PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12654404

Evaluating preference effects in partially unblinded, randomized clinical trials.

Abstract

The ability of randomized, clinical trials (RCTs) to produce unbiased estimates of an intervention's specific (i.e., innate pharmacologic or physiologic) effect rests on at least two assumptions. First, other prognostic effects (such as disease severity or the psychologic effects of treatment) are assumed to be evenly distributed across treatment groups, and second, it is assumed that these other effects do not interact with the intervention's specific effect. This essay shows how the effect of patients' preferences for treatments may interact with an intervention's specific effect to bias the trial's results. Earlier mathematical descriptions of how preference effects may produce bias in nonblinded trials are extended to the case of (presumably) blinded RCTs. The extent to which preference effects may confer bias in partially unblinded placebo-controlled vs. active-controlled drug trials are considered. Finally, methods for estimating preference effects in partially unblinded RCTs are provided. It is concluded that investigators could use these methods to quantify potential preference effects in partially unblinded RCTs, and thereby more accurately estimate the specific effects of treatments.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Scott D Halpern. 2003. Evaluating preference effects in partially unblinded, randomized clinical trials.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(02)00598-x

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Redefining response in overactive bladder syndrome.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate three potential definitions of treatment response in overactive bladder (OAB) syndrome, based on the International Continence Society (ICS) definition of OAB, using pooled data from two large clinical trials of the antimuscarinic agent solifenacin succinate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: As the ICS definition of OAB does not rely on urodynamic observations for a diagnosis, the use of composite endpoints, such as in the definitions examined here, might provide a more relevant measure of patient benefits. Each definition was tested to assess the impact of pharmacotherapy, comparing treatment response rates based on composite endpoints. Responder definitions were validated based on the impact on quality of life (QoL). Pooled data from two 12-week multinational, multicentre, double-blind randomized studies of solifenacin, a once-daily oral antimuscarinic for treating OAB symptoms, were used for this analysis. Based on the symptom data from these studies (episodes of urgency, incontinence, nocturia and voiding frequency per 24 h), response was defined as being: (i) a reduction by half or more in all baseline symptoms; (ii) a reduction by half or more in urgency and at least one other symptom; or (iii) resolution of urgency episodes and at least one other symptom. Health-related QoL changes were recorded using the King's Health Questionnaire (KHQ). RESULTS: Solifenacin at 5 mg or 10 mg once daily resulted in significantly higher response rates than with placebo, irrespective of the definition of a responder (P < or = 0.001). When assessing the most challenging definition of response (resolution of urgency and at least one other symptom), solifenacin at 5 mg and 10 mg resulted in 20% and 25% of patients, respectively, meeting the response criteria, vs 12% of placebo-treated patients (P < or = 0.001 for both solifenacin doses). For all three definitions of response, responders showed greater improvements in all KHQ domains than did nonresponders, and the differences were statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: The two strictest definitions of response (halving or more in all baseline symptoms or resolution of urgency and more than one other symptom) appeared to capture QoL changes most effectively. Establishing the most appropriate definition to assess treatment-related changes in OAB will require further investigation, but it is clear from this analysis that composite clinical endpoints, based on the ICS definition of OAB, are a valid approach for assessing the effect of treatments for OAB.

Double-Blind Method↗