When placebo controlled trials are essential and equivalence trials are inadequate

Consistency of atypical antipsychotic superiority to placebo in recent clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The use of control placebos in clinical trials of new antipsychotic medications is increasingly under examination. The active controlled equivalence study could offer a potential alternative design. First, however, it must be clear that any proposed standard control agent has been consistently superior to placebo in previous studies.

METHODS

Through a Freedom of Information Act request, we identified nine placebo-controlled trials of risperidone, olanzapine, or quetiapine.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis indicated that the pooled estimate of the true population effect size +/- SE was 0.46 +/- 0.06 for categorical response rates and >0.53 +/- 0.07 for the continuous Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale change score outcome measure. If the desired detectable effect size is set very conservatively at a 95% confidence lower bound for the estimate of true effect size, statistical power for random samples of 80 per group drawn from a population of subjects similar to that of the nine meta-analyzed studies is.67 for categorical response rates and >.82 for the continuous measure, based on one-sided alpha =.05.

CONCLUSIONS

These data suggest substantial confidence that a therapeutic dose of an atypical antipsychotic will be statistically superior to placebo in an adequately sized randomized trial, when reporting a continuous measure as the principal outcome.

Additive anti-emetic efficacy of prophylactic ondansetron with droperidol in out-patient gynecological laparoscopy

PURPOSE

To determine the efficacy of ondansetron and droperidol, alone and in combination, administered for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) in women undergoing general anesthesia for outpatient gynecological laparoscopy.

METHODS

Following Institutional Ethics Board approval and patient consent, 160 female out- patients scheduled for laparoscopy were randomly allotted in a double-blind fashion to receive: i) saline (placebo), ii) 4 mg ondansetron, iii) 1.25 mg droperidol, or iv) 4 mg ondansetron and 1.25 mg droperidol combination intravenously on induction. Following a standardized general anesthesia, patients were interviewed and assessed for PONV at various times.

RESULTS

During the first 24 hr after surgery, the incidence of PONV in the placebo group was 71%. This was reduced to 61% with droperidol alone (P = 0.334), to 46% with ondansetron alone (P = 0.027), and to 23% with the combination group (P<0.001). A statistically significant difference was observed between combination and droperidol (P<0.001) and between combination and ondansetron (P = 0.036). There were fewer requests for rescue medication from the combination group (7.7%) than from the ondansetron and placebo groups.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study suggest that the combination of 4 mg ondansetron and 1.25 mg droperidol is more efficacious as a prophylactic anti-emetic than either agent alone during the 24 hr post-surgery. This additive effect may be due to the different mechanisms of action of ondansetron and droperidol.

Does placebo help establish equivalence in trials of new antidepressants?

Clinical trials of new antidepressants usually compare a new drug to a reference antidepressant and to a placebo. The placebo is intended to validate the trial in the case of a no-difference outcome, i.e., it helps in assessing equivalence. The aim of the present paper is to test whether placebo has indeed helped establish equivalence of effect in comparative trials of new antidepressants. We carried out an example of sample size determination first in a trial to show a difference between the new and control drug, and second in a trial to assess equivalence between two competing drugs. Finally, we retrospectively calculated the maximum difference accepted as equivalence of effect in published trials of new antidepressants. Assuming a response rate to antidepressants of 70%, 294 subjects for each treatment group are needed to show a 10% difference between two antidepressant drugs and more than 1,300 to assess equivalence at a 5% level of delta, the maximum difference acceptable as equivalence of effect. The level of delta in published trials of new antidepressants ranges between 12 and 43%, suggesting they cannot claim to demonstrate equivalence of effect. Therefore, the presence of a placebo arm for comparison didn't help establish whether both drugs really worked the same way. Comparative trials of new antidepressants should adopt a two-arm design, a suitable number of patients and a high standard in the experimental design in order to minimise possible control-event rate variation.

Efficacy, dose-response, and adverse effects of droperidol for prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting

PURPOSE

To estimate the efficacy and harm produced by droperidol in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV).

METHODS

Systematic search (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, hand-searching, bibliographies, all languages, up to May 1999) for randomised comparisons of droperidol with placebo in surgical patients. Relevant end points were prevention of early PONV (up to six hours postoperatively), and late PONV (24 hr), and adverse effects. Combined data were analysed using relative risk and NNT.

RESULTS

In 76 trials, 5,351 patients received 24 different regimens of droperidol. The average incidence of early and late PONV in controls was 34% and 51%, respectively. Droperidol was more efficacious than placebo in preventing PONV. In adults, the anti-nausea effect was short-lived, and there was no dose-responsiveness; with 0.25 to 0.30 mg the number-needed-to-treat (NNT) to prevent early nausea was 5. For both early and late anti-vomiting efficacy there was dose-responsiveness; best efficacy was with 1.5 mg to 2.5 mg (NNT, 7). In children, there was dose-responsiveness; best efficacy was with 75 microg x kg(-1) (NNT to prevent early and late vomiting, 4). Two children had extrapyramidal symptoms with droperidol (NNT in children, 91; in any patient, 408). There was dose-responsiveness for sedation and drowsiness (with 2.5 mg the NNT was 7.8). Droperidol prevented postoperative headache (NNT, -25).

