Placebo orthodoxy in clinical research. II: Ethical, legal, and regulatory myths

Ethics in placebo-controlled, acute treatment trials in schizophrenia: Two rival ethical frameworks

Placebo-controlled, acute treatment trials in schizophrenia enroll acutely symptomatic persons, randomize them to receive placebo or antipsychotic medication for several weeks, and evaluate whether symptoms improve. These trials can have scientific benefits, especially when they test drugs with novel mechanisms of action. However, the use of placebo is ethically problematic inasmuch as standard treatment is withheld and participants are subjected to prolonged psychotic symptoms and associated risks. We propose that both deontological (duty-based) and utilitarian analyses are relevant, that it may be impossible to satisfy the ideals of both frameworks, and that researchers who conduct these trials will unavoidably encounter ethical tension and criticism even when they give careful attention to ethical aspects of study design.

Equipoise, standard of care and consent: responding to the authorisation of new COVID-19 treatments in randomised controlled trials

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, large-scale research and pharmaceutical regulatory processes have proceeded at a dramatically increased pace with new and effective, evidence-based COVID-19 interventions rapidly making their way into the clinic. However, the swift generation of high-quality evidence and the efficient processing of regulatory authorisation have given rise to more specific and complex versions of well-known research ethics issues. In this paper, we identify three such issues by focusing on the authorisation of molnupiravir, a novel antiviral medicine aimed at reducing the ability of SARS-CoV-2 to multiply in the body, for clinical use by the National Health Service in England and the concomitant testing of molnupiravir through the large-scale Platform Adaptive trial of Novel antiviRals for eArly treatMent of COVID-19 In the Community randomised control trial. By analysing the ways in which the authorisation and clinical use of molnupiravir complicate standard approaches to clinical equipoise, standard of care and participant consent in the PANORAMIC randomised control trial, we will explain some of ethical implications for clinical trials that aim to study the efficacy and safety of new COVID-19 and other therapeutics when conditional authorisation has already been granted and when such treatments have already been made available to patients by national health providers.

Taking the principle of the primacy of the human being seriously

This paper targets an orphan topic in research ethics, namely the so called principle of the primacy of the human being, which states that the interests of the human subject should always take precedence over the interests of science and society. Although the principle occupies the central position in the majority of international ethical and legal standards for biomedical research, it has been commented in the literature mainly in passing. With a few notable exceptions, there is little in-depth discussion about the meaning and role of the principle. Several authors note that the principle is vogue, ambiguous and apparently conflicting with the accepted practice of conducting non-beneficial research on individuals unable to give consent. There are opinions that it is just "a vacuous figure of speech" and should be abandoned. This paper argues that the primacy principle is far from being "a vacuous figure of speech", rather it should be seen as a threefold concept: a fundamental interpretative rule, a procedural rule, and a substantive rule aimed at protecting research subjects from instrumental treatment and unacceptable risks. This interpretation tracks back to the principle regulatory and normative origins in the Declaration of Helsinki of 1975, but also acknowledges changes in research ethics and practice, which took place at the turn on the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. Thus, the proposed reading of the principle is not only original, but also historically grounded and normatively fruitful. It provides a fresh and ethically rich perspective on extensively debated, but still controversial problem of an upper limit of permissible risks in non-beneficial studies.

Effect of a New Synergistic Combination of Low Doses of Acetylsalicylic Acid, Caffeine, Acetaminophen, and Chlorpheniramine in Acute Low Back Pain

The present paper continues a more complex research related to the increased synergism in terms of both anti-inflammatory and analgesic effect obtained by the addition of chlorpheniramine (CLF) to the common acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), acetaminophen (PAR), and caffeine (CAF) combination. This synergistic effect was previously highlighted both in vitro in rat models and in vivo in the treatment of migraine. The aim of the research was to further evaluate the analgesic effect of a synergistic low-dose ASA-PAR-CAF-CLF combination in the treatment of low back pain, in a parallel, multiple-dose, double-blind, active controlled clinical trial. A number of 89 patients with low back pain of at least moderate intensity were randomly assigned to receive Algopirin^® (ALG), a combinational product containing 125 mg ASA, 75 mg PAR, 15 mg CAF, and 2 mg CLF, or PAR 500 mg, a drug recognized by American Pain Society as "safe and effective" in the treatment of low back pain. One tablet of the assigned product was administered three times a day for seven consecutive days. The patients evaluated their pain level using a Visual Analog Scale prior to administration, and at 1, 2, 4, and 6 h after the morning dose. Time course of effect was similar in structure and size for both treatments. Pain relief appeared rapidly and steadily increased over 4 h after drug administration. Differential pain curves of ALG and PAR were very similar and comparable with the previously determined ALG analgesia pattern in migraine. Differences between the daily mean pain scores were not statistically significant for the two treatments. Similar results were obtained for the Sum of Pain Intensity Differences (SPID) for 0-4 h and 0-6 h intervals as well as for the time course of the proportion of patients with at least 30% and at least 50% pain relief. In conclusion, in spite of very small doses of active components, ALG proved equally effective to the standard low back pain treatment and therefore a viable therapeutic alternative, mainly for patients with gastrointestinal and hepatic sensitivity. Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier EudraCT No.: 2015-002314-74.

