Equipoise, design bias, and randomized controlled trials: the elusive ethics of new drug development

COBALT: A Confirmatory Trial of Obeticholic Acid in Primary Biliary Cholangitis With Placebo and External Controls

INTRODUCTION

Obeticholic acid (OCA) treatment for primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) was conditionally approved in the phase 3 POISE trial. The COBALT confirmatory trial assessed whether clinical outcomes in patients with PBC improve with OCA therapy.

METHODS

Patients randomized to OCA (5-10 mg) were compared with placebo (randomized controlled trial [RCT]) or external control (EC). The primary composite endpoint was time to death, liver transplant, model for end-stage liver disease score ≥15, uncontrolled ascites, or hospitalization for hepatic decompensation. A prespecified propensity score-weighted EC group was derived from a US healthcare claims database.

RESULTS

In the RCT, the primary endpoint occurred in 28.6% of OCA (n = 168) and 28.9% of placebo patients (n = 166; intent-to-treat analysis hazard ratio [HR] = 1.01, 95% confidence interval = 0.68-1.51), but functional unblinding and crossover to commercial therapy occurred, especially in the placebo arm. Correcting for these using inverse probability of censoring weighting and as-treated analyses shifted the HR to favor OCA. In the EC (n = 1,051), the weighted primary endpoint occurred in 10.1% of OCA and 21.5% of non-OCA patients (HR = 0.39; 95% confidence interval = 0.22-0.69; P = 0.001). No new safety signals were identified in the RCT.

DISCUSSION

Functional unblinding and treatment crossover, particularly in the placebo arm, confounded the intent-to-treat estimate of outcomes associated with OCA in the RCT. Comparison with the real-world EC showed that OCA treatment significantly reduced the risk of negative clinical outcomes. These analyses demonstrate the value of EC data in confirmatory trials and suggest that treatment with OCA improves clinical outcomes in patients with PBC.

Clinical Equipoise in the Management of Patients With Femoroacetabular Impingement Syndrome and Concomitant Tönnis Grade 2 Hip Osteoarthritis or Greater: An International Expert-Panel Delphi Study

PURPOSE

To gather global-expert opinion on the management of patients with femoroacetabular impingement syndrome (FAIS) and Tönnis grade 2 hip osteoarthritis (OA) or greater.

METHODS

An internet-based modified Delphi methodology was used via an online platform (Online Surveys) using the CREDES (Conducting and Reporting Delphi Studies) guidelines. The expert panel comprised 27 members from 18 countries: 21 orthopaedic surgeons (78%), 5 physiotherapists (18%), and 1 dual orthopaedic surgeon-sport and exercise medicine physician (4%). Comments and suggestions were collected during each round, and amendments were performed for the subsequent round. Between each pair of rounds, the steering panel provided the experts with a summary of results and amendments. Consensus was set a priori as minimum agreement of 80%.

RESULTS

Complete participation (100%) was achieved in all 4 rounds. A final list of 10 consensus statements was formulated. The experts agreed that there is no single superior management strategy for FAIS with Tönnis grade 2 OA and that Tönnis grade 3 OA and the presence of bilateral cartilage defects (acetabular and femoral) is a contraindication for hip preservation surgery. Nonoperative management should include activity modification and physiotherapy with hip-specific strengthening, lumbo-pelvic mobility training, and core strengthening. There was no consensus on the need for 3-dimensional imaging for initial quantification of joint degeneration.

CONCLUSIONS

There is clinical equipoise in terms of the best management strategy for patients with FAIS and Tönnis grade 2 OA, and therefore, there is an urgent need to perform a randomized controlled trial for this cohort of patients to ascertian the best management strategy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V, expert opinion.

Challenging the Concept of Statistical Fragility: Is There Any Value Added?

ABSTRACT

Today, well-designed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the pinnacle of clinical research, and they inform many practices in orthopaedics. When designing these studies, researchers conduct a power analysis, which allows researchers to strike a balance between (1) enrolling enough patients to detect a clinically important treatment effect (i.e., researchers can be confident that the effect is unlikely due to chance) and (2) cost, time, and risk to patients, which come with enrolling an excessive number of patients. Because researchers will have a desire to conduct resource-efficient RCTs and protect patients from harm, many studies report a p value that is close to the threshold for significance. The concept of the fragility index (FI) was introduced as a simple way to interpret RCT findings, but it does not account for RCT design. The adoption of the FI conflicts with researchers' goals of designing efficient RCTs that conserve resources and limit ineffective or harmful treatments to patients. The use of the FI may reflect many clinicians' lack of familiarity with interpreting p values beyond "significant" or "nonsignificant." Instead of inventing new metrics to convey the same information provided by the p value, greater emphasis should be placed on educating clinicians on how to interpret p values and, more broadly, statistics, when reading scientific studies.

Drug Promotions Between Ethics, Regulations, and Financial Interests

BACKGROUND

The promotion of the latest medicines produced by the pharmaceutical industry is an important issue both from an ethical point of view (the level of accessibility, the way research is carried out) and from the point of view of marketing and especially from the lobbying issues raised.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

The ethical dilemmas raised by the promotion of new drugs revolve between the need to discover new molecules important for treating a wide range of diseases and the need to establish a battery of ethical rules, absolutely necessary for regulations in the field to be compliant with all ethical principles.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted through PubMed, MEDLINE, Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science (2015-2023) using combinations of keywords, including drugs, medical publicity, and pharma marketing plus ethical dilemma.

ETHICS AND THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

The promotion of medicines is governed by advertising laws and regulations in many countries, including at EU level, based on the need for countries to ensure that the promotion and advertising of medicines is truthful, based on information understood by consumers. The ethical analysis of the issues raised is more necessary and complex as the channels used for promotion are more accessible to the population, and the information, easier to obtain, can be the cause of increased self-medication and overeating. Large amounts of money invested in the development of new molecules, but also the risk of scientific fraud through manipulation of data during clinical trials, selective or biased publication of information can have repercussions on the health of the population.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of new pharmaceutical molecules is necessary to intervene and treat as many conditions as possible, but marketing must not neglect the observance of ethical principles. The promotion of medicines should be the attribute especially of the medical staff, which should also be a mandatory part of the mechanism for approving the marketing methods and means used by the pharmaceutical companies.

Accuracy of Financial Disclosures in US-Based Rheumatology Journals

OBJECTIVE

Transparency of disclosure in publication is necessary for readers to be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (PCOIs). Past studies of accuracy of disclosure in rheumatology journals have focused exclusively on clinical practice guidelines and not research works. We assessed discrepancy in reporting PCOIs in clinically oriented manuscripts published in the three top-ranked (by impact factor) US-based general rheumatology journals.

