Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-hgkh8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T00:33:37.428Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ethical considerations in placebo-controlled randomised clinical trials

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Kenneth R. Kaufman*
Affiliation:
Departments of Psychiatry, Neurology and Anesthesiology, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, 125 Paterson Street, Suite #2200, New Brunswick, NJ 08901, USA. Email: kaufmakr@rwjms.rutgers.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Ethical considerations in standard medical care and clinical research are underpinnings to quality medicine. Similarly, the placebo-controlled double-blind randomised clinical trial is the gold standard for medical research and fundamental to the development of evidence-based medicine. Researchers and clinicians are challenged by ethical concerns in the informed consent with a need to maximise understanding and minimise therapeutic misconception. This editorial expands on themes raised by Chen et al's article ‘Disclosing the Potential Impact of Placebo Controls in Antidepressant Trials' and serves as an invitation for further submissions to BJPsych Open on ethics, research design and informed consent.

Type
Editorial
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2015

Kenneth R. Kaufman is Professor of Psychiatry, Neurology and Anesthesiology at Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (New Brunswick) and Deputy Editor of BJPsych Open.

The historical gold standard for pharmaceutical medical research is the placebo-controlled double-blind randomised clinical trial (RCT). Reference Leber1Reference Millum and Grady3 This research design, which is used in monotherapy, add-on adjunctive and 3-arm (investigational drug, active comparator and placebo) RCTs, is consistent with the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency regulatory requirements for investigational new drugs – proving superiority of the investigational drug over placebo. Reference Leber1,Reference O'Connor4Reference Kaufman6 There is an ongoing debate regarding the use of placebos in RCTs varying from methodological and ethical justification of placebos to the specific language required for a truly informed consent, especially in vulnerable populations including, but not limited to, psychiatric, paediatric, geriatric, cognitively impaired, low literacy and incarcerated patients. Reference Miller2,Reference Millum and Grady3,Reference Kaufman6Reference McDermott13 Further, recent papers address whether overprotection of vulnerable patients prevents their inclusion in research and discuss the socioeconomic factors implicit in the newly termed ‘structural coercion’. Reference Fisher14Reference Frew, Saint-Victor, Isaacs, Kim, Swamy and Sheffield16 BJPsych Open is pleased to add to this important discussion by publishing ‘Disclosing the Potential Impact of Placebo Controls in Antidepressant Trials’ by Chen et al. Reference Chen, McCullumsmith and Kim17

Chen et al focus on a major concern for all clinical research, ethical considerations in the informed consent. The authors studied the impact of using an enhanced informed consent on enrollment for a simulated placebo-controlled antidepressant RCT. The enhanced consent gave the study patients a greater quantitative understanding of the potential for therapeutic improvement – 40% with enrollment in the placebo-controlled RCT compared with 65% with non-enrollment in the RCT but with continued individualised psychiatric care. Two key findings were noted: (a) significantly decreased percent willingness to enroll in a placebo-controlled RCT in patients receiving the enhanced consent; and (b) increased altruism as reason for enrollment comparing the enhanced to standard consent. These findings are not surprising for emphasising that comparative lack of therapeutic benefit from enrollment in a placebo-controlled RCT in moderately depressed patients should result in preferentially seeking individualised treatment; however, this paper is important for it clearly documents the expected difference in enrollment and discusses associated implications while acknowledging limitations to research methodology.

Maximal understanding of the research process (purpose of the study, voluntariness, withdrawal, randomisation, therapeutic benefits/risks associated with treatment/non-treatment and societal benefits) with minimal therapeutic misconception is fundamental to a meaningful and ethical placebo-controlled RCT informed consent. Reference Falagas, Korbila, Giannopoulou, Kondilis and Peppas18Reference Lidz, Albert, Appelbaum, Dunn, Overton and Pivovarova22 Nonetheless, a series of articles have noted that ∼50% of all patients enrolled in RCTs have an incomplete understanding of one or more components of the informed consent. Reference Falagas, Korbila, Giannopoulou, Kondilis and Peppas18,Reference Tam, Huy, Thoa, Long, Trang and Hirayama19 Clearly, this lack of understanding in a significant portion of research patients is not acceptable for a truly informed consent and has resulted in four methods being tested for increased understanding – enhanced consents (as in Chen et al's study), prolonged discussions, multimedia and test/feedback. Reference Flory and Emanuel23,Reference Nishimura, Carey, Erwin, Tilburt, Murad and McCormick24 In a recent meta-analysis, only prolonged discussions and enhanced consents were statistically associated with an increased understanding of the informed consent. Reference Nishimura, Carey, Erwin, Tilburt, Murad and McCormick24 Evaluation of the research methodology used for these positive findings noted that greater improvement in understanding occurred in simulated as opposed to ‘real-life’ RCTs for enhanced consents, whereas for prolonged discussions ‘real-life’ RCTs had a greater understanding. Reference Nishimura, Carey, Erwin, Tilburt, Murad and McCormick24