Ethical principles and placebo-controlled trials - interpretation and implementation of the Declaration of Helsinki's placebo paragraph in medical research

BACKGROUND

In October 2013, the Declaration of Helsinki was revised a seventh time in its 50 year history. While it is the most widely accepted set of ethical principles for the protection of patients participating in medical research, the Declaration of Helsinki has also been subject of constant controversy. In particular, its paragraph on the use of placebo controls in clinical trials divides the research community into active-control and placebo orthodox proponents, both continuously demanding revisions of the Declaration of Helsinki in favour of their position. The goal of the present project is to compare the mainly theoretical controversy with regulatory implementation.

METHODS

We distributed a questionnaire to national drug regulatory authorities from different countries to collect information on the authorities' respective approaches to interpretation and implementation of the Declarations' placebo paragraph in the conduct of medical research.

RESULTS

Our findings suggest that the majority of drug regulatory authorities have established a practice of a middle ground, allowing placebo controls in some instances. Various interpretations of "serious harm" and "methodological reasons" are proposed as well as safeguards to avoid abuse of the option to use placebo-controls.

CONCLUSION

Leaving the placebo paragraph open to various interpretation is a result of the Declaration of Helsinki's character as a guidance document. With the current version controversy will continue. The Declaration should be continued to be strengthened to enforce the appreciation of conducting medical research with the highest ethical standard.

Safety of research into severe and treatment-resistant mood disorders: analysis of outcome data from 12 years of clinical trials at the US National Institute of Mental Health

BACKGROUND

Placebo-controlled trials in drug-free patients have long been considered a key research component in the study of mood disorders and relevant treatment mechanisms. However, concerns have been raised about the ethics of such research, leading to an ongoing debate as to whether placebo controls are ethically acceptable. We aimed to assess the cumulative effects of research in individuals with mood disorders and to provide data to address ethical concerns regarding research in this population.

METHODS

We obtained empirical data for patients screened between between Dec 13, 2001, and Jan 31, 2014, with either major depressive disorder or bipolar disorder who were enrolled in one or more of 18 clinical trials at a US National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) inpatient or outpatient behavioural health research clinic. We assessed the cumulative effects of research in our patient population, including the effects of drug taper, drug washout, and placebo administration on mood state. Two subgroups were examined: patients enrolled in trials explicitly requiring treatment resistance and patients with a current or past history of suicidal ideation or behaviour. We used the percentage change from screening as the primary outcome measure for statistical analysis of change in mood over study periods. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00024635.

FINDINGS

We obtained data for 540 patients; 360 (71%) patients were enrolled in trials requiring treatment resistance, 58 (12%) of 465 patients had suicidal ideation at screening, and 191 (60%) of 321 patients had a history of suicidal ideation. Mean mood severity at screening was in the moderate to severe range. Full participation in research, including drug tapers, drug-free periods, and placebo-controlled trials, had a low risk of symptom exacerbation. Patients undergoing drug taper had a mean increase in symptom severity of 4·2% (SD 19·56, tdegrees of freedom 96=1·85; p=0·036). We recorded modest increases in the subgroup who tapered to no medications (mean percentage change 5·1% [SD 18·10], t56=2·12; p=0·039), but increases were not significant in participants enrolled in trials requiring treatment resistance (4·3% [18·60], t72=1·96; p=0·054) and those with a current or past history of suicidal ideation or behaviour (1·8% [18·78], t51=0·68; p=0·50). Six serious adverse events were reported, including one suicide attempt that occurred during the standard treatment phase and not during the clinical trial.

INTERPRETATION

In general, research participation at the NIMH was not detrimental to health and safety, and conferred benefit in many cases. This finding was true not only in our entire research population, but also in treatment-resistant subgroups and subgroups with a history of suicidality. Our study provides evidence to guide ethical analysis of issues in psychiatric research, and to support continued scientific investigation.

FUNDING

Intramural Research Program, NIMH, National Institutes of Health.

Ethical Considerations for the Conduct of Antidementia Trials in Canada

Clinical trials in persons with dementia bring into focus the ethical dilemmas frequently confronting the clinician-scientist. Despite the existence of various ethical guidelines, most with common underlying principles, few are specific to dementia. A particular difficulty is finding a balance between respect for the autonomy of the individual and the protection of vulnerable persons, while at the same time defining an acceptable risk/benefit ratio for the study. The availability of symptomatic treatments for Alzheimer's disease also now make it difficult to argue that withholding treatment from those in the placebo arm of a clinical trial fulfills one's duty to provide best care. Those conducting clinical trials must be knowledgeable about existing legislation and ethical guidelines in order to justify to themselves and others, the design of clinical trials and their risks. They must be prepared to educate patients and family members about dementia and research, determine each potential subject's competence to consent, and ensure that decisions about participation are in accordance with the best interests of the subject. Ethical conduct of clinical trials of new antidementia therapies will require that everyone involved understands the values and beliefs that guide their decision-making and the potentially conflicting roles facing the clinician-scientist.