METHODS

We reviewed disclosures provided by first, second, and last authors of 50 published clinically oriented articles in each of the three top-ranked general US rheumatology journals. For each author, we extracted payment reports from the Open Payments Database (OPD) related to consulting fees, honoraria, and speaker or faculty compensation. We defined a PCOI as a payment received from a company with an ongoing clinical trial or a medication on the market related to the manuscript's subject matter within the 36 months before the online publication date. We additionally analyzed each author individually to determine whether their reported disclosures matched PCOIs from the OPD.

RESULTS

Of 150 articles analyzed, 101 included authors with PCOIs. Ninety-two of these 101 publications (92%) contained inaccurate (non- or under-) disclosures. Among 135 authors with PCOIs, 118 reported inaccurately (87%). All 14 articles that published clinical trial results (and all 23 of their qualifying authors) had disclosure inaccuracies.

CONCLUSION

Inaccurate financial disclosure by authors remains an issue in clinically oriented research studies reported in top rheumatology journals. Improved community education and firmer expectations would permit readers to better assess any possible impact of PCOIs on publications.

Evaluating consensus and uncertainty among treatment options for early-onset scoliosis: new generation and international perspectives

PURPOSE

It is currently unknown how treatment preferences differ between a senior group of U.S. spinal surgeons, a new generation of U.S. surgeons, and non-U.S. surgeons with regard to the treatment of early-onset scoliosis (EOS). The purpose of this study was to evaluate clinical consensus and uncertainty among treatment options for patients with EOS to understand how they compare between these three cohorts.

METHODS

11 senior pediatric spinal deformity surgeons in the U.S., 12 "junior" surgeons in the U.S., and 7 surgeons practicing in non-U.S. countries were invited to complete a survey of 315 idiopathic and neuromuscular EOS case scenarios. Treatment options included: conservative management, distraction-based methods, growth guidance/modulation, and arthrodesis. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement, and uncertainty was < 70%. Chi-squared and multiple regression analyses were performed to evaluate the associations between case characteristics and consensus for different treatments.

RESULTS

Although all 3 cohorts of surgeons chose conservative management most frequently, the non-U.S. cohort of surgeons chose distraction-based methods more often, particularly for neuromuscular cases. In both U.S. surgeon cohorts, there was consensus for conservative management in idiopathic patients aged 3 or younger regardless of other factors, whereas non-U.S. surgeons selected distraction-based methods for some of these patients.

CONCLUSION

Just as research studies are being conducted to find approaches to optimally manage the EOS population, future research efforts should focus on identifying the reasoning behind treatment preferences in different cohort of surgeons, as this will allow the interexchange of information which can ultimately improve EOS care.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

V.

A Systematic Appraisal of Conflicts of Interest and Researcher Allegiance in Clinical Studies of Dry Needling for Musculoskeletal Pain Disorders

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the frequency and methods of conflicts of interest (COI) reporting in published dry needling (DN) studies and to determine the frequency of researcher allegiance (RA).

METHODS

A pragmatic systematic search was undertaken to identify DN studies that were included in systematic reviews. Information regarding COI and RA were extracted from the full text of the published DN reports, and study authors were sent a survey inquiring about the presence of RA. A secondary analysis also was undertaken based on study quality/risk of bias scores that were extracted from the corresponding systematic reviews and study funding extracted from each DN study.

RESULTS

Sixteen systematic reviews were identified, containing 60 studies of DN for musculoskeletal pain disorders, 58 of which were randomized controlled trials. Of the DN studies, 53% had a COI statement. None of these studies disclosed a COI. Nineteen (32%) authors of DN studies responded to the survey. According to the RA survey, 100% of DN studies included at least 1 RA criterion. According to the data extraction, 1 RA criterion was met in 45% of the DN studies. The magnitude of RA per study was 7 times higher according to the surveys than in the published reports.

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that COI and RA might be underreported in studies of DN. In addition, authors of DN studies might be unaware of the potential influence of RA on study results and conclusions.

IMPACT

Improved reporting of COI/RA might improve credibility of results and help identify the various factors involved in complex interventions provided by physical therapists. Doing so could help optimize treatments for musculoskeletal pain disorders provided by physical therapists.

Research in Perioperative Care of the Cancer Patient: Opportunities and Challenges

The theory that the perioperative period is critical for oncological outcomes has been a matter of extensive preclinical and clinical research. Basic science research strongly supports the notion that surgical stress, anesthetics, and analgesics influence the mechanisms of cancer progression. Hence, it is hypothesized that perioperative interventions that impact mechanisms or predictors of tumor progression can also affect patients' survival. As a result of that hypothesis, clinical researchers have conducted many retrospective studies. However, much fewer randomized controlled trials have been performed to investigate whether surgery itself (minimally invasive versus open procedures), anesthetics (volatile anesthetics versus propofol-based anesthesia), analgesics (opioids versus opioid-free anesthesia), and blood transfusions (transfusions versus no transfusions) modify the survival of patients with cancer. Unfortunately, randomized controlled trials have failed to translate the preclinical results into clinical outcomes. In this review, I will highlight the challenges of translating basic science to clinical outcomes. We will also point out opportunities for future research.

Re-evaluating consensus and uncertainty among treatment options for early onset scoliosis: a 10-year update

PURPOSE

Consensus and uncertainty in early onset scoliosis (EOS) treatment were evaluated in 2010. It is currently unknown how treatment preferences have evolved over the past decade. The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate consensus and uncertainty among treatment options for EOS patients to understand how they compare to 10 years ago.

METHODS

11 pediatric spinal surgeons (similar participants as in 2010) were invited to complete a survey of 315 idiopathic and neuromuscular EOS cases (same cases as in 2010). Treatment options included the following: conservative management, distraction-based methods, growth guidance/modulation, and arthrodesis. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement, and uncertainty was < 70%. Associations between case characteristics and consensus for treatments were assessed via chi-squared and multiple regression analyses. Case characteristics associated with uncertainty were described.

RESULTS

Eleven surgeons [31.7 ± 7.8 years of experience] in the original 2010 cohort completed the survey. Consensus for conservative management was found in idiopathic patients aged ≤ 3, whereas in 2010, some of these cases were selected for surgery. There is currently consensus for casting idiopathic patients aged 1 or 2 with moderate curves, whereas in 2010, there was uncertainty between casting and bracing. Among neuromuscular cases with consensus for surgery, arthrodesis was chosen for patients aged 9 with larger curves.

