XML Feed for RxPG News   Add RxPG News Headlines to My Yahoo!   Javascript Syndication for RxPG News

Research Health World General
 
  Home
 
   Health
 Aging
 Asian Health
 Events
 Fitness
 Food & Nutrition
 Happiness
 Men's Health
 Mental Health
 Occupational Health
 Parenting
 Public Health
 Sleep Hygiene
 Women's Health
 
   Healthcare
 Africa
 Australia
 Canada Healthcare
 China Healthcare
 India Healthcare
 New Zealand
 South Africa
 UK
 USA
 World Healthcare
 
   Latest Research
 Aging
 Alternative Medicine
 Anaethesia
 Biochemistry
 Biotechnology
 Cancer
 Cardiology
 Clinical Trials
 Cytology
 Dental
 Dermatology
 Embryology
 Endocrinology
 ENT
 Environment
 Epidemiology
 Gastroenterology
 Genetics
 Gynaecology
 Haematology
 Immunology
 Infectious Diseases
 Medicine
 Metabolism
 Microbiology
 Musculoskeletal
 Nephrology
 Neurosciences
 Obstetrics
 Ophthalmology
 Orthopedics
 Paediatrics
 Pathology
 Pharmacology
 Physiology
 Physiotherapy
 Psychiatry
 Radiology
 Rheumatology
 Sports Medicine
 Surgery
 Toxicology
 Urology
 
   Medical News
 Awards & Prizes
 Epidemics
 Launch
 Opinion
 Professionals
 
   Special Topics
 Ethics
 Euthanasia
 Evolution
 Feature
 Odd Medical News
 Climate
Search

Last Updated: Nov 18, 2006 - 1:55:25 PM

Review Article

Ethics Channel
subscribe to Ethics newsletter

Special Topics : Ethics

   DISCUSS   |   EMAIL   |   PRINT
Clinical Trials Stopped Early For Benefit Warrant Skepticism
Nov 2, 2005 - 3:29:00 AM, Reviewed by: Dr.

"RCTs stopped early for benefit are becoming more common, often fail to adequately report relevant information about the decision to stop early, and show implausibly large treatment effects, particularly when the number of events is small. These findings suggest clinicians should view the results of such trials with skepticism."

 
A review article in the November 2 issue of JAMA suggests clinicians ought to view with skepticism the results of randomized clinical trials stopped early because of apparent benefit.

Victor M. Montori, M.D., M.Sc., from McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, and colleagues conducted a review of the medical literature to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of any intervention reported as having been stopped earlier than planned because of results favoring the experimental intervention.

"Of 143 RCTs stopped early for benefit, the majority (92) were published in 5 high-impact medical journals. Typically, these were industry-funded drug trials in cardiology, cancer, and human immunodeficiency virus/AIDS," the authors found. "The proportion of all RCTs published in high-impact journals that were stopped early for benefit increased from 0.5 percent in 1990 – 1994 to 1.2 percent in 2000 – 2004. On average, RCTs recruited 63 percent of the planned sample and stopped after a median (mid-point) of 13 months of follow-up, one interim analysis, and when a median of 66 patients had experienced the end point driving study termination (event)." The authors also note that "trials with fewer events yielded greater treatment effects."

The authors conclude: "RCTs stopped early for benefit are becoming more common, often fail to adequately report relevant information about the decision to stop early, and show implausibly large treatment effects, particularly when the number of events is small. These findings suggest clinicians should view the results of such trials with skepticism."

In an accompanying editorial, Stuart J. Pocock, Ph.D., from the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, writes: "In this issue of JAMA, Montori and colleagues provide a valuable extensive and critical systemic review of clinical trials that were stopped early for benefit."

"The skeptic should ask first whether correct and appropriate structures were in place for analyzing and reviewing, and making decisions based on, the trial’s accumulating interim data. Having the members of an effective independent data monitoring committee (DMC) or data and safety monitoring board as the only individuals accessing and interpreting interim data split by treatment group is now considered an essential part of good practice for major randomized trials. Still, a substantial minority of reported major trials appear not to have a DMC in place. Second, with or without a formal DMC recommendation, another question is whether the decision to stop a trial early and report the results was an appropriate judgment."

Dr. Pocock notes, "The ethical dilemma is to safeguard the interests of patients randomized in the current trial while also protecting society from overzealous premature claims of treatment benefit."

"In summary, all major randomized trials should have an independent DMC that functions effectively and makes wise judgments aided by stringent statistical stopping boundaries for benefit. It is critical that the DMC, principal investigators, executive committees, and sponsors all recognize the full public health implications of their recommendations and decisions."
 

- November 2 issue of JAMA
 

JAMA . 2005;294:2203–2209

 
Subscribe to Ethics Newsletter
E-mail Address:

 



Related Ethics News
Regulating stem cell research
Overcoming Ethical Constraints
Drug tests on animals may be unreliable: study
Waiting For Trial Results Sometimes Unethical
NHGRI Funds Assessment of Public Attitudes About Population-Based Studies on Genes and Environment
Physicians More Likely To Disclose Medical Errors That Would Be Apparent To The Patient
Doctors inadvertently help terminally ill patients to die sooner
Intellectual property law and the protection of traditional knowledge
Conscientious objection in medicine should not be tolerated
Yale guidelines for physician interactions with pharmaceutical industry


For any corrections of factual information, to contact the editors or to send any medical news or health news press releases, use feedback form

Top of Page

 

© Copyright 2004 onwards by RxPG Medical Solutions Private Limited
Contact Us