Diagnosis and management of Alzheimer's disease: past, present and future ethical issues

There is great interest in the ethical issues associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias given the prevalence of AD and the evolving neuroscience landscape in matters of diagnoses and therapeutics. Much of the ethics discussion arises in the tension between the principle of not doing harm (principle of non-maleficence) in this vulnerable population and the development of effective treatments (principle of beneficence). Autonomy and capacity issues are also numerous, wide-ranging, and concern (1) day to day affairs such as driving safely and spending money wisely, (2) life-time events such as designating a legal representative in case of incapacity, making a will, (3) consenting to treatment and diagnostic procedures, (4) participating in research. The latter issue is particularly thorny and illustrates well the complexity of tackling concerns related to capacity. The impetus to protect AD patients has partly led to ethics regulation and policies making research on inapt patients more difficult because of stringent requirements for signed informed consent or for showing the value of the research to this specific patient population. New issues are arising that relate to earlier diagnosis using biomarkers and (possibly soon) the use of drugs that modify disease progression. We here summarize and discuss the different ethical issues associated with AD from a historical perspective, with emphasis on diagnostic and treatments issues.

Clinical equipoise and risk-benefit assessment

Clinical equipoise is widely regarded as an ethical requirement for the design and conduct of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Underlying clinical equipoise is the norm that no patient should be randomized to treatment known (or believed by the expert clinical community) to be inferior to the established standard of care. This implies that patient-subjects should not be exposed to net risks in control groups of randomized trials - risks that are not compensated by the prospect of direct medical benefits from the control intervention. However, proponents of clinical equipoise have no moral objections to permitting net risks for 'nontherapeutic' research procedures employed in clinical trials. This differential assessment makes risk-benefit assessment of randomized trials incoherent. In this article, I examine critically four arguments in defense of clinical equipoise as a requirement for risk-benefit assessment. Each of these arguments fails to support clinical equipoise, leading to the conclusion that we should dispense with this principle in risk-benefit assessment of RCTs.

Ethical issues of placebo-controlled studies in depression and a randomized withdrawal trial in Japan: case study in the ethics of mental health research

The use of placebo controls in psychiatric research is controversial. In this article, we focus on a troubling Japanese case of a randomized withdrawal trial of the antidepressant sertraline and analyze the ethical issues underlying it. First, we consider whether a placebo-controlled withdrawal trial should, in general, be considered more ethical than a standard placebo-controlled trial. We argue that the use of a placebo arm in this trial is ethically permissible but that there is no good reason to use a withdrawal trial design. Second, we discuss whether our moral evaluation of the use of placebo in this case should change when the special Japanese regulatory environment is taken into account. We argue that it should not and conclude that the use of withdrawal design in this case is ethically unacceptable.

Dispensing with equipoise

Equipoise is widely endorsed as a necessary requirement for ethical design and conduct of randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, I argue in this article that the equipoise principle suffers from fundamental defects. In particular, equipoise provides flawed ethical guidance for placebo-controlled trials and for decisions to terminate trials early based on interim data relating to benefit. The problems with equipoise are traced to a "therapeutic orientation to clinical trials," which conflates the ethics of clinical research with the ethics of medical care. Because of this mistaken therapeutic orientation, equipoise fails to adequately account for the central purpose of randomized trials in providing evidence sufficient to guide health policy decisions relating to licensing new treatments and insurance coverage. I conclude that it is time to dispense with equipoise. The principles of research ethics are sufficient to provide adequate guidance to protect subjects and to promote socially valuable research without any appeal to equipoise.

Evaluating equivalence and noninferiority trials

PURPOSE

The conceptual issues related to the design of equivalence and non-inferiority trials and considerations for interpreting the findings of such trials are described.

SUMMARY

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has recently gained importance in the evaluation of different treatment alternatives. Large, prospective, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted with patient populations under routine practice conditions can yield high-quality CER results. A Phase III RCT, usually conducted for establishing superiority of one treatment over another, is called a superiority trial, and the statistical test associated with it is known as a superiority test. In a pragmatic equivalence trial, a researcher aims to test if two treatments are identical (within a specified range) with respect to some predefined clinical criteria. Pragmatic noninferiority trials aim to show if a test therapy is no worse than a standard therapy with respect to achieving the primary treatment outcome. A nonsignificant result obtained from a superiority test does not indicate that the two treatment options are similar. In other words, the lack of evidence of superiority does not guarantee a lack of difference in the performance shown by the therapies. A researcher can only demonstrate identical effects of two treatments in an equivalence trial. In a noninferiority trial, the test therapy is preferred when there is evidence about its benefits over the standard treatment in terms of secondary outcomes such as cost, adherence, and adverse effects.