CONCLUSION

Presently, preferences for conservative management have increased in comparison to 2010, and casting appears to be preferred over bracing in select infantile cases. Future research efforts with higher levels-of-evidence should be devoted to elucidate the areas of uncertainty to improve care in the EOS population.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level V.

The Randomised Controlled Trial at the Intersection of Research Ethics and Innovation

The randomised controlled trial (RCT) has been considered for a long time as the gold standard for evidence generation to support regulatory decision making for medicines. The randomisation procedure involves an ethical dilemma since it means leaving the treatment choice to chance. Although currently contested, the ethical justification for the RCT that has gained widespread acceptance is the notion of 'clinical equipoise'. This state exists when "there is no consensus within the expert clinical community about the comparative merits of the alternatives to be tested"; it is argued that this confers the ethical grounds for the conduct of an RCT. The prominent position of the RCT is being challenged by new therapeutic modalities for which this study design may be unsuitable. Moreover, alternative approaches to evidence generation represent another area where innovation may have implications for the relevance of the RCT. Against the backdrop of the debate around the equipoise principle and some recent therapeutic and data analytical innovations, the aim of this article is to explore the current standing of the RCT from a regulatory perspective.

Evaluation of placebo fidelity and trial design methodology in placebo-controlled surgical trials of musculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review

ABSTRACT

The number of placebo surgical trials on musculoskeletal conditions is increasing, but little is known about the quality of their design and methods. This review aimed to (1) assess the level of placebo fidelity (ie, degree to which the placebo control mimicked the index procedure) in placebo trials of musculoskeletal surgery, (2) describe the trials' methodological features using the adapted Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) checklist, and (3) describe each trial's characteristics. We searched 4 electronic databases from inception until February 18, 2021, for randomised trials of surgery that included a placebo control for any musculoskeletal condition. Protocols and full text were used to assess placebo fidelity (categorised as minimal, low, or high fidelity). The adapted 26-item ASPIRE checklist was also completed on each trial. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021202131. A total of 30,697 studies were identified in the search, and 22 placebo-controlled surgical trials of 2045 patients included. Thirteen trials (59%) included a high-fidelity placebo control, 7 (32%) used low fidelity, and 2 (9%) minimal fidelity. According to the ASPIRE checklist, included trials had good reporting of the "rationale and ethics" (68% overall) and "design" sections (42%), but few provided enough information on the "conduct" (13%) and "interpretation and translation" (11%) of the placebo trials. Most trials sufficiently reported their rationale and ethics, but interpretation and translation are areas for improvement, including greater stakeholder involvement. Most trials used a high-fidelity placebo procedure suggesting an emphasis on blinding and controlling for nonspecific effects.

Towards ethical good practice in cash transfer trials and their evaluation

Over the past 20 years, cash transfers have become increasingly widespread within international development and global social policy. Often, their roll out is preceded by a trial or pilot phase aiming to check feasibility and effectiveness. These pilots can involve thousands of people. However, there is limited discussion within the literature (and even less in practice) of how and whether cash transfer trials and the research that they involve can respect ethical standards. This paper represents an initial step towards filling that gap. It does so by reviewing the latest literature pertaining to the ethics of cash transfers and social experimentation. It concludes by advancing a series of proposals that could support cash transfer trials to take place with greater respect for research ethics norms and in the best interests of participants. The paper's findings have relevance for policymakers and development practitioners working with cash transfers and also for the smaller cognate world of Unconditional Basic Income (UBI) piloting.

The Impact of Industry Funding on Randomized Controlled Trials of Biologic Therapies

Background: There has been substantial interest from the pharmaceutical industry to study and develop new biologic agents. Previous studies outside of the biologics field have demonstrated that industry funding has the potential to impact the design and findings of clinical trials. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of industry funding on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of biologic therapies. Methods: A review of all RCTs involving biologic therapies in top impact factor medical journals from January 2018 to December 2020 was performed. The relationship between industry funding and the presence of statistically significant primary outcomes and the use of active comparators were analyzed. Results: Among the 157 RCTs included, 120 (76%) were industry funded and 37 (24%) declared no industry funding. Industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to report a statistically significant positive primary outcome compared to studies without industry funding (85% vs. 67%, χ² = 5.867, p = 0.015) and were significantly more likely to utilize placebo or no comparator than non-industry-funded trials (78% vs. 49%, χ² = 4.430, p = 0.035). Conclusions: Industry-funded trials investigating biologic therapies are more likely to yield statistically significant positive outcomes and use placebo comparators when compared to non-industry-funded biologic therapy trials in high-impact medical journals.

How aging of the global population is changing oncology

Population aging is causing a demographic redistribution with implications for the future of healthcare. How will this affect oncology? First, there will be an overall rise in cancer affecting older adults, even though age-specific cancer incidences continue to fall due to better prevention. Second, there will be a wider spectrum of health functionality in this expanding cohort of older adults, with differences between “physiologically older” and “physiologically younger” patients becoming more important for optimal treatment selection. Third, greater teamwork with supportive care, geriatric, mental health and rehabilitation experts will come to enrich oncologic decision-making by making it less formulaic than it is at present. Success in this transition to a more nuanced professional mindset will depend in part on the development of user-friendly computational tools that can integrate a complex mix of quantitative and qualitative inputs from evidence-based medicine, functional and cognitive assessments, and the personal priorities of older adults.

Dermatology and Randomized Control Trials

Well-designed and rigorously conducted randomized controlled trial (RCT) can produce most valid and precise scientific evidence. Any intervention, be it systemic or topical medicine, dermatology procedure needs to be tested for its efficacy in improving particular disease condition and RCT should come into mind of investigator. The biggest strength of RCT lies in two self-explanatory factors; they are randomized and controlled. Randomization of study subjects eliminates selection and confounding bias and controlling of study condition improves the internal and external validity of findings. "Blinding" eliminates assessment bias. If one starts a comparative study without stating proper hypothesis, he/she would end up collecting lots of data which does not make sense. PICOT format helps in formulating research question. Writing a detailed protocol based on hypothesis describing in detail methodology, sample size calculation, randomization method, and blinding procedure up to statistical analysis plan is very important step in planning of RCT. Trials registered prospectively contribute to transparency of the trial and are considered to reduce the publication bias by reducing selective publication of positive outcomes. Adverse events can occur at any time during conduct of an RCT and should be reported and kept track of. Physical injury resulting from clinical trial participation is entitled to financial compensation. During preparation of final manuscript of study, the CONSORT guidelines must be followed to improve the quality of reporting of RCTs. Clinical trials provide evidence-based approach in medicine and a designed and well-implemented trial can alter clinical dermatology practice for a healthier tomorrow.

