Abstract
Background: The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. Objectives: To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials. Design: To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout. Setting: A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines. Results: To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Conclusions: The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial. Limitations: Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS. Future work: Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Number of pages | 76 |
| Journal | Health Technology Assessment |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue number | 53 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2021 |
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver
}
In: Health Technology Assessment, Vol. 25, No. 53, 2021.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Placebo comparator group selection and use in surgical trials
T2 - The aspire project including expert workshop
AU - Beard, David J.
AU - Campbell, Marion K.
AU - Blazeby, Jane M.
AU - Carr, Andrew J.
AU - Weijer, Charles
AU - Cuthbertson, Brian H.
AU - Buchbinder, Rachelle
AU - Pinkney, Thomas
AU - Bishop, Felicity L.
AU - Pugh, Jonathan
AU - Cousins, Sian
AU - Harris, Ian
AU - Lohmander, L. Stefan
AU - Blencowe, Natalie
AU - Gillies, Katie
AU - Probst, Pascal
AU - Brennan, Carol
AU - Cook, Andrew
AU - Farrar-Hockley, Dair
AU - Savulescu, Julian
AU - Huxtable, Richard
AU - Rangan, Amar
AU - Tracey, Irene
AU - Brocklehurst, Peter
AU - Ferreira, Manuela L.
AU - Nicholl, Jon
AU - Reeves, Barnaby C.
AU - Hamdy, Freddie
AU - Rowley, Samuel C.S.
AU - Lee, Naomi
AU - Cook, Jonathan A.
N1 - Funding Information: Funding: Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health Research as part of the Medical Research Council–National Institute for Health Research Methodology Research programme. Funding Information: Declared competing interests of authors: David J Beard reports grants from the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and Versus Arthritis (Chesterfield, UK) outside the submitted work. Marion K Campbell reports former NIHR Clinical Trials Unit (CTU) Standing Advisory Committee membership (2014–17). Jane M Blazeby reports current NIHR CTU Standing Advisory Committee membership (2015–19). Andrew J Carr reports grants from NIHR and the Wellcome Trust (London, UK) outside the submitted work, has a patent issued with BioPatch and is a member of Novartis Musculoskeletal Advisory Board and UK Research and Innovation Advanced Pain Discovery programme (January 2020–present). Charles Weijer reports personal fees from Cardialen, Inc. (Minneapolis, MN, USA), Eli Lilly & Company (Indianapolis IN, USA) and RTI International (Research Triangle, Park, NC, USA) outside the submitted work. Thomas Pinkney reports Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Clinical Evaluation and Trials Committee membership (November 2017–present). Jonathan Pugh reports grants from Wellcome Trust during the conduct of the study. Katie Gillies reports HTA Clinical Evaluation and Trials Committee membership (November 2020–present). Andrew Cook reports membership of the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Funding Committee, EME Funding Committee Sub-Group Remit & Comp Check, HTA Prioritisation Committee B Methods Group (former) (October 2019–present), PHR Prioritisation Group (former) and Prioritisation Strategy Group (2006–9). Andrew Cook also declares membership of the secretariat of various committees for the HTA, EME and PHR programmes (2006–present). Richard Huxtable reports grants from NIHR during the conduct of the study. In addition, Richard Huxtable reports grants from the Wellcome Trust, the European Union, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (Swindon, UK), the Elizabeth Blackwell Institute for Health Research (Bristol, UK) and the National Research Foundation of Korea (Daejeon, Republic of Korea), and personal fees from the Wellcome Trust, outside the submitted work. Natalie Blencowe reports trainee membership to the HTA Clinical Evaluation and Trials Committee (January–December 2020). Amar Rangan reports grants from NIHR, Orthopaedic Research UK (London, UK) and Horizon 2020, and grants and personal fees from DePuy Synthes (Raynham, MA, USA) outside the submitted work. Irene Tracey is a member of a Medical Research Council (MRC) Council (2017–present), a member of the Guarantors of Brain (London, UK) (2016–present), is a trustee of MQ: Transforming Mental Health (London, UK) (2016–present) and is a Lundbeck Brain Prize Committee Member (2015–present). Peter Brocklehurst reports personal fees from MRC and AG Biotest (Dreieich, Germany) and grants from MRC, Wellcome Trust and NIHR outside the submitted work. In addition, Peter Brocklehurst reports clinical trial units funded by NIHR, and HTA Efficient Study Designs