CONCLUSION

Equivalence and noninferiority trials are designed differently from superiority trials. The overall quality of equivalence and noninferiority studies depends on study design and the manner in which the results are reported.

The antidepressant debate and the balanced placebo trial design: an ethical analysis

There is ongoing debate about whether randomized, placebo-controlled trials under a double-blind have reliably established the pharmacological efficacy of antidepressants. Numerous meta-analyses of antidepressant efficacy trials, e.g., Kirsch et al. [Kirsch, I., Moore, T. J., Scoboria, A., & Nicholls, S. (2002). The emperor's new drugs: An analysis of antidepressant medication data submitted to the U.S. food and drug administration. Prevention and Treatment, 5, Article 23. (Retrieved July 19, 2007 from http://journals.apa.org/prevention/volume5)], have shown a modest drug-placebo difference but methodological problems with standard trial design preclude a definitive conclusion that this difference results from specific biological effects of antidepressants or the nonspecific factors that have not been adequately excluded. Standard trial design assumes the additivity thesis of pharmacological efficacy, being the assumption that the specific or "true" magnitude of the pharmacological effect is limited to the difference between the drug and placebo responses in a standard trial. If the drug effects are as small as these meta-analyses suggest, then their clinical effectiveness is questionable. If the drug effects are actually larger but masked by placebo effects, then the additivity thesis is not valid and we risk false negative results with standard trial design. Kirsch et al. propose an alternative, four arm balanced placebo trial design (BPTD) that can accurately test the additivity thesis. The BPTD uses antidepressants, active placebos and the intentional deception of research subjects. My focal question is whether the BPTD is ethically defensible. I will explore two objections that can be raised against it: 1) lying to BPTD research subjects violates their autonomy and exploits their illness and 2) the BPTD may not enable us to test the additivity thesis with accuracy, i.e., it may contribute to the masking of drug effects that it aims to avoid. I argue that these objections support the conclusion that the BPTD is ethically indefensible.

The placebo response in studies of acute migraine

OBJECTIVES

To characterize the magnitude of the placebo response in trials of migraine therapy in children and adolescents, and to identify its determinants.

STUDY DESIGN

MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched through November 2006 for randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials of pediatric acute migraine pharmacologic treatment that included a placebo comparator group. The main outcomes were headache relief and pain-free response, and effect estimates for risk differences were calculated whenever possible. The influence of placebo response determinants was studied using subgroup analysis. A total of 13 trials (1324 participants in the placebo groups) were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

The pooled placebo responses for pain relief and pain-free at 2 hours were 46% (range, 38% to 53%) and 21% (range, 17% to 26%). Parallel studies conducted in North American centers demonstrated a significantly higher placebo response, as did trials that used 4-point pain scales. Other placebo determinants did not influence the effect estimate, although insufficient data were available to study some of them.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a widely variable placebo response in pediatric migraine trials, supporting the continued use of placebo groups and suggesting the need for more research into the placebo effect in the pediatric population.

Subjective evaluations of research participation by persons with mental illness

The present study focuses on the subjective experience of psychiatric patients who participate in psychobiological research, based on patients' self-reported evaluations of the experience. We studied 313 persons with mental illness admitted to an inpatient research unit. Each participant was administered the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire, a structured self-report questionnaire designed to assess satisfaction with research participation and clinical care. Individuals who completed the research protocol were significantly more satisfied globally and more likely to express that treatment had been effective. Factors contributing to willingness to participate in future research included favorable perceptions of: (a) psychoeducation, (b) safety, and (c) comfort level with research procedures. Research participants were willing to participate in future research regardless of their perception of medication efficacy. This study emphasizes the importance of understanding the opinions of persons with mental illness who participate in research. Overall, the data suggest that persons with mental illness find psychiatric research to be beneficial. Although therapeutic misconception cannot be ruled out given the methodology used, at the very least the data indicate no sign that subjects found research participation to be harmful. Further studies should explore the source of this perception and attempt to separate the effect of "therapeutic misconception" from possible real benefit of protocol-driven assessment and treatment in a reputable clinical environment.

Prevalence and factors associated with use of placebo control groups in randomized controlled trials in psoriasis: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The ethics and science of using placebo control groups in clinical trials have been widely debated. Few studies, however, have examined factors associated with choice of control group.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to assess the prevalence of use of placebo controls in randomized controlled trials in psoriasis and to identify factors associated with use of placebo controls in these trials.

METHODS

This is a cross-sectional study of randomized controlled trials in psoriasis published from January 1, 2001 to December 20, 2005 and indexed in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We extracted data on types of control groups used, design issues (number of patients enrolled, primary end point), disease characteristics (psoriasis type and severity), and extrascientific issues (trial location, funding source, and year of publication). We used bivariable and multivariable logistic regression to determine factors associated with use of a placebo control group.