Ethics and Industry Interactions: Impact on Specialty Training, Clinical Practice, and Research

Physicians in training and their mentors must be cognizant of ethical concerns related to industry interactions. Mentors perceived to have conflicts of interest or to be engaging in misconduct can unconsciously and profoundly affect the learning and academic environment by implying certain values and expectations. Despite increased awareness of ethical concerns related to industry interactions in clinical practice and research, there remains a need for interventions to prevent ethical transgressions. Ethics education is essential and a move in the right direction, but it alone is likely inadequate in preventing unethical behavior. Education should be supplemented with ethical environments at institutions.

Pragmatically Applied Cervical and Thoracic Nonthrust Manipulation Versus Thrust Manipulation for Patients With Mechanical Neck Pain: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

Study Design Randomized clinical trial. Background The comparative effectiveness between nonthrust manipulation (NTM) and thrust manipulation (TM) for mechanical neck pain has been investigated, with inconsistent results. Objective To compare the clinical effectiveness of concordant cervical and thoracic NTM and TM for patients with mechanical neck pain. Methods The Neck Disability Index (NDI) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), numeric pain-rating scale (NPRS), deep cervical flexion endurance (DCF), global rating of change (GROC), number of visits, and duration of care. The covariate was clinical equipoise for intervention. Outcomes were collected at baseline, visit 2, and discharge. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either NTM or TM directed at the cervical and thoracic spines. Techniques and dosages were selected pragmatically and applied to the most symptomatic level. Two-way mixed-model analyses of covariance were used to assess clinical outcomes at 3 time points. Analyses of covariance were used to assess between-group differences for the GROC, number of visits, and duration of care at discharge. Results One hundred three patients were included in the analyses (NTM, n = 55 and TM, n = 48). The between-group analyses revealed no differences in outcomes on the NDI (P = .67), PSFS (P = .26), NPRS (P = .25), DCF (P = .98), GROC (P = .77), number of visits (P = .21), and duration of care (P = .61) for patients with mechanical neck pain who received either NTM or TM. Conclusion NTM and TM produce equivalent outcomes for patients with mechanical neck pain. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02619500). Level of Evidence Therapy, level 1b. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(3):137-145. Epub 6 Feb 2018. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7738.

Randomized controlled trials - a matter of design

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the hallmark of evidence-based medicine and form the basis for translating research data into clinical practice. This review summarizes commonly applied designs and quality indicators of RCTs to provide guidance in interpreting and critically evaluating clinical research data. It further reflects on the principle of equipoise and its practical applicability to clinical science with an emphasis on critical care and neurological research. We performed a review of educational material, review articles, methodological studies, and published clinical trials using the databases MEDLINE, PubMed, and ClinicalTrials.gov. The most relevant recommendations regarding design, conduction, and reporting of RCTs may include the following: 1) clinically relevant end points should be defined a priori, and an unbiased analysis and report of the study results should be warranted, 2) both significant and nonsignificant results should be objectively reported and published, 3) structured study design and performance as indicated in the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement should be employed as well as registration in a public trial database, 4) potential conflicts of interest and funding sources should be disclaimed in study report or publication, and 5) in the comparison of experimental treatment with standard care, preplanned interim analyses during an ongoing RCT can aid in maintaining clinical equipoise by assessing benefit, harm, or futility, thus allowing decision on continuation or termination of the trial.

Metabolic syndrome and drug discontinuation in schizophrenia: a randomized trial comparing aripiprazole olanzapine and haloperidol

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether the prescription of aripiprazole, compared with olanzapine and haloperidol, was associated with a lower frequency of metabolic syndrome (MS) and treatment discontinuation at 1 year.

METHOD

Patients were randomly assigned to be treated open-label and according to usual clinical practice with either aripiprazole, olanzapine, or haloperidol and followed up for 1 year.

RESULTS

Three hundred out-patients with persistent schizophrenia were recruited in 35 mental health services. The intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis found no significant differences in the rate of MS between aripiprazole (37%), olanzapine (47%), and haloperidol (42%). Treatment discontinuation for any cause was higher for aripiprazole (52%) than for olanzapine (33%; OR, 0.41; P = 0.004), or haloperidol (37%; OR, 0.51; P = 0.030). No significant difference was found between olanzapine and haloperidol. Time to discontinuation for any cause was longer for olanzapine than for aripiprazole (HR, 0.55; P < 0.001). No significant differences were found between haloperidol and aripiprazole, or between olanzapine and haloperidol.

CONCLUSION

The prescription of aripiprazole did not significantly reduce the rates of MS, but its treatment retention was worse. Aripiprazole cannot be considered the safest and most effective drug for maintenance treatment of schizophrenia in routine care, although it may have a place in antipsychotic therapy.

Randomised trials in context: practical problems and social aspects of evidence-based medicine and policy

Randomised trials can provide excellent evidence of treatment benefit in medicine. Over the last 50 years, they have been cemented in the regulatory requirements for the approval of new treatments. Randomised trials make up a large and seemingly high-quality proportion of the medical evidence-base. However, it has also been acknowledged that a distorted evidence-base places a severe limitation on the practice of evidence-based medicine (EBM). We describe four important ways in which the evidence from randomised trials is limited or partial: the problem of applying results, the problem of bias in the conduct of randomised trials, the problem of conducting the wrong trials and the problem of conducting the right trials the wrong way. These problems are not intrinsic to the method of randomised trials or the EBM philosophy of evidence; nevertheless, they are genuine problems that undermine the evidence that randomised trials provide for decision-making and therefore undermine EBM in practice. Finally, we discuss the social dimensions of these problems and how they highlight the indispensable role of judgement when generating and using evidence for medicine. This is the paradox of randomised trial evidence: the trials open up expert judgment to scrutiny, but this scrutiny in turn requires further expertise.

Changes in medical students' exposure to and attitudes about drug company interactions from 2003 to 2012: a multi-institutional follow-up survey

PURPOSE

To ascertain whether changes occurred in medical student exposure to and attitudes about drug company interactions from 2003-2012, which factors influence exposure and attitudes, and whether exposure and attitudes influence future plans to interact with drug companies.

METHOD

In 2012, the authors surveyed 1,269 third-year students at eight U.S. medical schools. Items explored student exposure to, attitudes toward, and future plans regarding drug company interactions. The authors compared 2012 survey data with their 2003 survey data from third-year students at the same schools.

