It is time to rethink randomized clinical trial approaches

David J Stewart

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae172

2024-07-10

The Oncologist

Abstract:This letter to the editor comments on the recently published editorial by Fojo, LaRose, and Bates, and agrees that changes are needed in clinical research approaches.

oncology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Using randomized controlled trials in the sports medicine and performance environment: is it time to reconsider and think outside the methodological box?

Patrick Ward,Tom Hughes,Ellen Shanley,Garrett S. Bullock,Charles A. Thigpen,Chad E. Cook

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2023.11824

2023-04-17

Abstract:<b>SYNOPSIS:</b> Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are ubiquitous in medicine and have facilitated great strides in clinical care. However, when applied in sport, RCTs have limitations that hinder implementing effective interventions in the real-world clinical setting. Pragmatic clinical trials offer some solutions. Yet due to the competitive, high-pressure nature of sport at the individual, team, and governing body level, RCTs are likely infeasible in certain sport settings. The small number of athletes at the elite team level, along with the potential financial consequences of randomizing at the individual athlete and team level, also restricts study power and feasibility, limiting conclusions. Consequently, researchers may need to "think outside the box" and consider other research methodology, to help improve athlete care. In this Viewpoint, we detail alternative study designs that can help solve real-world problems in sports medicine and performance, while maintaining robust research standards and accounting for the challenges that RCTs pose. We also provide practical examples of alternative designs. <i>J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(6):1-4. Epub: 18 April 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.11824</i>.

rehabilitation,orthopedics,sport sciences
Changing Landscape of Randomized Clinical Trials in Stroke: Explaining Contemporary Trial Designs and Methods

Mathew J Reeves,Seana Gall,Linxin Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/STROKEAHA.124.046129

IF: 10.17

Stroke

Abstract:Evidence generated from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) plays an indispensable role in advancing clinical stroke care. Although the number of stroke-related RCTs published every year has grown exponentially over the past 25 years, the execution and completion of RCTs, particularly those conducted in a hyperacute setting, have grown more complicated and challenging over the years. In addition to the practical challenges associated with conducting a clinical trial, like obtaining human subjects approval, identifying clinical sites, training trial personnel, and enrolling the target number of patients within the available funding and timeline, the complexity of contemporary RCT designs and analyses has become much more exacting. It is no longer sufficient to have a decent understanding of the 2-arm, placebo-controlled RCT, combined with a rudimentary grasp of the P value; things are now much more complicated. Innovations in trial design and analysis, including adaptive, Bayesian, platform, and noninferiority designs, have occurred to address the problems of poor trial efficiency. However, these advances require the end user to have a much greater level of understanding regarding the rationale, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of each design. While these newer designs seek greater efficiency, there are inevitably tradeoffs that need to be understood. In this month's edition of Stroke, we introduce a new series designed to help fill in these knowledge gaps. Over the next few months, 4 papers will be published that address major design innovations (adaptive, Bayesian, platform, and noninferiority) with the aim of illustrating how these approaches can make trials more efficient (where efficiency is defined as getting to the right answer, sooner, with a potentially lower sample size). In addition to introducing this series, this current article also reviews traditional hypothesis testing and the common misinterpretations of the P value; fortunately, new philosophical schools of inference are beginning to vanquish the overreliance on the P value. We are excited about the opportunity to educate the Stroke readership about these new trial designs and the profound implications that they bring.
The Integration of Clinical Trials With the Practice of Medicine: Repairing a House Divided

Derek C Angus,Alison J Huang,Roger J Lewis,Amy P Abernethy,Robert M Califf,Martin Landray,Nancy Kass,Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo,JAMA Summit on Clinical Trials Participants,Ali B Abbasi,Kaleab Z Abebe,Stacey J Adam,Jamy Ard,Rachel A Bender Ignacio,Scott M Berry,Deepak L Bhatt,Robert O Bonow,Marc Bonten,Sharon A Brangman,John Brownstein,Melinda J B Buntin,Atul J Butte,Marion K Campbell,Anne R Cappola,Anne C Chiang,Deborah Cook,Steven R Cummings,Gregory Curfman,Laura J Esserman,Lee A Fleisher,Joseph B Franklin,Ralph Gonzalez,Cynthia I Grossman,Tufia C Haddad,Roy S Herbst,Adrian F Hernandez,Diane P Holder,Leora Horn,Grant D Huang,Alison Huang,Rohan Khera,Walter J Koroshetz,Harlan M Krumholz,Tracy A Lieu,Preeti N Malani,Christa Lese Martin,Mark McClellan,Mary M McDermott,Stephanie R Morain,Susan A Murphy,Stuart G Nicholls,Stephen J Nicholls,Peter J O'Dwyer,Bhakti K Patel,Eric Peterson,Sheila A Prindiville,Joseph S Ross,Kathryn M Rowan,Gordon Rubenfeld,Christopher W Seymour,Rod S Taylor,Joanne Waldstreicher,Tracy Y Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.4088

