Jensen Jakob Solgaard, Bielefeldt Andreas Ørsted, Hróbjartsson Asbjørn
The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet Department 7811, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Rigshospitalet Department 7811, Blegdamsvej 9, 2100 Copenhagen Ø, Denmark.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Jul;87:35-46. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.03.001. Epub 2017 Mar 22.
Active placebos are control interventions that mimic the side effects of the experimental interventions in randomized trials and are sometimes used to reduce the risk of unblinding. We wanted to assess how often randomized clinical drug trials use active placebo control groups; to provide a catalog, and a characterization, of such trials; and to analyze methodological arguments for and against the use of active placebo.
An overview consisting of three thematically linked substudies. In an observational substudy, we assessed the prevalence of active placebo groups based on a random sample of 200 PubMed indexed placebo-controlled randomized drug trials published in October 2013. In a systematic review, we identified and characterized trials with active placebo control groups irrespective of publication time. In a third substudy, we reviewed publications with substantial methodological comments on active placebo groups (searches in PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and HighWirePress).
The prevalence of trials with active placebo groups published in 2013 was 1 out of 200 (95% confidence interval: 0-2), 0.5% (0-1%). We identified and characterized 89 randomized trials (published 1961-2014) using active placebos, for example, antihistamines, anticholinergic drugs, and sedatives. Such trials typically involved a crossover design, the experimental intervention had noticeable side effects, and the outcomes were patient-reported. The use of active placebos was clustered in specific research settings and did not appear to reflect consistently the side effect profile of the experimental intervention, for example, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors were compared with active placebos in pain trials but not in depression trials. We identified and analyzed 25 methods publications with substantial comments. The main argument for active placebo was to reduce risk of unblinding; the main argument against was the risk of unintended therapeutic effect.
Pharmacological active placebo control interventions are rarely used in randomized clinical trials, but they constitute a methodological tool which merits serious consideration. We suggest that active placebos are used more often in trials of drugs with noticeable side effects, especially in situations where the expected therapeutic effects are modest and the risk of bias due to unblinding is high.
活性安慰剂是在随机试验中模拟试验性干预措施副作用的对照干预措施,有时用于降低破盲风险。我们希望评估随机临床药物试验使用活性安慰剂对照组的频率;提供此类试验的目录和特征描述;并分析支持和反对使用活性安慰剂的方法学论据。
一项由三个主题相关的子研究组成的综述。在一项观察性子研究中,我们基于2013年10月发表的200篇被PubMed收录的安慰剂对照随机药物试验的随机样本,评估活性安慰剂组的患病率。在一项系统评价中,我们识别并描述了使用活性安慰剂对照组的试验,不考虑发表时间。在第三个子研究中,我们回顾了对活性安慰剂组有大量方法学评论的出版物(在PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、谷歌学术和HighWirePress中检索)。
2013年发表的使用活性安慰剂组的试验患病率为200分之一(95%置信区间:0 - 2),即0.5%(0 - 1%)。我们识别并描述了89项使用活性安慰剂的随机试验(发表于1961 - 2014年),例如抗组胺药、抗胆碱能药物和镇静剂。此类试验通常采用交叉设计,试验性干预措施有明显副作用,且结果由患者报告。活性安慰剂的使用集中在特定研究环境中,似乎并未始终反映试验性干预措施的副作用特征,例如,在疼痛试验中选择性5 - 羟色胺再摄取抑制剂与活性安慰剂进行了比较,但在抑郁症试验中未进行比较。我们识别并分析了25篇有大量评论的方法学出版物。支持活性安慰剂的主要论据是降低破盲风险;反对的主要论据是意外治疗效果的风险。
药理活性安慰剂对照干预措施在随机临床试验中很少使用,但它们构成了一种值得认真考虑的方法学工具。我们建议,在有明显副作用的药物试验中,尤其是在预期治疗效果适度且因破盲导致偏倚风险较高的情况下,应更频繁地使用活性安慰剂。