RESULTS

The 2012 response rate was 68.2% (866/1,269). Compared with 2003, in 2012, students were significantly less frequently exposed to interactions (1.6/month versus 4.1/month, P < .001), less likely to feel entitled to gifts (41.8% versus 80.3%, P < .001), and more apt to feel gifts could influence them (44.3% versus 31.2%, P < .001). In 2012, 545/839 students (65.0%) reported private outpatient offices were the main location of exposure to pharmaceutical representatives, despite spending only 18.4% of their clerkship-rotation time there. In 2012, 310/703 students (44.1%) were unaware their schools had rules restricting interactions, and 467/837 (55.8%) planned to interact with pharmaceutical representatives during residency.

CONCLUSIONS

Students in 2012 had less exposure to drug company interactions and were more likely to have skeptical attitudes than students in 2003. These changes are consistent with national organizations' recommendations to limit and teach about these interactions. Continued efforts to study and influence students' and physician role models' exposures to and attitudes about drug companies are warranted.

Randomised controlled trial of tumour necrosis factor inhibitors against combination intensive therapy with conventional disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in established rheumatoid arthritis: the TACIT trial and associated systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is initially treated with methotrexate and other disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). Active RA patients who fail such treatments can receive tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFis), which are effective but expensive.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed whether or not combination DMARDs (cDMARDs) give equivalent clinical benefits at lower costs in RA patients eligible for TNFis.

DESIGN

An open-label, 12-month, pragmatic, randomised, multicentre, two-arm trial [Tumour necrosis factor inhibitors Against Combination Intensive Therapy (TACIT)] compared these treatment strategies. We then systematically reviewed all comparable published trials.

SETTING

The TACIT trial involved 24 English rheumatology clinics.

PARTICIPANTS

Active RA patients eligible for TNFis.

INTERVENTIONS

The TACIT trial compared cDMARDs with TNFis plus methotrexate or another DMARD; 6-month non-responders received (a) TNFis if in the cDMARD group; and (b) a second TNFi if in the TNFi group.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The Heath Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) was the primary outcome measure. The European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions (EQ-5D), joint damage, Disease Activity Score for 28 Joints (DAS28), withdrawals and adverse effects were secondary outcome measures. Economic evaluation linked costs, HAQ changes and quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

In total, 432 patients were screened; 104 started on cDMARDs and 101 started on TNFis. The initial demographic and disease assessments were similar between the groups. In total, 16 patients were lost to follow-up (nine in the cDMARD group, seven in the TNFi group) and 42 discontinued their intervention but were followed up (23 in the cDMARD group and 19 in the TNFi group). Intention-to-treat analysis with multiple imputation methods used for missing data showed greater 12-month HAQ score reductions with initial cDMARDs than with initial TNFis [adjusted linear regression coefficient 0.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.003 to 0.31; p = 0.046]. Increases in 12-month EQ-5D scores were greater with initial cDMARDs (adjusted linear regression coefficient -0.11, 95% CI -0.18 to -0.03; p = 0.009) whereas 6-month changes in HAQ and EQ-5D scores and 6- and 12-month changes in joint damage were similar between the initial cDMARD group and the initial TNFi group. Longitudinal analyses (adjusted general estimating equations) showed that the DAS28 was lower in the initial TNFi group in the first 6 months (coefficient -0.63, 95% CI -0.93 to -0.34; p < 0.001) but there were no differences between the groups in months 6-12. In total, 36 patients in the initial cDMARD group and 44 in the initial TNFi group achieved DAS28 remission. The onset of remission did not differ between groups (p = 0.085 on log-rank test). In total, 10 patients in the initial cDMARD group and 18 in the initial TNFi group experienced serious adverse events; stopping therapy because of toxicity occurred in 10 and six patients respectively. Economic evaluation showed that the cDMARD group had similar or better QALY outcomes than TNFi with significantly lower costs at 6 and 12 months. In the systematic reviews we identified 32 trials (including 20-1049 patients) on early RA and 19 trials (including 40-982 patients) on established RA that compared (1) cDMARDs with DMARD monotherapy; (2) TNFis/methotrexate with methotrexate monotherapy; and (3) cDMARDs with TNFis/methotrexate. They showed that cDMARDs and TNFis had similar efficacies and toxicities.

CONCLUSIONS

Active RA patients who have failed methotrexate and another DMARD achieve equivalent clinical benefits at a lower cost from starting cDMARDs or from starting TNFis (reserving TNFis for non-responders). Only a minority of patients achieve sustained remission with cDMARDs or TNFis; new strategies are needed to maximise the frequency of remission.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Current Control Trials ISRCTN37438295.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 18, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

OARSI Clinical Trials Recommendations: Design and conduct of clinical trials of surgical interventions for osteoarthritis

To highlight methodological challenges in the design and conduct of randomized trials of surgical interventions and to propose strategies for addressing these challenges. This paper focuses on three broad areas: enrollment; intervention; and assessment including implications for analysis. For each challenge raised in the paper, we propose potential solutions. Enrollment poses challenges in maintaining investigator equipoise, managing conflict of interest and anticipating that patient preferences for specific treatments may reduce enrollment. Intervention design and implementation pose challenges relating to obsolescence, fidelity of intervention delivery, and adherence and crossover. Assessment and analysis raise questions regarding blinding and clustering of observations. This paper describes methodological problems in the design and conduct of surgical randomized trials and proposes strategies for addressing these challenges.

Evidence-based surgery: The obstacles and solutions

Surgeons are often accused of lagging behind their medical colleagues in embracing evidence based medicine and utilizing new research tools to conducting high quality randomized controlled trials. Although there has been a noticeable improvement in the quantity and quality of high quality studies in surgical journals, the widespread practice of evidence based surgery is still poor. Unlike evidence based medicine, the practice of evidence based surgery is hampered by inherent problems and obstacles. This article reviews these difficulties and the limitations of randomized controlled trials in surgical practice. It also outlines some solutions that may help remedy this ongoing problem.

Effects of persisting emotional impact from child abuse and norepinephrine transporter genetic variation on antidepressant efficacy in major depression: a pilot study

Objective

Previous studies suggest child abuse and serotonergic polymorphism influence depression susceptibility and anti-depressant efficacy. Polymorphisms of the norepinephrine transporter (NET) may also be involved. Research in the area is possibly clouded by under reporting of abuse in researcher trials.