IF: 11.816

2024-07-09

JAMA

Abstract:Importance: Optimal health care delivery, both now and in the future, requires a continuous loop of knowledge generation, dissemination, and uptake on how best to provide care, not just determining what interventions work but also how best to ensure they are provided to those who need them. The randomized clinical trial (RCT) is the most rigorous instrument to determine what works in health care. However, major issues with both the clinical trials enterprise and the lack of integration of clinical trials with health care delivery compromise medicine's ability to best serve society. Observations: In most resource-rich countries, the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises function as separate entities, with siloed goals, infrastructure, and incentives. Consequently, RCTs are often poorly relevant and responsive to the needs of patients and those responsible for care delivery. At the same time, health care delivery systems are often disengaged from clinical trials and fail to rapidly incorporate knowledge generated from RCTs into practice. Though longstanding, these issues are more pressing given the lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic, heightened awareness of the disproportionate impact of poor access to optimal care on vulnerable populations, and the unprecedented opportunity for improvement offered by the digital revolution in health care. Four major areas must be improved. First, especially in the US, greater clarity is required to ensure appropriate regulation and oversight of implementation science, quality improvement, embedded clinical trials, and learning health systems. Second, greater adoption is required of study designs that improve statistical and logistical efficiency and lower the burden on participants and clinicians, allowing trials to be smarter, safer, and faster. Third, RCTs could be considerably more responsive and efficient if they were better integrated with electronic health records. However, this advance first requires greater adoption of standards and processes designed to ensure health data are adequately reliable and accurate and capable of being transferred responsibly and efficiently across platforms and organizations. Fourth, tackling the problems described above requires alignment of stakeholders in the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises through financial and nonfinancial incentives, which could be enabled by new legislation. Solutions exist for each of these problems, and there are examples of success for each, but there is a failure to implement at adequate scale. Conclusions and relevance: The gulf between current care and that which could be delivered has arguably never been wider. A key contributor is that the 2 limbs of knowledge generation and implementation-the clinical trials and health care delivery enterprises-operate as a house divided. Better integration of these 2 worlds is key to accelerated improvement in health care delivery.
Patient’s Preference and Randomization: New Paradigm of Evidence-based Clinical Research

Bertrand Millat,Frédéric Borie,Abe Fingerhut

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00268-005-7920-z

IF: 3.282

2005-04-14

World Journal of Surgery

Abstract:The limitations associated with the traditional randomized controlled design as applied to clinical surgical research must be recognized. The aim of randomization is to ensure initial comparability between groups of eligible patients for whom treatments are compared, thus eliminating their individual influence on outcome. Randomized controlled trials in the surgical literature are sparse; patient preferences might be a major obstacle to their performance. External validity of results of clinical trials depends on the representativity of patients who participate in trials: Compliance to participate through informed consent may act as a selection bias. In surgical randomized trials where it is not often possible for patients to remain blinded to the treatment to which they have been allocated, patient preferences can influence the effectiveness of treatments. In this setting, we need to look at alternatives and the potential advantages of adopting more flexible and clinically relevant approaches to the design of surgical trials. We have to accept the weight of the patient’s individual decision in everyday practice. Hence, to negate the importance of these individual choices when evaluating surgical outcomes is unrealistic. An original design reported herein might become a new paradigm for surgical evaluation.

surgery
Democratising the design and delivery of large-scale randomised, controlled clinical trials in primary care: A personal view

Christopher C. Butler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13814788.2023.2293702