RESULTS

Of 194 citations, 187 were available for review. One hundred thirty-five trials from 134 articles in 38 journals met inclusion criteria. Eighty-three trials (61.5%) enrolling 8171 subjects (41.7%) used active controls only, and 52 trials (38.5%) enrolling 11,406 subjects (58.3%) used placebo controls. Adjusted for trial location and funding source, trials significantly more likely to have used placebo controls included those conducted in the United States (odds ratio [OR], 5.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.45-13.68; P < .001) and those funded by pharmaceutical companies (OR, 2.61; 95% CI, 1.19-5.73; P = .02). Predicted frequencies of placebo use ranged from 77.6% (industry-funded, conducted trials in the United States) to 18.6% (non-industry-funded trials not conducted in the United States).

LIMITATIONS

Our searches may not have identified all published trials, and we did not have access to data from unpublished trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of placebo controls has been more common in psoriasis trials conducted in the United States and funded by pharmaceutical companies. The findings suggest that ethical and scientific issues related to choice of control group in psoriasis trials are interpreted markedly differently depending on trial location and funding source.

Is it ethical to use placebos in osteoporosis trials?

The use of placebo control groups (e.g., subjects using calcium and vitamin D) in osteoporosis trials with subjects at high risk for fracture has been systematically questioned by institutional review boards (IRBs). Regulatory agencies, on the other hand, continue to not only recommend but also require that placebo-controlled trials be presented for the registration of new drugs for osteoporosis treatment. The Declaration of Helsinki and its updates have upheld the principle that protection of research subjects' rights is of primary concern. Nevertheless, even the Declaration keeps clearly opening the possibility of using placebo-control designs if it is justified for "compelling and scientifically sound methodological reasons." The use of intermediary endpoints or surrogates to establish the efficacy or safety of new medications in the management of osteoporosis is currently considered scientifically insufficient. This concept has led regulatory agencies, such as the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and the European Medicines Agency in the European Union, to require "fragility fracture reduction" as the primary endpoint in clinical trials for the registration of new drugs. Superiority or noninferiority trials are alternatives to placebo-controlled designs. However, factors such as sample size, cost, and statistical limitations render these models impractical for the registration of new medications for osteoporosis. We recommend collaboration among regulatory agencies, IRBs, scientists, and ethicists on the design of clinical trials for the registration of new medications for reduction of fracture risk. Delay in developing mutually acceptable models may impair scientific development in the field and possibly deprive patients of potentially beneficial treatments.

The relevance of empirical research in bioethics

Empirical research related to ethical issues in clinical research has grown dramatically in recent years. However, little attention has been devoted to the ethical relevance of the findings from this research. In order to examine the value and limitations of ethics-related empirical research, we discuss 3 case studies involving research with stored biological samples, placebo-controlled trials, and the idea of the therapeutic misconception.

Ethical Issues in Surgical Research

Higher standards of evidence for surgical procedures are likely to be demanded in the future by health insurance providers. Consequently, more formal and rigorous surgical research, including RCTs, will become more prevalent. Facing the ethical challenges of surgical research requires understanding of the ethically significant differences between surgical practice and research and the ways in which the ethical standards appropriate for the design and conduct of clinical research differ from the ethics of clinical care.

Laparoscopy and reported pain among patients with endometriosis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of sharp excision of endometriosis with sham surgical excision in alleviating endometriosis-associated pain for up to 1 year following surgery.

METHODS

Patients requiring a laparoscopy for severe pelvic pain were eligible. If endometriosis was visually identified at laparoscopy, a biopsy of a representative lesion was taken. The women were then randomized either to have all remaining endometriosis excised with laparoscopic scissors (the excision group) or to have no further surgical treatment (the control group). Patients were asked to complete daily pain scales for 1 month preoperatively and quarterly for 1 year postoperatively. Subjects were blinded to their treatment allocation for 1 year.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine women underwent laparoscopy and biopsy and were randomized to have excision or no treatment of endometriosis. The excision and control groups were similar in age, parity, and revised American Society for Reproductive Medicine stage of disease. Sixteen women completed the full year of follow-up: 9 in the excision group, and 7 in the control group. Overall, recorded pain was significantly reduced at 1 year (P < 0.05), with no significant difference between the excision and control groups.

CONCLUSION

Laparoscopy with diagnostic biopsy alone is associated with a significant reduction in pain for up to 1 year postoperatively. Although the study lacked sufficient statistical power to exclude an effect of excision, pain relief in each group was similar. These results indicate a potential benefit of sham surgical procedures in assessing novel surgical interventions.