Methods

Adults (n=51) with major depressive disorder has 8 weeks treatment with escitalopram or venlafaxine. Abuse history was obtained, the ongoing emotional impact of which was measured with the 15-item impact of event scale (IES-15). The 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) was applied serially. Two NET polymorphisms (rs2242446 and rs5569) were assayed, blinded to HDRS ratings and abuse history.

Results

No subjects reporting abuse with high impact in adulthood (IES-15 ≥26, n=12) remitted; whereas 77% reporting low impact (IES-15 <26; n=26) remitted (p<0.001). Subjects reporting high impact abuse (n=12) had a 50-fold (95% confidence interval=4.85–514.6) greater odds of carrying rs2242446-TT genotype, but the small sample size leaves this finding vulnerable to type I error.

Conclusion

The level of persisting impact of child abuse appears relevant to antidepressant efficacy, with susceptibility to such possibly being influence by NET rs2242446 polymorphism. Larger studies may be merited to expand on this pilot level finding given potential for biomarker utility.

Unbalanced rather than balanced randomized controlled trials are more often positive in favor of the new treatment: an exposed and nonexposed study

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to assess whether the clinical equipoise principle is satisfied in unbalanced randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (i.e., with an unequal probability of subjects being allocated to one group than another).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Observational and comparative study between unbalanced and balanced RCTs. We searched the "core clinical journals" of MEDLINE to identify reports of two-parallel group superiority unbalanced RCTs published between January 2009 and December 2010. For each unbalanced RCT, we identified a maximum of four reports (to maximize power) of matched balanced RCTs dealing with the same population. Our primary outcome was the proportion of positive RCTs [i.e., with statistically significant results for the primary outcome (P < 0.05), showing greater efficacy with the new treatment than the control treatment].

RESULTS

We selected 46 reports of unbalanced RCTs and 164 of balanced RCTs; 65.2% unbalanced RCTs and 43.9% of balanced RCTs were positive (odds ratio, 2.38; 95% confidence interval: 1.23, 4.63). As compared with balanced RCTs, unbalanced RCTs were more often industry funded and their control treatments were more often inactive. Adjusting for these latter variables did not modify the results.

CONCLUSION

This result questions the respect of clinical equipoise in unbalanced RCTs.

Are sample sizes of randomized clinical trials in rheumatoid arthritis too large?

OBJECTIVE

We had the impression that randomized clinical trials (RCTs) frequently over enrolled patients. Thus, we surveyed power calculations in publications of RCTs of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) to assess over enrollment.

METHODS

A PubMed search identified 40 reports of original RCTs testing the efficacy of infliximab, etanercept, adalimumab, abatacept, rituximab and tocilizumab in patients with RA. As a first analysis, based on a two equal arms study with an alpha error of 0·05 and a power of 80% and of 90%, recalculation of the sample size was performed using the primary outcome results. In the second analysis, only those studies with equal number of patients in both arms and also in which all elements of a power calculation were given, were considered. New sample sizes were calculated based on the presented power elements in the related publications.

RESULTS

In the first analysis, when we assigned a power of 80% and of 90%, 32 of 40 (80%) studies enrolled more than required number of patients, with a mean 131 ± 147 (SD), and 31 of 40 (78%) studies having had enrolled extra patients, with a mean 121 ± 147 (SD) in their treatment arms, respectively. Eleven studies qualified for the second analysis. There were still more patients with a mean of 48 ± 30 (SD) extra patients enrolled in the treatment arms.

CONCLUSION

Most RCTs in RA enrol more patients than needed. This is costly and has the immediate consequence of exposing needless number of patients to potential harm.

More ethical and more efficient clinical research: multiplex trial design

Background

Today’s clinical research faces challenges such as a lack of clinical equipoise between treatment arms, reluctance in randomizing for multiple treatments simultaneously, inability to address interactions and increasingly restricted resources. Furthermore, many trials are biased by extensive exclusion criteria, relatively small sample size and less appropriate outcome measures.

Findings

We propose a ‘Multiplex’ trial design that preserves clinical equipoise with a continuous and factorial trial design that will also result in more efficient use of resources. This multiplex design accommodates subtrials with appropriate choice of treatment arms within each subtrial. Clinical equipoise should increase consent rates while the factorial design is the best way to identify interactions.

Conclusion

The multiplex design may evolve naturally from today’s research limitations and challenges, while principal objections seem absent. However this new design poses important infrastructural, organisational and psychological challenges that need in depth consideration.

The effect of funding sources on donepezil randomised controlled trial outcome: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether there is a difference in the treatment effect of donepezil on cognition in Alzheimer disease between industry-funded and independent randomised controlled trials.

DESIGN

Fixed effects meta-analysis of standardised effects of donepezil on cognition as measured by the Mini Mental State Examination and the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-cognitive subscale.

DATA SOURCES

Studies included in the meta-analyses reported in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) technical appraisal 217 updated with new studies through a PubMed search.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Inclusion criteria were double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of any length comparing patients diagnosed with probable Alzheimer disease (according to the NINCDS-ADRDA/DSM-III/IV criteria) taking any dosage of donepezil. Studies of combination therapies (eg, donepezil and memantine) were excluded, as were studies that enrolled patients with a diagnosis of Alzheimer disease associated with other disorders (eg, Parkinson's disease and Down's syndrome).

RESULTS

Our search strategy identified 14 relevant trials (4 independent) with suitable data. Trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies reported a larger effect of donepezil on standardised cognitive tests than trials published by independent research groups (standardised mean difference (SMD)=0.46, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.55 vs SMD=0.33, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.48, respectively). This difference remained when only data representing change up to 12 weeks from baseline were analysed (industry SMD=0.44, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.53 vs independent SMD=0.35, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.52). Analysis revealed that the effect of funding as a moderator variable of study heterogeneity was not statistically significant at either time point.

CONCLUSIONS

The effect size of donepezil on cognition is larger in industry-funded than independent trials and this is not explained by the longer duration of industry-funded trials. The lack of a statistically significant moderator effect may indicate that the differences are due to chance, but may also result from lack of power.

Evaluating the extent of clinical uncertainty among treatment options for patients with early-onset scoliosis

BACKGROUND

Literature guiding the management of early-onset scoliosis consists primarily of studies with a low level of evidence. Evaluation of clinical equipoise (i.e., when there is no known superiority among treatment modalities) allows for prioritization of research efforts. The objective of this study was to evaluate areas of clinical uncertainty among pediatric spine surgeons regarding the treatment of early-onset scoliosis.