2024-01-06

European Journal of General Practice

Abstract:Background Rapid identification of effective treatments for use in the community during a pandemic is vital for the well-being of individuals and the sustainability of healthcare systems and society. Furthermore, identifying treatments that do not work reduces research wastage, spares people unnecessary side effects, rationalises the cost of purchasing and stockpiling medication, and reduces inappropriate medication use. Nevertheless, only a small minority of therapeutic trials for SARS-CoV-2 infections have been in primary care: most opened too late, struggled to recruit, and few produced actionable results. Participation in research is often limited by where one lives or receives health care, and trial participants may not represent those for whom the treatments are intended.

medicine, general & internal,primary health care
The need for a change in medical research thinking. Eco-systemic research frames are better suited to explore patterned disease behaviors

Joachim P Sturmberg,Jennifer H Martin,Francesco Tramonti,Thomas Kühlein

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1377356

2024-06-03

Abstract:Many practicing physicians struggle to properly evaluate clinical research studies - they either simply do not know them, regard the reported findings as 'truth' since they were reported in a 'reputable' journal and blindly implement these interventions, or they disregard them as having little pragmatic impact or relevance to their daily clinical work. Three aspects for the latter are highlighted: study populations rarely reflect their practice population, the absolute average benefits on specific outcomes in most controlled studies, while statistically significant, are so small that they are pragmatically irrelevant, and overall mortality between the intervention and control groups are unaffected. These observations underscore the need to rethink our research approaches in the clinical context - moving from the predominant reductionist to an eco-systemic research approach will lead to knowledge better suited to clinical decision-making for an individual patient as it takes into account the complex interplay of multi-level variables that impact health outcomes in the real-world setting.
Randomized trials of cancer drugs are for yesterday

Elaine Schattner

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01430-9

IF: 64.8

2024-05-30

Nature

Abstract:Pitting new treatments against old, ineffective agents is neither ethical nor economical. Pitting new treatments against old, ineffective agents is neither ethical nor economical.

multidisciplinary sciences
Review of current controversial issues in clinical trials

Shein-Chung Chow,Susan S Chow,Annpey Pong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/gpsych-2021-100540

2021-10-01

General Psychiatry

Abstract:In clinical development, adequate and well-controlled randomised clinical trials are usually conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of test treatment under investigation. The purpose is to ensure that there is an accurate and reliable assessment of test treatment under study. In practice, however, some controversial issues inevitably appear despite the compliance of good clinical practice. These debatable issues include, but are not limited to, (1) appropriateness of hypotheses for clinical investigation, (2) feasibility of power calculation for sample size requirement, (3) integrity of randomisation/blinding, (4) strategy for clinical endpoint selection, (5) demonstrating effectiveness or ineffectiveness, (6) impact of protocol amendments and (7) independence of independent data monitoring committee. In this article, these controversial issues are discussed. The impact of these issues in evaluating the safety and efficacy of the test treatment under investigation is also assessed. Recommendations regarding possible resolutions to these issues are provided whenever possible.
The Contributor Roles for Randomized Controlled Trials and the Proposal for a Novel CRediT-RCT.

Zhongheng Zhang,Stephen D. Wang,Grace S. Li,Guilan Kong,Hongqiu Gu,Fernando Alfon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2019.12.96