Board (former) (2016) and HTA Maternal, Neonatal and Child Health Panel (former) membership (2014–18). Manuela L Ferreira reports grants from the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (Canberra, ACT, Australia) during the conduct of the study. Barnaby C Reeves reports former membership of the Health Technology Assessment Commissioning Board (January 2012–31 March 2016) and the Health Technology Assessment Efficient Study Designs Board (October–December 2014). He also reports current membership of the Health Technology Assessment Interventional Procedures Committee B Methods Group and Systematic Reviews Programme Advisory Group (Systematic Reviews National Institute for Health Research Cochrane Incentive Awards and Systematic Review Advisory Group). Freddie Hamdy reports being an editor-in-chief of the BJU International journal (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, USA) (February 2020–present) and Advisory Board Member for Intuitive (Sunnyvale, CA, USA) (January 2020–present). Samuel CS Rowley reports personal fees from MRC and UK Research and Innovation during the conduct of the study. Jonathan A Cook reports Methodology State-of-the-Art Workshops (MSAW) grant funding from the MRC and NIHR for the project. Naomi Lee reports an annual salary from Elsevier (Amsterdam, the Netherlands)/The Lancet, during the conduct of the study. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 Beard et al. Copyright: Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - Background: The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. Objectives: To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials. Design: To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout. Setting: A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines. Results: To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Conclusions: The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial. Limitations: Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS. Future work: Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space.
AB - Background: The use of placebo comparisons for randomised trials assessing the efficacy of surgical interventions is increasingly being considered. However, a placebo control is a complex type of comparison group in the surgical setting and, although powerful, presents many challenges. Objectives: To provide a summary of knowledge on placebo controls in surgical trials and to summarise any recommendations for designers, evaluators and funders of placebo-controlled surgical trials. Design: To carry out a state-of-the-art workshop and produce a corresponding report involving key stakeholders throughout. Setting: A workshop to discuss and summarise the existing knowledge and to develop the new guidelines. Results: To assess what a placebo control entails and to assess the understanding of this tool in the context of surgery is considered, along with when placebo controls in surgery are acceptable (and when they are desirable). We have considered ethics arguments and regulatory requirements, how a placebo control should be designed, how to identify and mitigate risk for participants in these trials, and how such trials should be carried out and interpreted. The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Surgical placebos might be most appropriate when there is poor evidence for the efficacy of the procedure and a justified concern that results of a trial would be associated with a high risk of bias, particularly because of the placebo effect. Conclusions: The use of placebo controls is justified in randomised controlled trials of surgical interventions provided that there is a strong scientific and ethics rationale. Feasibility work is recommended to optimise the design and implementation of randomised controlled trials. An outline for best practice was produced in the form of the Applying Surgical Placebo in Randomised Evaluations (ASPIRE) guidelines for those considering the use of a placebo control in a surgical randomised controlled trial. Limitations: Although the workshop participants involved international members, the majority of participants were from the UK. Therefore, although every attempt was made to make the recommendations applicable to all health systems, the guidelines may, unconsciously, be particularly applicable to clinical practice in the UK NHS. Future work: Future work should evaluate the use of the ASPIRE guidelines in making decisions about the use of a placebo-controlled surgical trial. In addition, further work is required on the appropriate nomenclature to adopt in this space.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85117375961&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3310/HTA25530
DO - 10.3310/HTA25530
M3 - Article
C2 - 34505829
AN - SCOPUS:85117375961
SN - 1366-5278
VL - 25
JO - Health Technology Assessment
JF - Health Technology Assessment
IS - 53
ER -