Placebo comparator group selection and use in surgical trials: the ASPIRE project including expert workshop

Author:

Beard David J1ORCID,Campbell Marion K2ORCID,Blazeby Jane M3ORCID,Carr Andrew J1ORCID,Weijer Charles4ORCID,Cuthbertson Brian H5ORCID,Buchbinder Rachelle6ORCID,Pinkney Thomas7ORCID,Bishop Felicity L8ORCID,Pugh Jonathan9ORCID,Cousins Sian3ORCID,Harris Ian10ORCID,Lohmander L Stefan11ORCID,Blencowe Natalie3ORCID,Gillies Katie2ORCID,Probst Pascal12ORCID,Brennan Carol13ORCID,Cook Andrew14ORCID,Farrar-Hockley Dair13ORCID,Savulescu Julian9ORCID,Huxtable Richard3ORCID,Rangan Amar115ORCID,Tracey Irene16ORCID,Brocklehurst Peter17ORCID,Ferreira Manuela L18ORCID,Nicholl Jon19ORCID,Reeves Barnaby C20ORCID,Hamdy Freddie21ORCID,Rowley Samuel CS22ORCID,Lee Naomi23ORCID,Cook Jonathan A1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology and Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

2. Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK

3. Centre for Surgical Research, NIHR Bristol and Weston Biomedical Research Centre, Population Health Sciences, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

4. Departments of Medicine, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Philosophy, Western University, London, ON, Canada

5. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

6. Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

7. Academic Department of Surgery, University of Birmingham, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

8. Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

9. The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

10. Faculty of Medicine, South Western Sydney Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, Australia

11. Department of Clinical Sciences Lund, Orthopedics, Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Lund University, Lund, Sweden

12. Department of General, Visceral and Transplantation Surgery, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany

13. Patient representative, Oxford, UK

14. Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust, Southampton, UK

15. Department of Health Sciences, University of York, York, UK

16. Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK

17. Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK

18. Faculty of Medicine and Health, Institute of Bone and Joint Research, Northern Clinical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia

19. School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK

20. Clinical Trials Evaluation Unit Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, UK

21. Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK

22. Medical Research Council, London, UK

23. Editorial Department, The Lancet, London, UK

Abstract

Background The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. Objectives To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials. Design To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout. Setting A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines. Results To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Conclusions The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial. Limitations Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS. Future work Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space. Funding Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council–National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme.

Funder

Health Technology Assessment programme

Medical Research Council

Publisher

National Institute for Health Research

Subject

Health Policy

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3