IF: 3.616

2019-01-01

Annals of Translational Medicine

Abstract:BACKGROUND:The past decade has witnessed a rapid increase in the number of contributors per article, which has made explicitly defining the roles of each contributor even more challenging. The Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT) was developed to explicitly define author roles, but there is a lack of empirical data on how CRediT is used in clinical trials. This study aimed to provide empirical data on the use of CRediT in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and discuss some limitations of CRediT. A new taxonomy (CRediT-RCT) is proposed to explicitly define the author roles in RCTs.METHODS:The electronic database of PubMed was searched from July 2017 to October 2019 to identify component trials with a randomized controlled design. Publications from the Public Library of Science (PLoS) were included because they embed the CRediT roles within the authors' metadata rather than solely as a separate paragraph of text.RESULTS:A total of 446 articles involving 4,185 authors were included in the study. Most authors participated in the study's conceptualization (44.9%) and investigation (48.8%), but only a fraction of the authors participated in software management (7.4%). Many CRediT roles were correlated with each other: the strongest correlation was the one between funding acquisition and conceptualization (correlation metric =0.39), followed by the one between conceptualization and methodology (0.37). The authors who acquired funding (OR: 2.06; 95% CI: 1.54-2.76; P<0.001), did project administration (OR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.17-2.03; P=0.002), performed supervision (OR: 2. 60; 95% CI: 1.93-3.52; P<0.001), wrote the original draft (OR: 4.83; 95% CI: 3.54-6.60; P<0.001), or were the first author (OR: 7.85; 95% CI: 5.71-10.87; P<0.001), were more likely to be the corresponding author. Also, while the original draft writing was significantly associated with the designation of the first author (OR: 37.49; 95% CI: 25.29-57.57; P<0.001), the first author did not perform review and editing (OR: 0.55; 95% CI: 0.40-0.75; P<0.001), supervision (OR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.36-0.67; P<0.001), or resource management (OR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.50-1.00; P=0.053). We further propose a novel Contributor Roles Taxonomy for Randomized Controlled Trials (CRediT-RCT) which includes 10 roles.CONCLUSIONS:The present study provides empirical data on the use of CRediT for RCTs, and some limitations of the taxonomy are discussed. We further propose a new CRediT-RCT which includes 10 roles.
Improving Access to Patient-Focused, Decentralized Clinical Trials Requires Streamlined Regulatory Requirements: An ASCO Research Statement

Ramya Thota,Patricia A Hurley,Therica M Miller,Suanna S Bruinooge,Craig Lipset,R Donald Harvey,Lora J Black,Amanda Dinsdale,Janette K Merrill,Teri Pollastro,Sheila A Prindiville,Mujahid A Rizvi,Shimere Sherwood,Grzegorz S Nowakowski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.24.00961

2024-11-20

Abstract:Strategies to bring clinical trials closer to patients gained momentum during the COVID-19 pandemic, enabling more participants to receive treatment and/or testing in their local communities. Incorporation of decentralized trial elements presents both opportunities and challenges, spanning regulatory, technical, and operational aspects. This ASCO research statement includes timely consensus-driven recommendations and a call for engagement of all research stakeholders. ASCO held multistakeholder meetings with leaders in oncology research and concluded that research-related regulatory and administrative requirements and burdens present critical barriers to decentralizing trials. One example is sponsor and contract research organization (CRO) use of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Statement of Investigator (Form 1572), which was found to exceed FDA's stated intent and used in conservative ways disproportionate to potential risks to participants and scientific integrity. As a result, research sites experience an avalanche of downstream administrative and regulatory activities that consume considerable resources. This statement recommends four key solutions to address such barriers and recalibrate regulatory and administrative expectations for decentralizing trials: (1) FDA should engage the research community in a public-private partnership to modernize standards and enable local access to trials; (2) sponsors and CROs should develop standards and protocols that accommodate flexible approaches, enable local participation, provide clarity around roles and requirements, and promote consistency; (3) research centers, networks, and sites should update policies and procedures to implement decentralized trial elements; and (4) research community should develop a streamlined, uniform mechanism to simplify regulatory data collection and documentation and use it consistently across trials. We can and must prioritize a concerted commitment to simplify and streamline regulatory requirements and practices to broaden access to and participation in cancer clinical trials.
A call to action to advance patient‐focused and decentralized clinical trials

R. Donald Harvey,Therica M. Miller,Patricia A. Hurley,Ramya Thota,Lora J. Black,Suanna S. Bruinooge,Leigh M. Boehmer,Mark E. Fleury,Jasmine Kamboj,Mujahid A. Rizvi,Banu E. Symington,William D. Tap,David M. Waterhouse,Laura A. Levit,Janette K. Merrill,Sheila A. Prindiville,Teri Pollastro,Jamie R. Brewer,Leslie P. Byatt,Leila Hamroun,Edward S. Kim,Nicole Holland,Grzegorz S. Nowakowski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.35145

IF: 6.9209

2024-01-11

Cancer

Abstract:This commentary is a call to action for a concerted commitment and effort to transform clinical trials and enable people with cancer to participate in clinical trials closer to home. Three key strategies are identified to address major barriers: confront challenges with the interpretation of US Food and Drug Administration Form 1572 requirements (Statement of Investigator); broaden acceptance of local laboratories and imaging centers; and invest in the creation of effective, sustainable partnerships between research centers and local providers.

oncology
Letter to the Editor re: Is It Time to Rethink Our Approach to Overactive Bladder Treatment?