The enhanced informed consent used by Chen et al increases transparency of the intended RCT, for it addresses one key issue which each enrollee must comprehend – relative therapeutic outcome. Reference Chen, McCullumsmith and Kim17 The enhanced consent in this study does not address in greater detail methodology – both the standard and enhanced consents lack mention of voluntariness, ability to withdraw and a brief study protocol which might include secondary study benefits including additional laboratories. Further, in both standard and enhanced consents there is only a very brief description of placebo (three words – ‘a sugar pill’). This limited description of placebo is commonplace as noted in one recent review of 359 placebo controlled RCTs; this review also found that none of these RCTs included references to placebo or nocebo effects. Reference Hernández, Baños, Llop and Farré25 Since placebo and nocebo effects play important roles in both therapeutic and research interventions, discussions of such are important in clinical practice, research and informed consents. Reference Hernández, Baños, Llop and Farré25Reference Rutherford, Wall, Glass and Stewart27 The enhanced consent used in Chen et al's study decreases only in part therapeutic misconception for the methodology description is limited and no references are made to placebo and nocebo effects. Reference Appelbaum, Roth, Lidz, Benson and Winslade20Reference Lidz, Albert, Appelbaum, Dunn, Overton and Pivovarova22 By enhancing the consent with only reference to relative therapeutic outcome, the authors have studied whether this difference alone impacts willingness to enroll; however, methodology with placebo and nocebo effects impacts an enrollee's ultimate decision. As such, future enhanced consents should have a greater inclusion of methodology as well as a brief description of placebo and nocebo effects.

The authors correctly identified a principal limitation of their study – as a simulation, this study addressed willingness to enter a potential RCT as opposed to actually having enrolled in an RCT. As such, the reported findings may be significantly different in ‘real-life’ research studies. Reference Nishimura, Carey, Erwin, Tilburt, Murad and McCormick24 Further, the results found in this study may vary based on the severity of illness. For the enhanced consent, the authors suggested comparative improvement rates for enrollment v. non-enrollment in the RCT for moderate depression; would those improvement rates be different for mild or severely depressed patients and how would these different rates impact enrollment? Would comparative improvement rates and enrollment vary based on specific psychiatric illness and associated severity? Further, enhanced informed consents are generalisable to non-psychiatric medical illnesses and to surrogate consents where these same questions can be posed.

Chen et al comment that decreased willingness to enroll using the enhanced consent should result in increased costs based on their simulation study. This may not be the case, for two reviews of actual accrual rates using multiple methods to improve understanding informed consents reported no decline in recruitment. Reference Flory and Emanuel23,Reference Nishimura, Carey, Erwin, Tilburt, Murad and McCormick24 Further, retention rates should be higher based on increased understanding with realistic expectations. As such, one might find similar or even decreased cost in studies. The authors also state that ‘one cannot expect ethics to be always without cost’. Reference Chen, McCullumsmith and Kim17 Perhaps a more valid consideration is that not being ethical in both research and standard medical care is too great a cost for medicine to permit. Thus, it is mandatory for increased efforts to maximise ethical interventions.

As with all worthy research, Chen et al's article in addressing one important issue has raised multiple questions requiring future studies. Further research on enhanced informed consents, as well as other methods used to increase understanding of informed consents, should address: (a) willingness to enroll in ‘real-life’ RCTs with measurement of actual accrual and retention in different illnesses; (b) measurement of understanding and therapeutic misconception, including vulnerable populations and surrogate consents; Reference Appelbaum, Anatchkova, Albert, Dunn and Lidz21,Reference Tait, Voepel-Lewis, Malviya and Philipson28,Reference de Vries, Houtlosser, Wit, Engberts, Bresters and Kaspers29 and (c) impact of methodology (research design and randomisation), placebo and nocebo effects, and severity of illness on enrollment. BJPsych Open welcomes further submissions on these topics.

