence is not used to justify the research question when a new study is initiated. Therefore, the aim of this study was to synthesize meta-research studies evaluating if and how authors of clinical health research studies use systematic reviews when initiating a new study.

METHODS

Seven electronic bibliographic databases were searched (final search June 2021). Meta-research studies assessing the use of systematic reviews when justifying new clinical health studies were included. Screening and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. The primary outcome was defined as the percentage of original studies within the included meta-research studies using systematic reviews of previous studies to justify a new study. Results were synthesized narratively and quantitatively using a random-effects meta-analysis. The protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/nw7ch/).

RESULTS

Twenty-one meta-research studies were included, representing 3,621 original studies or protocols. Nineteen of the 21 studies were included in the meta-analysis. The included studies represented different disciplines and exhibited wide variability both in how the use of previous systematic reviews was assessed, and in how this was reported. The use of systematic reviews to justify new studies varied from 16% to 87%. The mean percentage of original studies using systematic reviews to justify their study was 42% (95% CI: 36% to 48%).

CONCLUSION

Justification of new studies in clinical health research using systematic reviews is highly variable, and fewer than half of new clinical studies in health science were justified using a systematic review. Research redundancy is a challenge for clinical health researchers, as well as for funders, ethics committees, and journals.

A systematic review of meta-research studies finds substantial methodological heterogeneity in citation analyses to monitor evidence-based research

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aimed to identify the characteristics and application of citation analyses in evaluating the justification, design, and placement of the research results of clinical health studies in the context of earlier similar studies.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), and the Cochrane Methodology Register for meta-research studies. We included meta-research studies assessing whether researchers used earlier similar studies and/or systematic reviews of such studies to inform the justification or design of a new study, whether researchers used systematic reviews to inform the interpretation of new results, and meta-research studies assessing whether redundant studies were published within a specific area. The results are presented as a narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

A total of 27 studies were included. How authors of citation analyses define their outcomes appears rather arbitrary, as does how the reference of a landmark review or adherence to reporting guidelines was expected to contribute to the initiation, justification, design, or contextualization of relevant clinical trials.

CONCLUSION

Continued and improved efforts to promote evidence-based research are needed, including clearly defined and justified outcomes in meta-research studies to monitor the implementation of an evidence-based approach.

How are randomized clinical trials ethically justified? A systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of reasons that ethically justify randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

We set out to identify and count the types of reasons that are used in contemporary scholarship about the ethical permissibility of randomized trials, with the goal of developing a finer grained taxonomy of reasons than what is currently used by most participants in this literature. Because of its central role in justifying normative conclusions about randomized clinical trials (RCTs), we paid particular attention to both uses of the keyword "equipoise" and to the different concepts associated with it.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review to identify articles that included arguments that were likely to express reasons justifying RCTs. Text excerpts that expressed reasoning about the ethical permissibility of RCTs were extracted from relevant papers, and our data were generated by coding these excerpts using a mixed-methods protocol that fused elements of a grounded analysis and thematic coding. In our study, each theme corresponded to a specific type of reason that was contentful and stable when applied to our corpus of text extracts.

RESULTS

Our search, screening, and text extraction process yielded 1,335 unique text excerpts, which then formed the basis of our coding. Although we found that 16 themes were sufficient to saturate this corpus, slightly less than 100% of our excerpts were covered by just 10 themes. We also tracked uses of 16 keywords in the text excerpts to explore whether there was any relationship between the keywords and our themes and found that keywords frequently did not cooccur with the presence of our themes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data and analysis support the conclusion that there is significant diversity in the types of reasons offered to justify RCTs; 10 themes effectively captured all the text excerpts we analyzed, and these themes cannot be reduced to the occurrence of relevant keywords. This result highlights how individuals and organizations may use different reasons to consider randomized trials to be justified and even when they use similar language the concepts they are referencing may not be consistent.

Randomized Controlled Trial Data for New Drug Application for Rare Diseases in Japan

BACKGROUND

High-quality evidence is often not obtained in the clinical trials of rare diseases because these trials tend to be smaller in size and non-controlled. We investigated the potential factors associated with the need for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the clinical data package for new drug applications for rare diseases in Japan.

METHODS

This study focused on 130 drugs with orphan drug designation approved in Japan between April 2004 and March 2020.