Roger R. Dmochowski

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/spv.0000000000001518

2024-05-01

Female Pelvic Medicine & Reconstructive Surgery

Abstract:The recent commentary, "Is It Time to Rethink Our Approach to Overactive Bladder Treatment?" by Alagh and Ramm published in the November 2023 issue of this journal, 1 details the impact of overactive bladder (OAB) on patients and examines emerging concerns with anticholinergic treatments for OAB. Discussion of anticholinergic safety is timely given recent evidence describing anticholinergic-associated risks, including a systematic review and meta-analysis that found an estimated 46% increased risk of dementia with ≥3 months of anticholinergic use compared with nonuse. 2

obstetrics & gynecology
Thoughtful selection and use of scientific terms in clinical research: the case of ‘pragmatic’ trials

Rafael Dal-Ré,Robert J Mentz,Frits R Rosendaal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/jim-2021-001789

2021-03-22

Journal of Investigative Medicine

Abstract:Clinical research is a discipline prone to the use of technical terms that may be particularly at risk for misunderstanding given the complex interpretation that is required. In this century, what is happening with the word ‘pragmatic’ when describing a randomized controlled trial (RCT) with medicines deserves a public reflection. Explanatory trials are conducted in ideal conditions to assess the comparative efficacy of interventions and are useful to explain whether interventions work. Pragmatic trials are those conducted in a way that resembles usual clinical practice conditions to assess the comparative effectiveness of interventions in a manner directly applicable for decision-makers. This, however, did not prevent 36% of authors of placebo-controlled, or prelicensing trials to identify their medicines RCTs as pragmatic in the title of their articles. The current situation is such that scientific literature has accepted that ‘pragmatic’ can convey the original meaning—that obtained in trials mimicking usual clinical practice—and a distorted one—that is focused on streamlining any trial procedure. Those involved in clinical trials should emphasize the importance of precision in the use of terms when describing RCTs through standardized solutions when possible. Unless clinical trial stakeholders agree when it would be correct to label an RCT as pragmatic, in a short period of time the term will be in danger of becoming meaningless. It is suggested that the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) network, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) could address this topic and provide a consensus way forward.

medicine, general & internal, research & experimental
The perpetual need of randomized clinical trials: challenges and uncertainties in emulating the REDUCE-AMI trial

Leening, Maarten J.G.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10654-024-01127-3

2024-05-12

European Journal of Epidemiology

Abstract:Trial emulations in observational data analyses can complement findings from randomized clinical trials, inform future trial designs, or generate evidence when randomized studies are not feasible due to resource constraints and ethical or practical limitations. Importantly, trial emulation designs facilitate causal inference in observational data analyses by enhancing counterfactual thinking and comparisons of real-world observations (e.g. Mendelian Randomization) to hypothetical interventions. In order to enhance credibility, trial emulations would benefit from prospective registration, publication of statistical analysis plans, and subsequent prospective benchmarking to randomized clinical trials prior to their publication. Confounding by indication, however, is the key challenge to interpreting observed intended effects of an intervention as causal in observational data analyses. We discuss the target trial emulation of the REDUCE-AMI randomized clinical trial (ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03278509; beta-blocker use in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction after myocardial infarction) to illustrate the challenges and uncertainties of studying intended effects of interventions without randomization to account for confounding. We furthermore directly compare the findings, statistical power, and clinical interpretation of the results of the REDUCE-AMI target trial emulation to those from the simultaneously published randomized clinical trial. The complexity and subtlety of confounding by indication when studying intended effects of interventions can generally only be addressed by randomization.

public, environmental & occupational health
Radical Thinking: Scientific Rigor and Pragmatism