Timing invitations to participate in clinical research: preliminary versus informed consent

This article addresses the impact of the potential conflict between the roles of physicians who are both clinicians and researchers on the recruitment of persons into research trials. It has been proposed (1) that a physician breaches inter-role confidentiality when he or she uses information gathered in his or her clinical role to inform patients about trials for which they may be eligible and (2) that clinician-researchers should adopt a model of preliminary consent to be approached about research prior to commencing a clinical relationship. This article argues that even if we grant the legitimacy of inter-role confidentiality (which is open to question), there are circumstances in which other obligations physicians bear override the obligation of inter-role confidentiality. Moreover, it is argued that the practice of preliminary consent is morally suspect and that such consent cannot be deemed valid. The article concludes with a series of recommendations of ways in which the legitimate concern regarding the conflicting roles of clinician-researchers can be addressed in the recruitment stage of research.

The clinical investigator as fiduciary: discarding a misguided idea

One of the most important questions in the ethics of human clinical research asks what obligations investigators owe the people who enroll in their studies. Research differs in many ways from standard care - the added uncertainties, for instance, and the nontherapeutic interventions such as diagnostic tests whose only purpose is to measure the effects of the research intervention. Hence arises the question whether a physician engaged in clinical research has the same obligations toward research subjects that he owes his medical patients, or whether they differ in any fundamental way.

Perhaps the most common answer is that the relationship is the same. Investigators, like physicians, are said to be fiduciaries of the volunteers who enroll in research trials. Each owes the best available medical care, which means that a physician can only justify enrolling his patient in research if the study meets the requirements of clinical equipoise, namely, that there is legitimate disagreement within the medical community as to whether the standard treatment or the investigational intervention is superior.

[Research ethics and the use of placebo: status of the debate in Canada]

The question of the use of the placebo is one of the most controversial in the field of the ethics of research today. The use of the placebo remains the standard practice of biomedical research in spite of the fact that various revisions of the Helsinki Declaration have sought to limit its use. In Canada, the Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans adopted a very restrictive position with respect to the use of placebos, precisely defining the situations in which its use would meet the demands of ethical research. The positions taken by the various ethical decision-making bodies are, however, hardly shared by regulatory bodies such as the Food and drug administration (FDA), the Council for international organization of medical sciences (CIOMS) or the European agency for the evaluation of medicinal products (EMEA). This divergence of opinions reveals two quite different conceptions of what constitutes the ethical. In the case of decision-making bodies in the ethical field, it is clearly medicine's Hippocratic Oath which explains their reluctance to use placebos. The first responsibility of the doctor is to "do no harm" to his or her patient. This duty is inherent to the medical profession and as such is not grounded in the view of medicine as a contract for care. In the case of regulatory bodies, it is the vision of "medicine as contract" which is in view; and it is this notion that justifies the use of placebos once free and informed consent has been obtained. It is also worth noting that these regulatory bodies make frequent use of arguments based on utilitarian ends. In an unprecedented move, the World medical association published in October 2001 a clarification note about the use of placebos. An analysis of this text raises the question about its real meaning: clarification or concession?

Equivalence and noninferiority trials - are they viable alternatives for registration of new drugs? (III)

The scientific community's reliance on active-controlled trials is steadily increasing, as widespread agreement emerges concerning the role of these trials as viable alternatives to placebo trials. These trials present substantial challenges with regard to design and interpretation as their complexity increases, and the potential need for larger sample sizes impacts the cost and time variables of the drug development process. The potential efficacy and safety benefits derived from these trials may never be demonstrated by other methods. Active-controlled trials can develop valuable data to inform both prescribers and patients about the dose- and time-dependent actions of any new drug and can contribute to the management and communication of risks associated with the relevant therapeutic products.

Ethics in psychiatric research: study design issues

OBJECTIVE

To identify and discuss ethical aspects of study design issues in psychiatric research.

METHOD

We conducted a literature review and conceptual analysis of study design in psychiatric research focusing on placebo, medication tapering and withdrawal (washout), and symptom provocation (challenge) designs.

RESULTS

While advances in the care and treatment of persons with psychiatric disorders are crucial to the improved well-being of this stigmatized and often forgotten population, past abuses demonstrate the importance of the thoughtful application of ethical principles in the conduct of research. Some ethical issues have particular relevance to psychiatric research arising primarily from the specific vulnerabilities of those with mental illness and the risks posed by some research methodologies. Accordingly, sensitivity is required in the design of psychiatric research.

CONCLUSION

Placebo, challenge, and washout study designs can present particular risks in the population of persons with mental illness. These issues are described and suggestions offered to promote the ethical design of psychiatric research.

Using empirical data to inform the ethical evaluation of placebo controlled trials

There has been considerable debate about the ethical acceptability of using placebo-controls in clinical research. Although this debate has been rich in rhetoric, considering that much of this research is predicated upon the assumption that data from this research is vital to clinical decision-making, it is ironic that researchers have introduced little data into these discussions. Using some published research concerning the use of placebo-controls in clinical research in hypertension and psychiatric drug trials, I suggest some ways that such data might be incorporated into the ethical analysis concerning placebo use in clinical trials. This approach promises to be important for enhancing conceptual and scientific understanding as well as public policy decision-making.

