Fallibility: A New Perspective on the Ethics of Clinical Trial Enrollment

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.

Factors influencing the quality of clinical trials on traditional Chinese medicine-Qualitative interviews with trial auditors, clinicians and academic researchers

BACKGROUND

As clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) therapies have increased, several empirical studies have shown that the quality of TCM trials is generally low in terms of risk of bias. This qualitative study aimed to investigate the factors influencing the quality of TCM clinical trials to provide strategic advice on trial quality improvement.

METHODS

One focus group with clinical trial auditors (n = 4) and six in-depth semi-structured interviews with clinical research organization managers (n = 2), lecturers and researchers in TCM academic institutions (n = 2), a chief physician in a TCM oncology department and a PhD candidate specialized in non-pharmaceutical TCM interventions were conducted. The interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Factors that influenced the quality of TCM clinical trials emerged with the following 6 themes: trial design; trialists/participants; trial conducting; TCM specified problems; trial monitoring, and finally societal influences. The lack of expertise and time inputs of the trialists were repeatedly mentioned. Methodological difficulties experienced when conducting TCM trials including calculating sample size, analyzing the efficacy of TCM decoctions with multiple ingredients, blinding in trials investigating non-pharmaceutical TCM interventions were highlighted. Interviewees agreed that third-party monitoring can help improving trial quality and improve participant welfare, may accelerate recruiting processes and increase compliance; however more comprehensive regulations and funding requirements would be needed.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified real-life issues influencing the quality of TCM clinical trials from design to reporting. In addition to mandatory training for TCM trial designers and coordinators, more effective institutional oversight is required. Future studies should explore specific measures to address the methodological problems in TCM trials and explore how the quality of TCM trials can affect further evidence synthesis and clinical practice.

Optimizing drug development in oncology by clinical trial simulation: Why and how?

In therapeutic research, the safety and efficacy of pharmaceutical products are necessarily tested on humans via clinical trials after an extensive and expensive preclinical development period. Methodologies such as computer modeling and clinical trial simulation (CTS) might represent a valuable option to reduce animal and human assays. The relevance of these methods is well recognized in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics from the preclinical phase to postmarketing. However, they are barely used and are poorly regarded for drug approval, despite Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency recommendations. The generalization of CTS could be greatly facilitated by the availability of software for modeling biological systems, by clinical trial studies and hospital databases. Data sharing and data merging raise legal, policy and technical issues that will need to be addressed. Development of future molecules will have to use CTS for faster development and thus enable better patient management. Drug activity modeling coupled with disease modeling, optimal use of medical data and increased computing speed should allow this leap forward. The realization of CTS requires not only bioinformatics tools to allow interconnection and global integration of all clinical data but also a universal legal framework to protect the privacy of every patient. While recognizing that CTS can never replace 'real-life' trials, they should be implemented in future drug development schemes to provide quantitative support for decision-making. This in silico medicine opens the way to the P4 medicine: predictive, preventive, personalized and participatory.

Harnessing the power of placebos in movement disorders: Insights from Parkinson's disease in clinical research and practice

The placebo effect alongside the detrimental nocebo and lessebo effects associated with the use of placebos are well-recognized phenomena. Research conducted in the last two decades has demonstrated that the placebo effect is a measurable health benefit with well-known neurobiological correlates. In this review, we describe the current knowledge about how to best make use of the placebo effect to improve clinical research and optimize clinical care. We will cover four key topics: (1) setting the stage: historical perspectives on the use of placebos; (2) optimizing the use of placebos in clinical trials; (3) use of placebos in clinical practice; and (4) how can we minimize the ethical risks of using placebos? The adoption of the placebo-controlled trial as a standard in the therapeutic development reduced the placebo effect to background noise in a therapeutic signal. Strategies to minimize the placebo effect in clinical trials have been used to obtain positive efficacy results. In more recent years, new study paradigms encouraged a change in the views on placebos and the placebo effect. Alternative study designs and the development of biomarkers for a placebo response permit a better understanding of the contribution of the placebo effect to the results of interventional studies, without minimizing it. In clinical practice, optimizing the placebo effect (and reducing nocebo effects) has the potential to improve care for our patients, but raises ethical challenges. An enhanced patient-physician relationship would be central to any evidence-based intervention used in clinical care to heighten the placebo effect. © 2018 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

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

OBJECTIVE

We have proposed that three scientific criteria are important for the ethical justification of randomized clinical trials (RCTs): (1) they should be designed around a clear hypothesis; (2) uncertainty should exist around that hypothesis; (3) that uncertainty should be as established through a systematic review. We hypothesized that the majority of a sample of recently published RCTs would not explicitly incorporate these criteria, therefore rendering them potentially unjustified on scientific grounds.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional analysis of all RCTs published in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2015. Each article and protocol was reviewed for: (1) a clearly stated central hypothesis; (2) references to "equipoise," or "consensus;" (3) some indication of evidentiary uncertainty; (4) a meta-analysis or systematic review surrounding the hypothesis or study question.

RESULTS

We included 208 RCT articles and 199 protocols. Among combined articles and protocols, 76% had a clearly stated hypothesis, 99% referenced some form of uncertainty, and 54% cited a relevant systematic review or meta-analysis. Only 44% of combined texts contained all three scientific criteria. There were few references to "equipoise" (10%) or "consensus" (11%), and those references to equipoise were most often inconsistent with accepted definitions.

CONCLUSION

The majority of RCTs (56%) did not meet the three scientific criteria described previously and therefore may be scientifically and therefore ethically unjustified. We recommend that "equipoise," "clinical equipoise," and "lack of consensus" be abandoned as scientific criteria for RCTs and be replaced by an expectation that RCTs have a clearly stated, meaningful hypothesis around which uncertainty has been established through a systematic review of the literature.