Scott R. Evans

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19466315.2022.2026460

2022-02-04

Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research

Abstract:There is an innate desire to conduct research faster and cheaper. The desire is magnified by todays’ business and political pressures. Though understandable, such desires can be dangerous threatening our objectivity and ability to reason, resulting in studies with lower integrity, replicability, and applicability. Modern ideas include: conducting observational rather than randomized studies rationalized by the increasing access to real world data and the belief that modeling can replace randomization, using surrogate rather than clinical outcomes, using surrogate rather than clinical diseases, using PP (Per Protocol) analyses instead of ITT (Intention-to-Treat), using assumptions regarding treatment effects in place of data to estimate those effects, and using adaptive designs that promise efficiencies. These trends are often labeled as “innovation.” But is this progress…or regress…a fancy way of lowering the usual evidentiary standard and introducing greater uncertainty? Is it time for a market correction for these “products” that are often presented with a degree of commercialism rather than scientific objectivity? Indeed, our traditional approaches are in need in improvements. Rather than compromising on scientific rigor, can we redirect our motivation to find BETTER answers to the most important questions for patients and clinicians? Though often misunderstood, one such movement is pragmatism, the concept of truly getting closer to understanding the effects of interventions as they are experienced by patients and the value of diagnostics in real world practice. I propose that we place increased interest on questions of a pragmatic origin to match their clinical importance and utility. I present ideas for more pragmatic assessments of the effects of interventions and the yield of diagnostics.

mathematical & computational biology,statistics & probability
Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials

Jigisha Patel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-014-0128-z

IF: 9.3

2014-07-30

BMC Medicine

Abstract:BackgroundThe purpose and effectiveness of peer review is currently a subject of hot debate, as is the need for greater openness and transparency in the conduct of clinical trials. Innovations in peer review have focused on the process of peer review rather than its quality.DiscussionThe aims of peer review are poorly defined, with no evidence that it works and no established way to provide training. However, despite the lack of evidence for its effectiveness, evidence-based medicine, which directly informs patient care, depends on the system of peer review. The current system applies the same process to all fields of research and all study designs. While the volume of available health related information is vast, there is no consistent means for the lay person to judge its quality or trustworthiness. Some types of research, such as randomized controlled trials, may lend themselves to a more specialized form of peer review where training and ongoing appraisal and revalidation is provided to individuals who peer review randomized controlled trials. Any randomized controlled trial peer reviewed by such a trained peer reviewer could then have a searchable ‘quality assurance’ symbol attached to the published articles and any published peer reviewer reports, thereby providing some guidance to the lay person seeking to inform themselves about their own health or medical treatment.SummarySpecialization, training and ongoing appraisal and revalidation in peer review, coupled with a quality assurance symbol for the lay person, could address some of the current limitations of peer review for randomized controlled trials.

medicine, general & internal
Clinical trials and the COVID-19 pandemic

Spyros Retsas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1967/s002449912014