Research ethics and misguided moral intuition

The term therapeutic misconception was coined by Paul Appelbaum and his colleagues to describe the tendency of patients enrolled in clinical trials to confuse research participation with the personal clinical attention characteristic of medical care. It has not been recognized that an analogous therapeutic misconception pervades ethical thinking about clinical research with patient-subjects. Investigators and bioethicists often judge the ethics of clinical research based on ethical standards appropriate to the physician-patient relationship in therapeutic medicine. This ethical approach to clinical research constitutes a misconception because it fails to appreciate the ethically significant differences between clinical research and clinical care.

In this article I argue that the assumption that the ethical principles governing the practice of therapeutic medicine should also apply to clinical research with patient- subjects produces incoherence in research ethics and erroneous guidance concerning certain controversial research designs.

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of olanzapine in the prevention of psychotic relapse

Sustained response to antipsychotic therapy is an important outcome measure for patients with psychotic disorders. Placebo control in studies of relapse prevention contributes valuable information yet provokes much debate. This study, using placebo as a control, evaluated olanzapine's efficacy in preventing a psychotic relapse. Participants were stable minimally symptomatic outpatients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. The study included 4 phases: (1) 4-day to 9-day screening/evaluation (N = 583), (2) 6-week conversion to open-label olanzapine (N = 493; 10-20 mg/d), (3) 8-week stabilization on olanzapine (N = 458; 10-20 mg/d), and (4) 52-week randomized (2:1), double-blind maintenance with olanzapine (N = 224; 10-20 mg/d) or placebo (N = 102). Primary relapse criteria were clinically significant changes in the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) positive item cluster or rehospitalization due to positive symptoms. Statistical methodology allowed sequential real-time estimation of efficacy across blinded treatment groups and multiple interim analyses, which permitted study termination when efficacy was significantly different between treatments. A significant between-treatment difference emerged 210 days after first patient randomization to double-blind treatment. Thus, 151 (46.3%) of the randomized patients were discontinued early and 34 (10.4%) of the planned patient enrollment were not required. The olanzapine group had a significantly longer time to relapse (P < 0.0001) than the placebo group. The 6-month cumulative estimated relapse rate (Kaplan-Meier) was 5.5% for olanzapine-treated patients versus 55.2% for placebo-treated patients. The design of this study enabled appropriate statistical testing of the primary hypothesis while minimizing exposure of patients to a less effective treatment than olanzapine. In remitted stabilized patients with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, olanzapine demonstrated a positive benefit-to-risk profile in relapse prevention.

Active-control clinical trials to establish equivalence or noninferiority: methodological and statistical concepts linked to quality

The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial is the optimum method for clinical evaluation of new treatments, as assessed by clinicians and statisticians. However, if a known standard of therapy exists, it may be difficult to prove that a new therapy is superior. Equivalence and noninferiority clinical trial designs are now frequently utilized in clinical medical research. This article reviews the statistical differences between superiority, equivalence, and noninferiority design schemes, which pose specific ethical questions and have important implications for interpretation and clinical application of trial results. A guideline is proposed as a standard approach for reporting to facilitate qualitative assessment of the methodology of these trials.

Non-inferiority trials: design concepts and issues - the encounters of academic consultants in statistics

Placebo-controlled trials are the ideal for evaluating medical treatment efficacy. They allow for control of the placebo effect and are most efficient, requiring the smallest numbers of patients to detect a treatment effect. A placebo control is ethically justified if no standard treatment exists, if the standard treatment has not been proven efficacious, there are no risks associated with delaying treatment or escape clauses are included in the protocol. Where possible and justified, they should be the first choice for medical treatment evaluation. Given the large number of proven effective treatments, placebo-controlled trials are often unethical. In these situations active-controlled trials are generally appropriate. The non-inferiority trial is appropriate for evaluation of the efficacy of an experimental treatment versus an active control when it is hypothesized that the experimental treatment may not be superior to a proven effective treatment, but is clinically and statistically not inferior in effectiveness. These trials are not easy to design. An active control must be selected. Good historical placebo-controlled trials documenting the efficacy of the active control must exist. From these historical trials statistical analysis must be performed and clinical judgement applied in order to determine the non-inferiority margin M and to assess assay sensitivity. The latter refers to establishing that the active drug would be superior to the placebo in the setting of the present non-inferiority trial (that is, the constancy assumption). Further, a putative placebo analysis of the new treatment versus the placebo using data from the non-inferiority trial and the historical active versus placebo-controlled trials is needed. Useable placebo-controlled historical trials for the active control are often not available, and determination of assay sensitivity and an appropriate M is difficult and debatable. Serious consideration to expansions of and alternatives to non-inferiority trials are needed.