References

1 Leber, P. The use of placebo control groups in the assessment of psychiatric drugs: an historical perspective. Biol Psychiatry 2000; 47: 699706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2 Miller, FG. Placebo-controlled trials in psychiatric research: an ethical perspective. Biol Psychiatry 2000; 47: 707–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3 Millum, J, Grady, C. The ethics of placebo-controlled trials: methodological justifications. Contemp Clin Trials 2013; 36: 510–4.Google Scholar
4 O'Connor, AB. Building comparative efficacy and tolerability into the FDA approval process. JAMA 2010; 303: 979–80.Google Scholar
5 Barbui, C, Bighelli, I. A new approach to psychiatric drug approval in Europe. PLoS Med 2013; 10: e1001530.Google Scholar
6 Kaufman, KR. Comparative bioethics in bipolar and epilepsy research. Seizure 2002; 11: 51–6.Google Scholar
7 Temple, R, Ellenberg, SS. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 1: ethical and scientific issues. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133: 455–63.Google Scholar
8 Ellenberg, SS, Temple, R. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 2: practical issues and specific cases. Ann Intern Med 2000; 133: 464–70.Google Scholar
9 Fleischhacker, WW, Czobor, P, Hummer, M, Kemmler, G, Kohnen, R, Volavka, J. Placebo or active control trials of antipsychotic drugs? Arch Gen Psychiatry 2003; 60: 458–64.Google Scholar
10 Sudore, RL, Landefeld, CS, Williams, BA, Barnes, DE, Lindquist, K, Schillinger, D. Use of a modified informed consent process among vulnerable patients: a descriptive study. J Gen Intern Med 2006; 21: 867–73.Google ScholarPubMed
11 Hein, IM, Troost, PW, Lindeboom, R, Benninga, MA, Zwaan, CM, van Goudoever, JB, et al. Accuracy of the MacArthur competence assessment tool for clinical research (MacCAT-CR) for measuring children's competence to consent to clinical research. JAMA Pediatr 2014; 168: 1147–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12 Anderson, KK, Mukherjee, SD. The need for additional safeguards in the informed consent process in schizophrenia research. J Med Ethics 2007; 33: 647–50.Google Scholar
13 McDermott, BE. Coercion in research: are prisoners the only vulnerable population? J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2013; 41: 813.Google Scholar
14 Fisher, JA. Expanding the frame of “voluntariness” in informed consent: structural coercion and the power of social and economic context. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 2013; 23: 355–79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15 Schonfeld, T. The perils of protection: vulnerability and women in clinical research. Theor Med Bioeth 2013; 34: 189206.Google Scholar
16 Frew, PM, Saint-Victor, DS, Isaacs, MB, Kim, S, Swamy, GK, Sheffield, JS, et al. Recruitment and retention of pregnant women into clinical research trials: an overview of challenges, facilitators, and best practices. Clin Infect Dis 2014; 59 (suppl 7): S4007.Google Scholar
17 Chen, SC, McCullumsmith, C, Kim, SY. Disclosing the potential impact of placebo controls in antidepressant trials. BJPsych Open 2015; 1: 15. (doi: 10.1192/bjpo.bp.115.000109).Google Scholar
18 Falagas, ME, Korbila, IP, Giannopoulou, KP, Kondilis, BK, Peppas, G. Informed consents: how much and what do patients understand? Am J Surg 2009; 198: 420–35.Google Scholar
19 Tam, NT, Huy, NT, Thoa, LT, Long, NP, Trang, NT, Hirayama, KH, et al. Participants' understanding of informed consent in clinical trials over three decades: systematic review and meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ 2015; 93: 186–98.Google Scholar
20 Appelbaum, PS, Roth, LH, Lidz, CW, Benson, P, Winslade, W. False hopes and best data: consent to research and the therapeutic misconception. Hastings Cent Rep 1987; 17: 20–4.Google Scholar
21 Appelbaum, PS, Anatchkova, M, Albert, K, Dunn, LB, Lidz, CW. Therapeutic misconception in research subjects: development and validation of a measure. Clin Trials 2012; 9: 748–61.Google Scholar
22 Lidz, CW, Albert, K, Appelbaum, P, Dunn, LB, Overton, E, Pivovarova, E. Why is therapeutic misconception so prevalent? Camb Q Healthc Ethics 2015; 24: 231–41.Google Scholar
23 Flory, J, Emanuel, E. Interventions to improve research participants' understanding in informed consent for research. JAMA 2004; 292: 1593–601.Google Scholar
24 Nishimura, A, Carey, J, Erwin, PJ, Tilburt, JC, Murad, MH, McCormick, JB. Improving understanding in the research consent process: a systematic review of 54 interventions tested in randomized control trials. BMC Med Ethics 2013; 14: 28.Google Scholar
25 Hernández, A, Baños, JE, Llop, C, Farré, M. The definition of placebo in the informed consent forms of clinical trials. PLoS One 2014; 9: e113654.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26 Arnold, MH, Finniss, DG, Kerridge, I. Medicine's inconvenient truth: the placebo and nocebo effect. Intern Med J 2014; 44: 398405.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27 Rutherford, BR, Wall, MM, Glass, A, Stewart, JW. The role of patient expectancy in placebo and nocebo effects in antidepressant trials. J Clin Psychiatry 2014; 75: 1040–6.Google Scholar
28 Tait, AR, Voepel-Lewis, T, Malviya, S, Philipson, SJ. Improving the readability and processability of a pediatric informed consent document: effects on parents' understanding. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005; 159: 347–52.Google Scholar
29 de Vries, MC, Houtlosser, M, Wit, JM, Engberts, DP, Bresters, D, Kaspers, GJ, et al. Ethical issues at the interface of clinical care and research practice in pediatric oncology: a narrative review of parents' and physicians' experiences. BMC Med Ethics 2011; 12: 18.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.