Abstract:"...but why think? Why not try the experiment?..." John Hunter (1728-1793), in a letter to Edward Jenner. August 2nd, 1775. When Galen of Pergamum (2nd c. A.D.), physician, philosopher and experimentalist, sought to ascertain the therapeutic properties of Theriac, an antidote of repute against poisons, he resorted to an experiment. Theriac or Theriaca was a compound drug, containing in some versions used in antiquity numerous components; Galen's own composition included over 70 ingredients! One of its uses was as an antidote against snakebites, a frequent peril for the Roman armies marching on in sandals. Galen spent most of his life in Rome and was elevated to Imperial Physician at the court of Marcus Aurelius, who apparently took daily doses of Theriac, which among other components included opium. Describing the experiment to his friend Pison, Galen wrote, "as I could not possibly conduct a trial on humans, I experimented on roosters" For his experiment, Galen, studied two groups of roosters, but he doesn't tell us how many animals he included in each category. Both groups were exposed to poisonous snakebites. All roosters who were fed with theriac prior to exposure to viper bites survived, whereas in the second group that had not received prophylactic Theriac, all roosters died. Not only is Galen's methodology remarkable, preceding the modern randomised trial by eighteen centuries, but more importantly, it is notable for his ethical stance at a time when sensitivities about human rights, prevalent in our times, were largely absent in societies of widespread slavery. For example, Mithridates VI (132-63 BC), the King of Pontus who is credited with the first use of Theriac, tested its efficacy on criminals and slaves. For his experiment Galen used the random allocation of treatment, today's prospective randomised clinical trial, implemented in the evaluation of novel therapies, widely used internationally, particularly in cancer research! This experimental method used for ascertaining the efficacy of new drugs became established after the second half of the 20th century and is now firmly entrenched as a research tool. On the other hand, the retrieval of information from observational studies or non-randomised series is considered scientifically inferior and is often dismissed or ignored as irrelevant or anecdotal. Such is the compulsion for the randomised study that in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, respected physicians and scientists appeared in the media hesitant to recommend the use of protective facial masks, as there was no evidence of benefit for their use from prospective randomised studies in the general population! Logic had no place in the argument! COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 new corona virus, brought to the fore the randomised trial, as well as, the ethical dilemmas that surround the allocation of treatment at random, in the face of a devastating pandemic. Anthony Fauci, distinguished infectious diseases expert and an adviser to the President of the USA, at a recent briefing from the Situation Room of the White House, endorsed categorically and unreservedly the randomised trial for the evaluation of drugs potentially effective against SARS-CoV-2, in patients afflicted with COVID-19. A few days later on April 8th, 2020, Professor Sotiris Tsiodras, scientific advisor to the Greek Government for COVID-19 and an expert on infectious diseases, when asked by a journalist about chloroquine, he responded, "Antony Fauci is correct. Nevertheless, we give the drug to everyone, that is, not half of the patients will receive it, and the other half will not". If we accept that the randomised trial represents the unique, impregnable method of evaluating new treatments-several clinicians dispute this dogma. -the question arises how will treatments be allocated to patients? According to the Declaration of Helsinki participation of a subject in a clinical trial requires their explicit written consent. Will, a potentially hypoxic patient rapidly deteriorating, be able to understand what is being asked of them, and will that patient be in a position to provide consent? And if that patient refuses to be randomised, what are the options? Is it his/her right to request the active treatment that a fellow patient is receiving in the next bed? Although the Declaration of Helsinki allows the option of no treatment or even placebo, where no known treatment is available for a certain condition, such as COVID-19, it also emphasizes that "while the primary purpose of medical research is to generate new knowledge, this goal can never take precedence over the rights and interests of individual research subjects". Consider now the physicians and nurses on the first line of the battle against the pandemic; to the enormous pressures and risks that they experience daily, they may have to endure the added psychological burden of the randomised trial, knowing that half of their patients are receiving the promising drug, whilst the other half are denied the chance of potential benefit. When during the Medical Research Council's randomized trial of streptomycin, one senior physician contracted tuberculosis, the Medical Research Council obtained supplies for him outside the trial. In this brief instance of medical history, the equipoise, the scientific imperative, all arguments and other justifications for providing treatment at random, were thrown out of the window in favour of the human factor! Why is randomization necessary? Because-it is presumed-the process of randomising subjects, protects the study from the selective inclusion of patients with favourable characteristics, thus inadvertently allowing or facilitating a falsely favourable result for the drug or treatment under investigation. However, the process of randomising patients does not necessarily result in the randomisation of the characteristics of their disease. Exactly because of this, at the end of a randomised study, even if the prognostic variables are evenly represented and balanced in the strata, further confirmation of the result is sought with a statistical multifactorial analysis. Such multifactorial analyses can also be applied to a non-randomised group of patients engaged in the trial of a new drug. Since the middle of the 20th century a generation of physicians have been trained to dismiss, or are incapable of evaluating the validity of a treatment beyond the established etiquette of the randomised study. This, some have argued, constitutes intellectual indolence, it is not scientific robustness. Pandits foresee that the world will be different after the end of this pandemic. Perhaps human ingenuity will seek new investigative methods that will render the randomised clinical trial obsolete, both, on methodological and ethical grounds. Until then and even if we have to accept the scientific supremacy of the randomised study in the evaluation of novel therapies, the ethical considerations in the unprecedented circumstances of a relentless pandemic demand a more humane approach, befitting the beneficent precepts of the Hippocratic tradition.
Roundtable discussion. Investigational exclusion, clinical trials, and cancer

C Goodman

Abstract:Clinical trials are critical for developing and testing new treatments for cancer, but a panel of experts agreed that the state of clinical trials in the United States today is a "mess." How did we get into this situation in the first place, and how can we extricate ourselves? Should the federal government assume greater responsibility for funding and overseeing clinical trials and for establishing a standard health benefit package that defines the right to participate in clinical trials? The panel explored whether decisions to exclude patients are based on medical necessity and scientific merit or on the bottom line; whether insurance companies promise more than they can deliver; whether pharmaceutical companies are doing their share; and why lawyers are getting any share. In the end, the participants expressed hope that we, as a society, can get clinical trials back on track to serve their legitimate scientific and medical purposes.
ReThinking clinical reasoning: A paradigm shift

