Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2012 Nov;22(11):804-11. doi: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2012.03.007. Epub 2012 Jun 15.
The use of placebo in clinical trials, and, related to this, ethical and feasibility aspects, are often debated. However, regulatory authorities must ensure that only new drugs with a positive benefit/risk would be granted a marketing authorization. It is therefore not surprising that they often put forward the need for placebo control in clinical trials in an area where many trials fail, and assay sensitivity is not self-evident. To illustrate the complexity that regulatory authorities encounter when faced with the registration dossier of products in the main psychiatric therapeutic areas, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and schizophrenia, the trial outcome for products receiving an opinion in the EU during the past 15 years were reviewed.
European Public Assessment Reports and registration files.
A total of 45 studies qualified for analysis. For the indication MDD 38% of the studies (10/26) were recorded as failed, and another 15% (4/26) as negative. For schizophrenia, these figures were 16% (3/19) and 11% (2/19). Further exploration of the trials in MDD revealed an inconsistent pattern in terms of magnitude of placebo- and drug-mediated response (i.e. similar studies with consistent placebo response provided different treatment outcomes).
From a regulatory perspective the dilemma of a priori exclusion of the placebo arm in clinical trials in the domains of depression or schizophrenia cannot be solved at this time as long as factors influencing trial variability are not better identified or understood. This counts in particular for MDD where the added drug effect is not consistent across trials with almost identical inclusion criteria. Unfortunately, this trend has not changed over the past 15 years. However, all efforts should be taken to optimize the clinical development of drugs in the psychiatric domain, and improve the intrinsic quality of the clinical trials in order to allow for a different viewpoint.
安慰剂在临床试验中的应用,以及与之相关的伦理和可行性方面,经常引发争议。然而,监管机构必须确保只有具有积极的收益/风险比的新药才能获得营销授权。因此,毫不奇怪,他们经常在许多试验失败且检测灵敏度不明显的领域提出临床试验中需要安慰剂对照的要求。为了说明监管机构在面对主要精神治疗领域(如重度抑郁症(MDD)和精神分裂症)的产品注册文件时所面临的复杂性,审查了过去 15 年在欧盟获得意见的产品的临床试验结果。
欧洲公共评估报告和注册文件。
共有 45 项研究符合分析条件。对于 MDD 适应证,38%(10/26)的研究被记录为失败,另有 15%(4/26)为阴性。对于精神分裂症,这两个数字分别为 16%(3/19)和 11%(2/19)。对 MDD 试验的进一步探索表明,安慰剂和药物介导反应的幅度存在不一致的模式(即具有一致安慰剂反应的相似研究提供了不同的治疗结果)。
从监管角度来看,只要影响试验变异性的因素不能得到更好的识别或理解,在抑郁或精神分裂症领域的临床试验中,就不能预先排除安慰剂组,这在目前是无法解决的。这在 MDD 中尤其如此,因为在具有几乎相同纳入标准的试验中,药物的附加效果并不一致。不幸的是,这种趋势在过去 15 年中并没有改变。然而,应该尽一切努力优化精神科药物的临床开发,并提高临床试验的内在质量,以便能够有不同的观点。