RESULTS

Multivariable regression analysis showed that the prevalence (odds ratio [OR] 3.21, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-8.6) and the type of primary endpoint (OR 6.66, 95% CI 2.41-18.37) were associated with the need for RCTs in the clinical data package in Japan.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings highlight the importance of adequate understanding of the target disease in new drug development for rare diseases.

Ethical Justification for Deferral of Consent in the AcT Trial for Acute Ischemic Stroke

The AcT trial (Alteplase Compared to Tenecteplase) compares alteplase or tenecteplase for patients with acute ischemic stroke. All eligible patients are enrolled by deferral of consent. Although the use of deferral of consent in the AcT trial meets the requirements of Canadian policy, we sought to provide a more explicit and rigorous approach to the justification of deferral of consent organized around 3 questions. Ultimately, the approach we outline here could become the foundation for a general justification for deferral of consent.

Many trials of hydroxychloroquine for SARS-CoV-2 were redundant and potentially unethical: an analysis of the NIH clinical trials registry

OBJECTIVE

We sought to map the landscape of trials investigating hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for SARS-CoV-2 in order to draw conclusions about how clinical trials have been conducted in the pandemic environment and offer potential regulatory recommendations.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We identified and captured data related to registered studies using HCQ to treat SARS-CoV-2 registered with the publicly available National Institutes of Health (NIH) Clinical Trials Registry between February and November 2020.

RESULTS

Between February and November 2020, 206 studies investigating HCQ in SARS-CoV-2 were registered with the NIH Clinical Trials Registry. As of November 2020, 135 studies were listed as ongoing, 22 have been completed, and 46 are either suspended or have been terminated. Reasons for suspension or termination included difficulties with patient recruitment (n = 9), emerging evidence showing a lack of benefit of HCQ (n = 7), and recommendations by regulatory boards to discontinue (n = 10).

CONCLUSION

Many clinical trials of HCQ were launched in the first months of the pandemic, and a significant proportion of them remained active as of November 2020. The medical community appears to have responded very quickly to political interest in HCQ, while responding much more slowly to the evolving medical evidence of its lack of efficacy.

Systematic Reviews are Rarely Used to Inform Study Design - a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to identify and synthesize the results from meta-research studies to determine whether and how authors of original studies in clinical health research use systematic reviews when designing new studies.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

For this systematic review, we searched MEDLINE (OVID), Embase (OVID) and the Cochrane Methodology Register. We included meta-research studies and primary outcome was the percentage of original studies using systematic reviews to design their study. Risk of bias was assessed using an ad hoc created list of ten items. The results are presented both as a narrative synthesis and a meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were included. The use of a systematic review to inform the design of new clinical studies varied between 0% and 73%, with a mean percentage of 17%. The number of components of the design in which information from previous systematic reviews was used varied from three to eleven.

CONCLUSION

Clinical health research is characterized by variability regarding the extent to which systematic reviews are used to guide the design. An evidence-based research (EBR) approach towards research design when new clinical health studies are designed is necessary to decrease potential research redundancy and increase end-user value.

Are orthodontic randomised controlled trials justified with a citation of an appropriate systematic review?

Background

A systematic review of the evidence should be undertaken to support the justification for undertaking a clinical trial. The aim of this study was to examine whether reports of orthodontic Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs) cite prior systematic reviews (SR) to explain the rationale or justification of the trial. Study characteristics that predicated the citation of SR in the RCT report were also explored.

Material and methods

Orthodontic RCTs published between 1st January 2010 to 31st December 2020 in seven orthodontic journals were identified. All titles and abstracts were screened independently by two authors. Descriptive statistics and associations were assessed for the study characteristics. Logistic regression was used to identify predicators of SR inclusion in the trial report.

Results

301 RCTs fulfilling the eligibility criteria were assessed. 220 SRs were available of which 74.5% (N = 164) were cited, and 24.5% (N = 56) were not included but were available in the literature within 12 months of trial commencement. When a SR was not included in the introduction or no SR was available within 12 months of trial commencement, interventional studies were commonly cited. The continent of the corresponding author predicated the possibility of inclusion of a SR in the introduction (OR 0.36; 95% CI 0.18–0.71; p = 0.003).