METHODS

Fourteen experienced pediatric spine surgeons participated in semistructured interviews to identify clinical variables that influence decision making in the treatment of early-onset scoliosis. A series of case scenarios of 315 patients with idiopathic and neuromuscular early-onset scoliosis was then developed to be representative of those encountered in clinical practice. Using an online survey, eleven surgeons selected their choice of eight treatment options for each case scenario. Associations between case characteristics and treatment choices were assessed with chi-square and logistic regression analysis. Participants then reviewed the areas of treatment uncertainty identified in the survey, nominated additional research questions of interest, and ranked their interest to further explore the identified research questions.

RESULTS

Collective equipoise was identified in numerous scenarios in the survey spanning a range of ages and magnitudes of scoliosis, and additional questions were identified during the nominal group technique. Areas that had the greatest clinical uncertainty included the management of patients who have finished treatment with a growing-rod, timing of rod-lengthening intervals, and indications for spine-based and rib-based proximal instrumentation anchors. The use of rib anchors compared with spine-based anchors was ranked highly for consideration in future clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Variability in decision making with regard to the optimum treatment of certain subsets of patients with early-onset scoliosis reflects gaps in the available evidence. Structured consensus methods identified priorities for higher levels of research in this area of scoliosis. Higher-level studies, including randomized trials, should focus on answering the questions highlighted in this report.

Challenges and successes of recruitment in the "angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition in infants with single ventricle trial" of the Pediatric Heart Network

OBJECTIVES

Identify trends of enrolment and key challenges when recruiting infants with complex cardiac diseases into a multi-centre, randomised, placebo-controlled drug trial and assess the impact of efforts to share successful strategies on enrolment of subjects.

METHODS

Rates of screening, eligibility, consent, and randomisation were determined for three consecutive periods of time. Sites collectively addressed barriers to recruitment and shared successful strategies resulting in the Inventory of Best Recruiting Practices. Study teams detailed institutional practices of recruitment in post-trial surveys that were compared with strategies of enrolment initially proposed in the Inventory.

RESULTS

The number of screened patients increased by 30% between the Initial Period and the Intermediate Period (p = 0.007), whereas eligibility decreased slightly by 7%. Of those eligible for entry into the study, the rate of consent increased by 42% (p = 0.025) and randomisation increased by 71% (p = 0.10). During the Final Period, after launch of a competing trial, fewer patients were screened (−14%, p = 0.06), consented (−19%, p = 0.12), and randomised (−34%, p = 0.012). Practices of recruitment in the post-trial survey closely mirrored those in the Inventory.

CONCLUSIONS

Early identification and sharing of best strategies of recruitment among all recruiting sites can be effective in increasing recruitment of critically ill infants with congenital cardiac disease and possibly other populations. Strategies of recruitment should focus on those that build relationships with families and create partnerships with the medical providers who care for them. Competing studies pose challenges for enrolment in trials, but fostering trusting relationships with families can result in successful enrolment into multiple studies.

Treatment success in cancer: industry compared to publicly sponsored randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To assess if commercially sponsored trials are associated with higher success rates than publicly-sponsored trials.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTINGS

We undertook a systematic review of all consecutive, published and unpublished phase III cancer randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and the NCIC Clinical Trials Group (CTG). We included all phase III cancer RCTs assessing treatment superiority from 1980 to 2010. Three metrics were assessed to determine treatment successes: (1) the proportion of statistically significant trials favouring the experimental treatment, (2) the proportion of the trials in which new treatments were considered superior according to the investigators, and (3) quantitative synthesis of data for primary outcomes as defined in each trial.

RESULTS

GSK conducted 40 cancer RCTs accruing 19,889 patients and CTG conducted 77 trials enrolling 33,260 patients. 42% (99%CI 24 to 60) of the results were statistically significant favouring experimental treatments in GSK compared to 25% (99%CI 13 to 37) in the CTG cohort (RR = 1.68; p = 0.04). Investigators concluded that new treatments were superior to standard treatments in 80% of GSK compared to 44% of CTG trials (RR = 1.81; p<0.001). Meta-analysis of the primary outcome indicated larger effects in GSK trials (odds ratio = 0.61 [99%CI 0.47-0.78] compared to 0.86 [0.74-1.00]; p = 0.003). However, testing for the effect of treatment over time indicated that treatment success has become comparable in the last decade.

CONCLUSIONS

While overall industry sponsorship is associated with higher success rates than publicly-sponsored trials, the difference seems to have disappeared over time.

New treatments compared to established treatments in randomized trials

BACKGROUND

The proportion of proposed new treatments that are 'successful' is of ethical, scientific, and public importance. We investigated how often new, experimental treatments evaluated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are superior to established treatments.

OBJECTIVES

Our main question was: "On average how often are new treatments more effective, equally effective or less effective than established treatments?" Additionally, we wanted to explain the observed results, i.e. whether the observed distribution of outcomes is consistent with the 'uncertainty requirement' for enrollment in RCTs. We also investigated the effect of choice of comparator (active versus no treatment/placebo) on the observed results.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR) 2010, Issue 1 in The Cochrane Library (searched 31 March 2010); MEDLINE Ovid 1950 to March Week 2 2010 (searched 24 March 2010); and EMBASE Ovid 1980 to 2010 Week 11 (searched 24 March 2010).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cohorts of studies were eligible for the analysis if they met all of the following criteria: (i) consecutive series of RCTs, (ii) registered at or before study onset, and (iii) compared new against established treatments in humans.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

RCTs from four cohorts of RCTs met all inclusion criteria and provided data from 743 RCTs involving 297,744 patients. All four cohorts consisted of publicly funded trials. Two cohorts involved evaluations of new treatments in cancer, one in neurological disorders, and one for mixed types of diseases. We employed kernel density estimation, meta-analysis and meta-regression to assess the probability of new treatments being superior to established treatments in their effect on primary outcomes and overall survival.