Sandra Monteiro,Amy Keuhl,Mark Lee,Teresa M. Chan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13986

2024-03-30

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Abstract:Numerous studies have demonstrated that our healthcare systems and medical education programs are fundamentally flawed. In North America and Europe, most systems were built upon values and structures that have historically benefitted middle and upper class males of European descent in the global north. As a result, there continue to be systemic biases that are pervasive throughout our healthcare systems and medical education programs. This has led to inequities in health outcomes and clinical reasoning practices which marginalize several communities. These biases are perpetuated as we continue to lead medical education research and practice with traditional values and views of evidence. To address these issues, we proposed a 'flipped' conference in which three interdisciplinary writing teams, comprised of both junior and senior academics, clinicians, and researchers, were invited to rethink the foundations of clinical reasoning. In the months leading up to the conference, each writing team explored a specific topic related to clinical reasoning and racial equity. The papers, presented during the virtual conference are now available in this issue of the Journal for the Evaluation of Clinical Practice. In addition, 6 more publications were added to this special topic to showcase new evidence and theory that builds on the recommendations in the three core papers.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services,medical informatics
The cornerstones of randomized clinical trials

Mercedes Gori,Domenico Abelardo,Annalisa Pitino,Eleni Stamellou,Adamantia Bratsiakou,Carmela Marino,Giovanni Tripepi,Stefanos Roumeliotis,Graziella D’Arrigo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-024-04307-y

IF: 2.2662

2024-12-04

International Urology and Nephrology

Abstract:Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are pivotal in medical research, offering critical evidence on the efficacy and safety of treatments. This paper explores the distinct purposes and designs of superiority, non-inferiority, equivalence, and pragmatic trials, each addressing unique research questions. Superiority trials aim to demonstrate a new treatment's effectiveness over existing standards, while non-inferiority and equivalence trials focus on ensuring new treatments are not significantly worse or are similar to existing ones, respectively. Pragmatic trials assess interventions in real-world settings. A fundamental ethical principle in RCTs is clinical equipoise, ensuring unbiased treatment allocation. The CONSORT statement provides guidelines for transparent reporting of RCTs, enhancing the reliability of findings. Key methodological considerations include sample size calculation, randomization, blinding, and the choice between intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. Stratified analysis and forest plots further aid in understanding treatment effects across diverse populations. By adhering to these principles, RCTs remain a cornerstone of evidence-based medical practice, advancing patient care and outcomes.

urology & nephrology

It is time to rethink randomized clinical trial approaches

Using randomized controlled trials in the sports medicine and performance environment: is it time to reconsider and think outside the methodological box?

Changing Landscape of Randomized Clinical Trials in Stroke: Explaining Contemporary Trial Designs and Methods

The Integration of Clinical Trials With the Practice of Medicine: Repairing a House Divided

Patient’s Preference and Randomization: New Paradigm of Evidence-based Clinical Research

Democratising the design and delivery of large-scale randomised, controlled clinical trials in primary care: A personal view

The need for a change in medical research thinking. Eco-systemic research frames are better suited to explore patterned disease behaviors

Randomized trials of cancer drugs are for yesterday

Review of current controversial issues in clinical trials

The Contributor Roles for Randomized Controlled Trials and the Proposal for a Novel CRediT-RCT.

Improving Access to Patient-Focused, Decentralized Clinical Trials Requires Streamlined Regulatory Requirements: An ASCO Research Statement

A call to action to advance patient‐focused and decentralized clinical trials

Letter to the Editor re: Is It Time to Rethink Our Approach to Overactive Bladder Treatment?

Thoughtful selection and use of scientific terms in clinical research: the case of ‘pragmatic’ trials

The perpetual need of randomized clinical trials: challenges and uncertainties in emulating the REDUCE-AMI trial

Radical Thinking: Scientific Rigor and Pragmatism

Why training and specialization is needed for peer review: a case study of peer review for randomized controlled trials

Clinical trials and the COVID-19 pandemic

Roundtable discussion. Investigational exclusion, clinical trials, and cancer

ReThinking clinical reasoning: A paradigm shift

The cornerstones of randomized clinical trials