Conclusions

A quarter of orthodontic RCTs (24.5%) included in this study did not cite a SR in the introduction section to justify the rationale of the trial when a relevant SR was available. To reduce research waste and optimal usage of resources, researchers should identify or conduct a systematic review of the evidence to support the rationale and justification of the trial.

How prospective trial registration can prevent selective outcome reporting and salami slicing?

BACKGROUND

Pre-registration of a clinical trial before the first participant is recruited can help to prevent selective outcome reporting and salami-slicing that can distort the evidence base for an intervention and result in people being offered care or treatment that is not effective. Rates of clinical trial registration in nursing and midwifery are low.

AIM

To use a hypothetical example from midwifery practice to illustrate how selective outcome reporting and salami-slicing can distort the evidence base.

FINDINGS

A trial of immersion in water during labour and birth is used to consider issues in outcome selection and how researchers may be drawn to switch primary outcomes or report different outcomes across multiple papers.

DISCUSSION

In nursing and midwifery science, selective outcome and salami reporting are seemingly common. Prospective trial registration is intended to prevent these practices, enhancing the quality and integrity of the work.

CONCLUSION

Clinical trials are a robust form of primary research evidence and directly impact clinical practice. Researchers must ensure their trials are correctly registered and editors need to reconcile submitted papers and registration entries as part of the review process.

Comparability of Biologics: Global Principles, Evidentiary Consistency and Unrealized Reliance

The principles of comparability assessments have been accepted globally as offering sensitive and reliable tools with which to evaluate potential changes to biologics that may arise either through processing changes or through the creation of a copy (biosimilar) by a different sponsor. The comparability approach has evolved through systematic advances in four areas: clear and convergent guidelines for evaluation of potential changes to biologics; risk-based systems of weighting analytical data; progressive improvements in analytical methods; and advanced understanding of post-translational modifications. Routine regulatory expectations for clinical equivalence data are being reevaluated, as they seldom contribute to the assessment of similarity. Similarly, we show that requirements to compare biosimilars and locally sourced versions of their reference products are of questionable scientific value and represent a double standard by comparison with the invariable acceptance of the clinical profiles of novel biologics without reference to their sources. The consistent application of evidentiary standards for comparability to all biologics offers an opportunity for regulators to curtail their own assessments of new biosimilars and instead to recognize comparability assessments made in another jurisdiction (reliance), thereby gaining important efficiencies in the regulatory review of biosimilars and improving the competitiveness of the biosimilars market. Such consistency can also enhance the confidence of all stakeholders, especially patients and their providers, in all biologics.

Citation of prior systematic reviews in reports of randomized controlled trials published in dental speciality journals

OBJECTIVES

To assess the extent to which reports of dental Randomised Clinical Trials (RCTs) cite prior systematic reviews (SR) to explain the rationale or justification of the trial. Study characteristics that predicated the citation of SR in the RCT report were explored.

METHODS

An electronic database search was undertaken to identify dental RCTs published between 1st January 2014 and 31st December 2019. All titles and abstracts were screened independently by two authors. Descriptive statistics and associations were calculated for the study characteristics. Logistic regression was used to identify predicators of SR inclusion in the trial report.

RESULTS

682 RCTs were analysed. 312 SRs were available of which 62.5 % were cited and 37.5 % were not included but were available in the literature within 12 months of trial commencement. An association between inclusion of SR and trial registration (P = 0.046) was detected. For the inclusion of a SR, authors based in Asia or other had lower odds than those based in Europe (OR: 0.53; 95 % CI:0.34,0.82; p = 0.005). Every unit increase in journal impact factor increased the odds of SR inclusion (OR: 1.23; 95 %: 1.06, 1.43; p = 0.006).

CONCLUSIONS

A relatively high proportion of dental RCTs (37.5 %) did not cite a SR in the introduction section to justify the rationale of the trial when a relevant SR was available. Trials conducted by a corresponding author based in Europe and published in journals with an increasing impact factor were also more likely to cite a SR.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Further progress is required to minimise research waste and ensure resources are channelled towards clinically useful trials which have an appropriate rationale and justification.

Conditional power of antidepressant network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Conditional power of network meta-analysis (NMA) can support the planning of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing medical interventions. Conditional power is the probability that updating existing inconclusive evidence in NMA with additional trial(s) will result in conclusive evidence, given assumptions regarding trial design, anticipated effect sizes, or event probabilities.

