P982 Patients in trials of moderate-to-severe CD who are exposed to placebo are more likely to suffer harm than those receiving active treatment: The lack of clinical equipoise in traditional study designs

E Fear,Z D Fine,J St-Pierre,J A Klein,N K Choi,D T Rubin
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjad212.1112
2024-01-01
Journal of Crohn's and Colitis
Abstract:Abstract Background Crohn’s disease (CD) is a relapsing-remitting inflammatory disease of the gastrointestinal tract characterized by a progressive nature and a variety of complications. There are many challenges to the recruitment of eligible individuals into clinical trials for IBD, including the availability of multiple standard-of-care treatment options and patient refusal to participate in randomized placebo (PBO)-controlled trials due to fear of receiving PBO. Patient harm across clinical trials for moderate-to-severe CD has not been adequately examined. We sought to quantify the potential harms to patients recruited to PBO. Methods We reviewed phase 3 clinical trials of therapies including anti-TNF-alpha (infliximab, adalimumab, certolizumab pegol), anti-integrin (vedolizumab, natalizumab, etrolizumab), anti-interleukin (IL) 12/23 (ustekinumab), anti-IL23 (ustekinumab, risankizumab), and Janus kinase inhibitor (upadacitinib). We analyzed the proportions (# of pts. with events/cohort size) of adverse events (AEs), serious adverse events (SAEs), disease exacerbation AEs (DEAEs), and disease exacerbation SAEs (DESAEs). We calculated Number Needed to Harm (NNH), 1 / (Incidence rate in cohort) for PBO (NNHPBO) and experimental therapy (NNHRx) in each trial. Maintenance phase NNHs were categorized as treat-through (TT) or re-randomized (RR). Results We identified increased probability of AEs in the PBO arm of 5/12 induction (NNHPBO= 1.2-3.6; NNHRx=1.2-5.2), 3/6 TT maintenance, and 6/9 RR maintenance (NNHTTPBO= 1.2-3.4; NNHTTRx= 1.1-4.5; NNHRRPBO= 1.0-2.0; NNHRRRx= 1.1-1.4). There was an increased probability of SAEs for patients exposed to PBO in 4/11 induction (NNHPBO= 6.6-24.7; NNHRx= 4.8-26.6), 5/6 TT, and 8/9 RR (NNHTTPBO= 3.4-15.1; NNHTTRx=3.6-19.0; NNHRRPBO= 6.0-13.1; NNHRRRx= 8.1-11.9). Patients were at increased probability of DEAEs in the PBO arm of 5/8 induction (NNHPBO= 6.3-12.3; NNHRx= 10.0-62.0), 5/5 TT, and 6/9 RR (NNHTTPBO= 3.1-8.5; NNHTTRx= 4.4-24.0; NNHRRPBO= 2.5-7.0; NNHRRRx= 7.1-9.4). There was an increased probability of DESAEs for patients exposed to PBO in 5/6 induction (NNHPBO = 10.4-42.4; NNHRx= 43.2-206.0), 3/4 TT, and 3/4 RR (NNHTTPBO= 11.4-42.4; NNHTTRx= 8.2-216.0; NNHRRPBO= 15.5-26.8; NNHRRRx= NA). Conclusion In PBO-controlled clinical trials of therapies for moderate-to-severe CD there are increased AEs and SAEs for patients exposed to PBO, notably in DEAEs and DESAEs. Induction treatment responders re-randomized in maintenance to PBO experienced greater harms (i.e. lower NNH) than TT PBO patients. These findings raise concerns about clinical equipoise and support ongoing efforts to design trials with active comparator arms and adaptive or platform methodologies.
gastroenterology & hepatology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?