Surgical "placebo" controls

OBJECTIVE

To set ethical guidelines on the use of surgical placebo controls in the design of surgical trials.

BACKGROUND DATA

Ethical concerns recently arose from surgical trials where subjects in the control arm underwent surgical procedures that had the appearance of a therapeutic intervention, but during which the essential therapeutic maneuver was omitted. Although there are ethical guidelines on the use of a placebo in drug trials, little attention has been paid to the use of a surgical placebo control in surgical trials.

METHODS

The Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs developed ethical guidelines based on a wide literature search and consultation with experts.

RESULTS

Surgical placebo controls should be limited to studies of new surgical procedures aimed at treating diseases that are not amenable to other surgical therapies, and are reasonably anticipated to be susceptible to substantial placebo effects. If the standard nonsurgical treatment is efficacious and acceptable to the patient, then it must be offered as part of the study design.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical placebo controls should be used only when no other trial design will yield the requisite data and should always be accompanied by a rigorous informed consent process and a careful consideration of the related risks and benefits. The recommended ethical guidelines were adopted as AMA ethics policy and are now incorporated in the AMA's Code of Medical Ethics.

Placebo surgery for Parkinson's disease: do the benefits outweigh the risks?

In April 1999, Dr. Curt Freed of the University of Colorado in Denver and Dr. Stanley Fahn of Columbia Presbyterian Center in New York presented the results of a four-year, $5.7 million government-financed study using tissue from aborted fetuses to treat Parkinson’s disease at a conference of the American Academy of Neurology. The results of the first government-financed, placebo-controlled clinical study using fetal tissue showed that the symptoms of some Parkinson’s patients had been relieved. This research study involved forty subjects, nineteen women and twenty-one men; all suffered from Parkinson’s disease for an average of 13.5 years. In the study, each subject underwent neurosurgery: “four tiny burr holes, drilled through the wrinkle lines above the eyebrows into the skull, to clear a pathway to the brain. But only half received injections of fetal cells into the putamen, the region of the brain that controls movement; the other half received nothing. One year later, three members of the placebo group said their symptoms had improved.” In two-thirds of the transplant recipients, the fetal tissue took hold and seemed to establish a new network to produce the missing neurochemical dopamine.

Placebos, placebo effect, and the response to the healing situation: the evolution of a concept

In spite of its impressive progress, medicine has been strongly criticized for relying on its modern biomedical tradition to the neglect of the psychosocial aspects of health. This neglect may account for patients' dissatisfaction and eventual use of alternative health approaches. The concept of placebo has sustained dramatic "protean" metamorphoses through the ages. For centuries, placebos have been regarded as powerful deceptive therapies. From the middle of the twentieth century, however, conventional medicine has used placebos as methodologic tools to distinguish the specific from the nonspecific ingredients in treatments. In modern medical research, the double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial has been established as the gold standard for the assessment of any new treatment. Recently a new trend regarding placebos seems to have emerged. The placebo and other nonspecific effects elicited by the "healing situation" have been independently subjected to scientific study. Progress in this area may promote useful clinical applications, enabling physicians to broaden their perspectives on the healing process. We present the historical changes of the concept of placebo and the ethical issues raised by their use.

The ethics of social risk reduction in the era of the biological brain

In keeping with our transdisciplinary orientation, in this article we try to do several things at once. We address research on preventing mental illness and its relation to existing conceptions of public health, a topic to which insufficient attention has been paid in the era of the biological brain, while using this case study to illustrate the limits of conventional approaches in bioethics. After identifying the crucial need for methodological self-consciousness in prevention research and policy, we explore the implications as they relate to (i) the values embedded in the choice of research designs and strategies, and (ii) contrasting intellectual starting points regarding the biological plausibility of preventing mental illness. We then draw attention to the need for more thoughtful analysis of the appropriate role and limits of economics in making choices about prevention of mental illness.

The ethics of drug research in children

The obligation of society to improve the welfare of its members requires the conduct of paediatric drug trials. Nevertheless, research activities must satisfy obligations to individual participants. The obligation to protect the welfare of children requires that nontherapeutic research procedures generally involve no more than minimal risk. It also requires that randomisation occurs only when the relative merits of therapeutic procedures remain unsettled among the relevant community of experts. The duty to respect the developing autonomy of children requires that they be included in decision-making about research participation in a manner consistent with the level of their decision-making capacity. However, when children lack mature decision-making capacities, the duty of parents to protect their welfare may properly constrain their choices. Justice requires that the benefits and burdens of research be distributed in a manner that assures equal opportunity for all children. Vulnerable children should receive special protection against the burdens of nontherapeutic research procedures. The benefits of participating in clinical trials should be available to all children with serious illnesses for which current treatment is unsatisfactory. Justice also requires that initiatives be undertaken to rectify current shortcomings in the scope of paediatric drug research. Striking an appropriate balance between obligations to conduct research and to protect the interests of participants is essential to the moral integrity of paediatric drug research.