METHODS

The present work aimed to estimate conditional power for potential future trials on antidepressant treatments. Existing evidence was based on a published network of 502 RCTs conducted between 1979-2018 assessing acute antidepressant treatment in major depressive disorder (MDD). Primary outcomes were efficacy in terms of the symptom change on the Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) and tolerability in terms of the dropout rate due to adverse events. The network compares 21 antidepressants consisting of 231 relative treatment comparisons, 164 (efficacy) and 127 (tolerability) of which are currently assumed to have inconclusive evidence.

RESULTS

Required sample sizes to achieve new conclusive evidence with at least 80% conditional power were estimated to range between N = 894 - 4190 (efficacy) and N = 521 - 1246 (tolerability). Otherwise, sample sizes ranging between N = 49 - 485 (efficacy) and N = 40 - 320 (tolerability) may require stopping for futility based on a boundary at 20% conditional power. Optimizing trial designs by considering multiple trials that contribute both direct and indirect evidence, anticipating alternative effect sizes or alternative event probabilities, may increase conditional power but required sample sizes remain high. Antidepressants having the greatest conditional power associated with smallest required sample sizes were identified as those on which current evidence is low, i.e., clomipramine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, nefazodone, and vilazodone, with respect to both outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The present results suggest that conditional power to achieve new conclusive evidence in ongoing or future trials on antidepressant treatments is low. Limiting the use of the presented conditional power analysis are primarily due to the estimated large sample sizes which would be required in future trials as well as due to the well-known small effect sizes in antidepressant treatments. These findings may inform researchers and decision-makers regarding the clinical relevance and justification of research in ongoing or future antidepressant RCTs in MDD.

Science based public policies: Lessons from Covid19 on the use of randomized trials

The current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic gave rise to a spirit of methodological anarchy in some fronts of biomedical research, embraced by some under the excuses of urgency and time restraints. This movement, however, comes at the same time when social sciences begin to recognize the value and soundness of the clinical research rationale - the need for randomization, of fair comparisons between intervention groups, the humility of acknowledging ignorance and accepting uncertainty, these last two imperatives usually subsumed under the principle of “equipoise”.

Clinical trials may be unethical in certain instances

After review of the literature, I conclude that clinical trials may be unethical.

Redundant trials can be prevented, if the EU clinical trial regulation is applied duly

The problem of wasteful clinical trials has been debated relentlessly in the medical community. To a significant extent, it is attributed to redundant trials - studies that are carried out to address questions, which can be answered satisfactorily on the basis of existing knowledge and accessible evidence from prior research. This article presents the first evaluation of the potential of the EU Clinical Trials Regulation 536/2014, which entered into force in 2014 but is expected to become applicable at the end of 2021, to prevent such trials. Having reviewed provisions related to the trial authorisation, we propose how certain regulatory requirements for the assessment of trial applications can and should be interpreted and applied by national research ethics committees and other relevant authorities in order to avoid redundant trials and, most importantly, preclude the unnecessary recruitment of trial participants and their unjustified exposure to health risks.

Evidence-Based Research Series-Paper 2 : Using an Evidence-Based Research approach before a new study is conducted to ensure value

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is considerable actual and potential waste in research. The aim of this article is to describe how using an evidence-based research approach before conducting a study helps to ensure that the new study truly adds value.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Evidence-based research is the use of prior research in a systematic and transparent way to inform a new study so that it is answering questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. In this second article of the evidence-based research series, we describe how to apply an evidence-based research approach before starting a new study.

RESULTS

Before a new study is performed, researchers need to provide a solid justification for it using the available scientific knowledge as well as the perspectives of end users. The key method for both is to conduct a systematic review of earlier relevant studies.

CONCLUSION

Describing the ideal process illuminates the challenges and opportunities offered through the suggested evidence-based research approach. A systematic and transparent approach is needed to provide justification for and to optimally design a relevant and necessary new study.

Ethics of Pharma Clinical Trials in the Era of Precision Oncology

Pharmaceutical industry clinical trials are ethically problematic: human research subjects are being used as a means to the end of demonstrating statistically significant efficacy of novel anticancer agents to achieve regulatory registration and marketing approval. Randomized controlled trial design is inequitable since control arm patients are denied access to the postulated best treatment. Most pharma studies do not provide clinically meaningful benefit of increased overall survival and enhanced quality of life (QOL) to cohorts and are not reliably generalizable to real-world patients. Precision oncology now enables prospective identification of patients expressing a specific cancer biomarker to determine their particular eligibility for evaluation of efficiency of molecular-targeted treatments. A patient-centered approach, collecting prospective real-world data in large populations, could provide real-world evidence of cost-effective, sustained clinical benefits of survival and QOL, while preserving the ethical beneficent compact between patient and doctor.

