The controlled clinical trial turns 100 years: Fibiger's trial of serum treatment of diphtheria

From Bacterial Poisons to Toxins: The Early Works of Pasteurians

We review some of the precursor works of the Pasteurians in the field of bacterial toxins. The word "toxin" was coined in 1888 by Ludwig Brieger to qualify different types of poison released by bacteria. Pasteur had identified the bacteria as the cause of putrefaction but never used the word toxin. In 1888, Émile Roux and Alexandre Yersin were the first to demonstrate that the bacteria causing diphtheria was releasing a deadly toxin. In 1923, Gaston Ramon treated that toxin with formalin and heat, resulting in the concept of "anatoxin" as a mean of vaccination. A similar approach was performed to obtain the tetanus anatoxin by Pierre Descombey, Christian Zoeller and G. Ramon. On his side, Elie Metchnikoff also studied the tetanus toxin and investigated the cholera toxin. His colleague from Odessa, Nikolaï GamaleÏa who was expected to join Institut Pasteur, wrote the first book on bacterial poisons while other Pasteurians such as Etienne Burnet, Maurice Nicolle, Emile Césari, and Constant Jouan wrote books on toxins. Concerning the endotoxins, Alexandre Besredka obtained the first immune antiserum against lipopolysaccharide, and André Boivin characterized the biochemical nature of the endotoxins in a work initiated with Lydia Mesrobeanu in Bucharest.

Cutaneous diphtheria complicated oncologic reconstruction surgery in osteosarcoma

Diphtheria is an uncommon bacterial infection of the upper respiratory tract. We described a surgical site infection in a young adolescent female on maintenance chemotherapy. Corynebacterium diphtheriae was recovered from the wound, and she was treated with antibiotics and antitoxin. Cutaneous diphtheria should be considered in immunocompromised patients receiving chemotherapy.

Efficacy and Safety of COVID-19 Convalescent Plasma in Hospitalized Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

There is clinical equipoise for COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) use in patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the safety and efficacy of CCP compared with placebo in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 receiving noninvasive supplemental oxygen.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

CONTAIN COVID-19, a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of CCP in hospitalized adults with COVID-19, was conducted at 21 US hospitals from April 17, 2020, to March 15, 2021. The trial enrolled 941 participants who were hospitalized for 3 or less days or presented 7 or less days after symptom onset and required noninvasive oxygen supplementation.

INTERVENTIONS

A unit of approximately 250 mL of CCP or equivalent volume of placebo (normal saline).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was participant scores on the 11-point World Health Organization (WHO) Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement on day 14 after randomization; the secondary outcome was WHO scores determined on day 28. Subgroups were analyzed with respect to age, baseline WHO score, concomitant medications, symptom duration, CCP SARS-CoV-2 titer, baseline SARS-CoV-2 serostatus, and enrollment quarter. Outcomes were analyzed using a bayesian proportional cumulative odds model. Efficacy of CCP was defined as a cumulative adjusted odds ratio (cOR) less than 1 and a clinically meaningful effect as cOR less than 0.8.

RESULTS

Of 941 participants randomized (473 to placebo and 468 to CCP), 556 were men (59.1%); median age was 63 years (IQR, 52-73); 373 (39.6%) were Hispanic and 132 (14.0%) were non-Hispanic Black. The cOR for the primary outcome adjusted for site, baseline risk, WHO score, age, sex, and symptom duration was 0.94 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.75-1.18) with posterior probability (P[cOR<1] = 72%); the cOR for the secondary adjusted outcome was 0.92 (95% CrI, 0.74-1.16; P[cOR<1] = 76%). Exploratory subgroup analyses suggested heterogeneity of treatment effect: at day 28, cORs were 0.72 (95% CrI, 0.46-1.13; P[cOR<1] = 93%) for participants enrolled in April-June 2020 and 0.65 (95% CrI, 0.41 to 1.02; P[cOR<1] = 97%) for those not receiving remdesivir and not receiving corticosteroids at randomization. Median CCP SARS-CoV-2 neutralizing titer used in April to June 2020 was 1:175 (IQR, 76-379). Any adverse events (excluding transfusion reactions) were reported for 39 (8.2%) placebo recipients and 44 (9.4%) CCP recipients (P = .57). Transfusion reactions occurred in 2 (0.4) placebo recipients and 8 (1.7) CCP recipients (P = .06).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this trial, CCP did not meet the prespecified primary and secondary outcomes for CCP efficacy. However, high-titer CCP may have benefited participants early in the pandemic when remdesivir and corticosteroids were not in use.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364737.