CONCLUSIONS

Droperidol is anti-emetic in the surgical setting. The effect on nausea is short-lived but more pronounced than the effect on vomiting. Sedation and drowsiness are dose-dependent, extrapyramidal symptoms are rare, and there is a protective effect against headache.

Efficacy and adverse effects of prophylactic antiemetics during patient-controlled analgesia therapy: a quantitative systematic review

Nausea and vomiting are frequent adverse effects of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) with opioids. To identify the optimal prophylactic antiemetic intervention in this setting, we performed a systematic search for randomized trials (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library, reference lists, hand-searching, no language restriction) published up to May 1998 that compared prophylactic antiemetic interventions with placebo or no treatment in the postoperative PCA-setting with opioids. Fourteen placebo-controlled trials (1117 patients) with different regimens of droperidol, ondansetron, hyoscine TTS, tropisetron, metoclopramide, propofol, and promethazine were analyzed. One PCA was with tramadol, all others were with morphine. At 24 h, the cumulative incidence of nausea and vomiting without antiemetics was approximately 50%. Droperidol 0.017-0.17 mg/mg of morphine (0.5-11 mg/d droperidol) was statistically significantly more effective than placebo without evidence of dose-responsiveness; the number needed to treat to prevent nausea compared with placebo was 2.7 (95% confidence interval 1.8-5.2), and that to prevent vomiting was 3.1 (2.3-4.8). Compared with placebo, the incidence of minor adverse effects with droperidol was increased with doses >4 mg/d.

IMPLICATIONS

Of 100 patients treated with droperidol added in a patient-controlled analgesia pump with morphine, 30 who would have vomited or been nauseated had they not received droperidol will not suffer these effects. There is no evidence of dose-responsiveness for efficacy with droperidol, but the risk of adverse effects is dose-dependent. There is a lack of evidence for other antiemetics.

Cost-effectiveness of ondansetron for postoperative nausea and vomiting

The decision as to whether prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting is better than treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting could be made on the basis of cost-effectiveness. The cost-effectiveness of ondansetron was calculated using data from published quantitative systematic reviews of randomised trials. Milligrams of ondansetron required to achieve a desired endpoint were chosen as a cost unit. Modelling was based on a cohort of 1000 patients, and examined control event rates (i.e. incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting without prophylaxis) of between 10 and 90%. In a sensitivity analysis, cost-effectiveness of recommended intravenous doses (4 mg for treatment and prophylaxis) was compared with minimal effective doses as shown by meta-analysis (1 mg for treatment, 8 mg for prophylaxis). Fewer patients experience any postoperative nausea and vomiting symptoms with prophylaxis compared with treatment. But prophylaxis is only marginally more effective than treatment, and treatment of established postoperative nausea and vomiting with effective doses (i.e. 1 or 4 mg) is more cost-effective and safer than prophylaxis with effective doses (i.e. 4 or 8 mg). Reasons for this are the selective treatment of patients who actually need treatment, the high success rate with a lowest dose tested (1 mg) in established postoperative nausea and vomiting, and the disappointing antinausea effect of prophylactic ondansetron even at an eight-fold higher dose.

Efficacy of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in radiotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a quantitative systematic review

5-HT3 receptor antagonists are used to treat radiation-induced sickness. The purpose of this study was to define anti-emetic efficacy and potential for harm of these drugs in radiotherapy. A systematic search, critical appraisal and quantitative analysis of relevant data using the number-needed-to-treat or harm (NNT/H) were conducted. Acute (0 to 24h) and delayed (beyond 24 h) anti-emetic efficacy were analysed separately. Data from 1,404 patients were found in 40 trials published in 36 reports. Data from 197 patients receiving ondansetron or granisetron in five randomised trials were regarded as valid according to preset criteria. One placebo-controlled trial had 10 patients per group and in this ondansetron was not significantly different from placebo. In a larger (n = 105) placebo-controlled trial, ondansetron was significantly more efficacious than metoclopramide for complete control of acute vomiting (NNT 2.2, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.7-3.3) and acute nausea (NNT 3.6, 95% CI 2.2-10.2). Three trials reported delayed outcomes with ondansetron or granisetron: there was no evidence of any difference compared with placebo or other anti-emetics. Two trials reported no acute or delayed but a 'worst day' outcome; in these ondansetron's antivomiting effect was significantly better than placebo (NNT 4.4, 95% CI 2.5-23) or prochlorperazine (NNT 3.8, 95% CI 2.4-10.3), but not its antinausea effect. Constipation and headache were associated significantly with 5-HT3 receptor antagonists compared with other anti-emetics or placebo (NNH 6.4 and 17.1, respectively). Only 14% of published data enabled valid estimation of the anti-emetic efficacy of 5-HT3 receptor antagonists in radiotherapy. There was some evidence that these drugs prevent acute vomiting: 40% of treated patients will benefit (NNT approximately 2.5). The evidence for nausea was less clear. There was no evidence that these drugs are of any benefit beyond 24 h. There was evidence that they produce specific adverse effects.