The use of systematic reviews to justify phase III ophthalmology trials: an analysis

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Given the drastic increase in publication output in recent years, minimizing research waste should be a top priority. There are established areas of concern regarding research waste within ophthalmology along with a lack of systematic review usage to inform trial design in other areas of medicine. Given these concerns, the aim of this study is to evaluate the use of systematic reviews as justification for conducting randomized controlled trials (RCT) in top ophthalmology and optometry journals.

METHODS

We searched PubMed on December 5, 2018 for RCTs published in one of the top five Google Scholar h-5 index journals within Ophthalmology and Optometry. We used a pilot-tested Google Form and searched each RCT for systematic reviews. Each systematic review was then given the designation of "verbatim", "inferred", or "not used as justification for conducting the RCT" based on the context the systematic review was used.

RESULTS

Our analysis yielded 152 included phase III RCTs. We found 22.4% (34 of 152) of phase III ophthalmology clinical trials cited a systematic review as justification for conducting the trial. A total of 102 systematic reviews were cited in the 152 RCTs. Fifty-seven of the one hundred fifty-two (37.5%) RCTs cited a systematic review somewhere in the manuscript.

CONCLUSION

Less than one-quarter of phase III RCTs cited systematic reviews as justification for conducting the RCT. We believe placing a higher priority on justifying RCTs with systematic reviews would go a long way to minimizing research waste within ophthalmology.

An Efficient Development Paradigm for Biosimilars

The current development paradigm for biosimilars required by regulators in highly regulated jurisdictions is derived from the development of novel drugs and is unnecessarily burdensome and inefficient. It requires the accumulation of data from analytical, nonclinical (including in vivo studies in some jurisdictions), and clinical studies (including powered efficacy studies in most cases); this paradigm is known as 'totality of evidence' (ToE) and does not admit a conclusion of biosimilarity from analytical data alone. The record of biosimilar approvals in these jurisdictions shows that no biosimilar candidate that has been found highly similar to its reference in analytical and pharmacokinetic studies has failed to be approved. We propose a new paradigm ('confirmation of sufficient likeness', CSL) that emphasizes the demonstration of analytical resemblance between the biosimilar candidate and its reference, and permits the conclusion of biosimilarity upon this basis. CSL does not entail bridging studies between reference products, in vivo nonclinical studies, or powered efficacy studies and is, therefore, substantially more efficient than ToE while maintaining equivalent scientific rigor. Such efficiency will contribute to the attractiveness as well as the sustainability of biosimilars as a therapeutic modality.

Intervention development and treatment success in UK health technology assessment funded trials of physical rehabilitation: a mixed methods analysis

OBJECTIVES

Physical rehabilitation is a complex process, and trials of rehabilitation interventions are increasing in number but often report null results. This study aimed to establish treatment success rates in physical rehabilitation trials funded by the National Institute of Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme and examine any relationship between treatment success and the quality of intervention development work undertaken.

DESIGN

This is a mixed methods study.

SETTING

This study was conducted in the UK.

METHODS

The NIHR HTA portfolio was searched for all completed definitive randomised controlled trials of physical rehabilitation interventions from inception to July 2016. Treatment success was categorised according to criteria developed by Djulbegovic and colleagues. Detailed textual data regarding any intervention development work were extracted from trial reports and supporting publications and informed the development of quality ratings. Mixed methods integrative analysis was undertaken to explore the relationship between quantitative and qualitative data using joint displays.

RESULTS

Fifteen trials were included in the review. Five reported a definitive finding, four of which were in favour of the 'new' intervention. Eight trials reported a true negative (no difference) outcome. Integrative analysis indicated those with lower quality intervention development work were less likely to report treatment success.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite much effort and funding, most physical rehabilitation trials report equivocal findings. Greater focus on high quality intervention development may reduce the likelihood of a null result in the definitive trial, alongside high quality trial methods and conduct.