Errors in the implementation, analysis, and reporting of randomization within obesity and nutrition research: a guide to their avoidance

Randomization is an important tool used to establish causal inferences in studies designed to further our understanding of questions related to obesity and nutrition. To take advantage of the inferences afforded by randomization, scientific standards must be upheld during the planning, execution, analysis, and reporting of such studies. We discuss ten errors in randomized experiments from real-world examples from the literature and outline best practices for their avoidance. These ten errors include: representing nonrandom allocation as random, failing to adequately conceal allocation, not accounting for changing allocation ratios, replacing subjects in nonrandom ways, failing to account for non-independence, drawing inferences by comparing statistical significance from within-group comparisons instead of between-groups, pooling data and breaking the randomized design, failing to account for missing data, failing to report sufficient information to understand study methods, and failing to frame the causal question as testing the randomized assignment per se. We hope that these examples will aid researchers, reviewers, journal editors, and other readers to endeavor to a high standard of scientific rigor in randomized experiments within obesity and nutrition research.

The Assessment of Convalescent Plasma Efficacy against COVID-19

Antibody-based therapy for infectious diseases predates modern antibiotics and, in the absence of other therapeutic options, was deployed early in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic through COVID-19 convalescent plasma (CCP) administration. Although most studies have demonstrated signals of efficacy for CCP, definitive assessment has proved difficult under pandemic conditions, with rapid changes in disease incidence and the knowledge base complicating the design and implementation of randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, evidence from a variety of studies demonstrates that CCP is as safe as ordinary plasma and strongly suggests that it can reduce mortality if given early and with sufficient antibody content.

Placebo, a historical perspective

Substances and interventions with no specific therapeutic effect have been in use since the dawn of history. The term placebo has first been mentioned in the Scriptures, but it was not until the 19th century that it appeared in a medical context. Although lay people like Voltaire, and physicians such as Sir William Osler, have raised the possibility that much of what physicians did had no specific therapeutic effect, this notion was not shared by the public at large or by the medical profession. It was only by the end of the 18th century that a placebo-controlled trial has been conducted, repudiating the therapeutic effect of mesmerism. The advent, in the late 1940s, of effective treatments, which also had serious adverse effects, made the distinction between placebo and putative, active drug effects more relevant and urgent, and cleared the way for double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials. This in turn triggered an ethical debate on the use of placebo, both in research and in clinical practice. Anthropologists, sociologists, physiologists, and medical researchers are all focusing their efforts on understanding the mechanism, role and modulating factors of placebo.

Hepato-biliary clinical trials and their inclusion in the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group register and reviews

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (CHBG) is one of the 52 collaborative review groups within The Cochrane Collaboration. The activities of the CHBG focus on collecting hepato-biliary randomized clinical trials (RCT) and controlled clinical trials (CCT), and including them in systematic reviews with meta-analyses of the trials. In this overview, we present the growth of The CHBG Controlled Trials Register, as well as the systematic reviews that have been produced since March 1996.

RESULTS

The CHBG register includes almost 11,000 RCT and 700 CCT publications. The earliest RCT in the register were published in 1955, and the earliest CCT in 1945. From 1945 to 1980, there were less than 100 publications each year. From 1981 to 1997, their number increased from over 100 to 600 a year. After 1997, the number of publications seems to have been decreasing. The CHBG has published 199 protocols for systematic reviews and 107 systematic reviews through to August 2009 in which 21% of the RCT and CCT were included. The CHBG reviews have been cited approximately 1200 times.

CONCLUSIONS

A large amount of work has been carried out since 1996. However, there is still much to do, as the CHBG register contains a great number of RCT and CCT on topics that have not yet been systematically reviewed.

Diphtheria

Diphtheria is a contagious upper respiratory illness that was a major cause of childhood mortality in the prevaccine era. In the early twentieth century, an effective toxoid vaccine was developed. Implementation of childhood vaccination virtually eliminated diphtheria from developed countries after the Second World War and implementation of the Expanded Program on Immunization in developing countries led to rapid declines in diphtheria globally in the 1980s. However, in the 1990s, a massive epidemic of diphtheria spread throughout the countries of the former Soviet Union. Unlike the prevaccine era, most cases of severe disease and deaths were reported among adults. Multiple factors contributed to the epidemic, including increased susceptibility among both adults and children; suboptimal socioeconomic conditions; high population movement; and delay in implementing appropriate control measures. Mass immunization was the key element in the epidemic control strategy developed and implemented in a well-coordinated response by an international public health coalition. This strategy focused on rapidly raising population immunity of both adults and children; the immunization of more than 140,000,000 adults and adolescents and millions of children successfully controlled the epidemic. While improved coverage of children in developing countries with diphtheria toxoid has led to progressive decreases in diphtheria; eradication is unlikely in the foreseeable future and gaps in immunity among adult population exist or are developing in many other countries. Routine childhood immunization with diphtheria toxoid is the key to controlling diphtheria while the role of routine adult reimmunization is less established; mass immunization will remain an important control measure for widespread diphtheria outbreaks.