MAIN RESULTS

The distribution of effects seen was generally symmetrical in the size of difference between new versus established treatments. Meta-analytic pooling indicated that, on average, new treatments were slightly more favorable both in terms of their effect on reducing the primary outcomes (hazard ratio (HR)/odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 99% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 0.95) and improving overall survival (HR 0.95, 99% CI 0.92 to 0.98). No heterogeneity was observed in the analysis based on primary outcomes or overall survival (I(2) = 0%). Kernel density analysis was consistent with the meta-analysis, but showed a fairly symmetrical distribution of new versus established treatments indicating unpredictability in the results. This was consistent with the interpretation that new treatments are only slightly superior to established treatments when tested in RCTs. Additionally, meta-regression demonstrated that results have remained stable over time and that the success rate of new treatments has not changed over the last half century of clinical trials. The results were not significantly affected by the choice of comparator (active versus placebo/no therapy).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Society can expect that slightly more than half of new experimental treatments will prove to be better than established treatments when tested in RCTs, but few will be substantially better. This is an important finding for patients (as they contemplate participation in RCTs), researchers (as they plan design of the new trials), and funders (as they assess the 'return on investment'). Although we provide the current best evidence on the question of expected 'success rate' of new versus established treatments consistent with a priori theoretical predictions reflective of 'uncertainty or equipoise hypothesis', it should be noted that our sample represents less than 1% of all available randomized trials; therefore, one should exercise the appropriate caution in interpretation of our findings. In addition, our conclusion applies to publicly funded trials only, as we did not include studies funded by commercial sponsors in our analysis.

Clinical equipoise and personal equipoise: two necessary ingredients for reducing bias in manual therapy trials

Clinical and personal equipoise exists when a clinician has no good basis for a choice between two or more care options or when one is truly uncertain about the overall benefit or harm offered by the treatment to his/her patient. For most manual therapy trials, equipoise does not likely exist. Because of the nature of the intervention a lack of equipoise can lead to bias and may account for a portion of the 'effect' that has traditionally been assigned to the intervention. Although there are methodological mechanisms to reduce the risk of bias associated with a lack of equipoise, most of the manual therapy trials to date are likely guilty of this form of bias.

Use of relative and absolute effect measures in reporting health inequalities: structured review

OBJECTIVE

To examine the frequency of reporting of absolute and relative effect measures in health inequalities research.

DESIGN

Structured review of selected general medical and public health journals.

DATA SOURCES

344 articles published during 2009 in American Journal of Epidemiology, American Journal of Public Health, BMJ, Epidemiology, International Journal of Epidemiology, JAMA, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine, and Social Science and Medicine.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Frequency and proportion of studies reporting absolute effect measures, relative effect measures, or both in abstract and full text; availability of absolute risks in studies reporting only relative effect measures.

RESULTS

40% (138/344) of articles reported a measure of effect in the abstract; among these, 88% (122/138) reported only a relative measure, 9% (13/138) reported only an absolute measure, and 2% (3/138) reported both. 75% (258/344) of all articles reported only relative measures in the full text; among these, 46% (119/258) contained no information on absolute baseline risks that would facilitate calculation of absolute effect measures. 18% (61/344) of all articles reported only absolute measures in the full text, and 7% (25/344) reported both absolute and relative measures. These results were consistent across journals, exposures, and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Health inequalities are most commonly reported using only relative measures of effect, which may influence readers' judgments of the magnitude, direction, significance, and implications of reported health inequalities.

When is it rational to participate in a clinical trial? A game theory approach incorporating trust, regret and guilt

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) remain an indispensable form of human experimentation as a vehicle for discovery of new treatments. However, since their inception RCTs have raised ethical concerns. The ethical tension has revolved around "duties to individuals" vs. "societal value" of RCTs. By asking current patients "to sacrifice for the benefit of future patients" we risk subjugating our duties to patients' best interest to the utilitarian goal for the good of others. This tension creates a key dilemma: when is it rational, from the perspective of the trial patients and researchers (as societal representatives of future patients), to enroll in RCTs?

METHODS

We employed the trust version of the prisoner's dilemma since interaction between the patient and researcher in the setting of a clinical trial is inherently based on trust. We also took into account that the patient may have regretted his/her decision to participate in the trial, while a researcher may feel guilty because he/she abused the patient's trust.

RESULTS

We found that under typical circumstances of clinical research, most patients can be expected not to trust researchers, and most researchers can be expected to abuse the patients' trust. The most significant factor determining trust was the success of experimental or standard treatments, respectively. The more that a researcher believes the experimental treatment will be successful, the more incentive the researcher has to abuse trust. The analysis was sensitive to the assumptions about the utilities related to success and failure of therapies that are tested in RCTs. By varying all variables in the Monte Carlo analysis we found that, on average, the researcher can be expected to honor a patient's trust 41% of the time, while the patient is inclined to trust the researcher 69% of the time. Under assumptions of our model, enrollment into RCTs represents a rational strategy that can meet both patients' and researchers' interests simultaneously 19% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

There is an inherent ethical dilemma in the conduct of RCTs. The factors that hamper full co-operation between patients and researchers in the conduct of RCTs can be best addressed by: a) having more reliable estimates on the probabilities that new vs. established treatments will be successful, b) improving transparency in the clinical trial system to ensure fulfillment of "the social contract" between patients and researchers.

Those who have the gold make the evidence: how the pharmaceutical industry biases the outcomes of clinical trials of medications

Pharmaceutical companies fund the bulk of clinical research that is carried out on medications. Poor outcomes from these studies can have negative effects on sales of medicines. Previous research has shown that company funded research is much more likely to yield positive outcomes than research with any other sponsorship. The aim of this article is to investigate the possible ways in which bias can be introduced into research outcomes by drawing on concrete examples from the published literature. Poorer methodology in industry-funded research is not likely to account for the biases seen. Biases are introduced through a variety of measures including the choice of comparator agents, multiple publication of positive trials and non-publication of negative trials, reinterpreting data submitted to regulatory agencies, discordance between results and conclusions, conflict-of-interest leading to more positive conclusions, ghostwriting and the use of "seeding" trials. Thus far, efforts to contain bias have largely focused on more stringent rules regarding conflict-of-interest (COI) and clinical trial registries. There is no evidence that any measures that have been taken so far have stopped the biasing of clinical research and it's not clear that they have even slowed down the process. Economic theory predicts that firms will try to bias the evidence base wherever its benefits exceed its costs. The examples given here confirm what theory predicts. What will be needed to curb and ultimately stop the bias that we have seen is a paradigm change in the way that we treat the relationship between pharmaceutical companies and the conduct and reporting of clinical trials.

Clinical equipoise and personal equipoise: two necessary ingredients for reducing bias in manual therapy trials

Clinical and personal equipoise exists when a clinician has no good basis for a choice between two or more care options or when one is truly uncertain about the overall benefit or harm offered by the treatment to his/her patient. For most manual therapy trials, equipoise does not likely exist. Because of the nature of the intervention a lack of equipoise can lead to bias and may account for a portion of the 'effect' that has traditionally been assigned to the intervention. Although there are methodological mechanisms to reduce the risk of bias associated with a lack of equipoise, most of the manual therapy trials to date are likely guilty of this form of bias.