A review of the true methodological quality of nutritional support trials conducted in the critically ill: time for improvement

In this review we sought to appraise the true methodological quality of nutritional support studies conducted in critically ill patients and to compare these findings to the methodological quality of sepsis trials. An extensive literature search revealed 111 randomized controlled trials conducted in critically ill patients evaluating the impact of nutritional support interventions on clinically meaningful outcomes. Compared with sepsis trials, nutritional support studies were significantly less likely to use blinding (32 of 40 versus 35 of 111, P < 0.001) or present an intention-to-treat analysis (37 of 40 versus 64 of 111, P < 0.001). There was a trend toward the less frequent use of randomization methods that are known to maintain allocation concealment (12 of 40 versus 19 of 111, P = 0.10). Although nutritional support studies demonstrated a significant increase in the use of blinding after the publication of the CONSORT statement in 1996 (9 of 47 versus 26 of 64 post-CONSORT, P = 0.023), there were no improvements in other key areas. Previous publications have described the overall methodological quality of sepsis trials as "poor." Nutritional support studies were significantly worse than sepsis trials in all aspects of methodological quality, and there were few improvements noted over time. To detect important differences in clinically meaningful outcomes in critical care, the methodological quality of future studies must be improved.

Randomized trials and public health interventions: time to end the scientific double standard

Randomized controlled trials have become the acceptedstandard for testing the efficacy and safety of clinical treatments but are rarely used in evaluating public health interventions. This article reviews the types of interventions and outcomes for which randomized trials are necessary to provide a scientifically rigorous evaluation. It also presents the results from two trials analyzed both experimentally and observationally to illustrate why observational studies can yield highly biased findings. This article provides a brief historical account of controlled human experiments, which reveals a surprising earlier tradition of rigorous experimental studies in the social sciences. After contrasting that tradition with the status quo, this article concludes with a plea to reject the double scientific standard of what constitutes acceptable evidence of efficacy for clinical versus public health interventions.

An epidemiologist at work: the personal papers of Sir Richard Doll

Images

Comparing like with like: some historical milestones in the evolution of methods to create unbiased comparison groups in therapeutic experiments

Histories of clinical trials have recorded and analysed the development of quantification in therapeutic evaluation, the emergence of probabilistic thinking, the application of statistical methods and theory, and the sociology, ethics and politics of clinical trials; but it is surprising that they only rarely identify as a distinct theme the development of efforts to control biases. An exception is Kaptchuk's recent account of the history of blinding and placebos for reducing observer biases. In this complementary paper I introduce and discuss some milestones between 1662 and 1948 in the development of methods to control selection biases when assembling therapeutic comparison groups, to ensure, as far as possible, that 'like is compared with like'. In the paper I note (i) that treatment allocation based on strict alternation abolishes selection bias as effectively as treatment allocation based on strict random allocation; (ii) that use of schedules based on random numbers is more likely to prevent foreknowledge of allocation schedules, and thus the risk of introducing selection bias at the point of recruitment to trials; (iii) that a concern to conceal allocation schedules was the rationale for using schedules based on random numbers in the Medical Research Council trials of vaccination for whooping cough and streptomycin for pulmonary tuberculosis; and (iv) that the introduction of allocation concealment more than half a century ago remains the most recent substantive milestone in the history of efforts to control selection biases in therapeutic experiments.

Somebody else's antibodies: the characteristics and roles of immune globulins

CREDIT: This lesson is good for 0.2 CE units, with a passing grade of 70%.

OBJECTIVES

After completing this continuing education article, the pharmacist will be able to: 1. Compare and contrast active vs. passive immunity and homologous vs. heterogenous antibodies. 2. Describe the historical development and modern manufacture of immune globulins. 3. Identify the wide range of uses and effects of modern immune globulin products. 4. Discuss the adverse effect profiles of currently available immune globulins.

A brief history of the randomized controlled trial. From oranges and lemons to the gold standard

This article discusses the history and development of randomized clinical trial methodology, the reasons for its status and authority as a method of therapeutic evaluation, and the continuing role of clinical judgement in designing, interpreting, and applying the findings of trials.