Lack of Head-to-head Trials and Fair Control Arms: Randomized Controlled Trials of Biologic Treatment for Rheumatoid Arthritis | Rheumatoid Arthritis | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 34.204.186.91. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Hochman M, McCormick D. Characteristics of published comparative effectiveness studies of medications.  JAMA. 2010;303(10):951-95820215609PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
US Department of Health and Human Services; Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. .  Draft definition, prioritization criteria, and strategic framework for public comment. March 30, 2009. http://www.hhs.gov/recovery/programs/cer/draftdefinition.html. Accessed March 17, 2011
3.
Sorenson C, Naci H, Cylus J, Mossialos E. Evidence of comparative efficacy should have a formal role in European drug approvals.  BMJ. 2011;343:d484921896610PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F,  et al; International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group.  Indirect comparisons of competing interventions.  Health Technol Assess. 2005;9(26):1-134, iii-iv16014203PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Eastwood AJ, Altman DG. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews.  BMJ. 2009;338:b114719346285PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Song F, Altman DG, Glenny AM, Deeks JJ. Validity of indirect comparison for estimating efficacy of competing interventions: empirical evidence from published meta-analyses.  BMJ. 2003;326(7387):47212609941PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
VanLare JM, Conway PH, Sox HC. Five next steps for a new national program for comparative-effectiveness research.  N Engl J Med. 2010;362(11):970-97320164480PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Malozowski S. Comparative efficacy: what we know, what we need to know, and how we can get there.  Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(9):702-70318458283PubMedGoogle Scholar
9.
Sox HC, Helfand M, Grimshaw J,  et al; PLoS Medicine Editors.  Comparative effectiveness research: challenges for medical journals.  PLoS Med. 2010;7(4):e100026920436963PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
10.
Institute of Medicine.  Initial National Priorities for Comparative Effectiveness Research. Washington, DC: National Academic Press; 2009
11.
World Medical Association.  Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. October 9, 2004. http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/helsinki.html. Accessed December 5, 2011
12.
World Medical Association.  Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. April 1, 2008. http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html. Accessed March 17, 2011
13.
Aletaha D, Smolen J, Ward MM. Measuring function in rheumatoid arthritis: identifying reversible and irreversible components.  Arthritis Rheum. 2006;54(9):2784-279216947781PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Smolen JS, Aletaha D, Koeller M, Weisman MH, Emery P. New therapies for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.  Lancet. 2007;370(9602):1861-187417570481PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
15.
Saag KG, Teng GG, Patkar NM,  et al; American College of Rheumatology.  American College of Rheumatology 2008 recommendations for the use of nonbiologic and biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs in rheumatoid arthritis.  Arthritis Rheum. 2008;59(6):762-78418512708PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Singh JA, Christensen R, Wells GA,  et al.  Biologics for rheumatoid arthritis: an overview of Cochrane reviews.  Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009;(4):CD00784819821440PubMedGoogle Scholar
17.
American College of Rheumatology Subcommittee on Rheumatoid Arthritis Guidelines.  Guidelines for the management of rheumatoid arthritis: 2002 update.  Arthritis Rheum. 2002;46(2):328-34611840435PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Fries JF, Krishnan E. Equipoise, design bias, and randomized controlled trials: the elusive ethics of new drug development.  Arthritis Res Ther. 2004;6(3):R250-R25515142271PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Carpenter WT Jr, Appelbaum PS, Levine RJ. The Declaration of Helsinki and clinical trials: a focus on placebo-controlled trials in schizophrenia.  Am J Psychiatry. 2003;160(2):356-36212562584PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Levine RJ. Placebo controls in clinical trials of new therapies for osteoporosis.  J Bone Miner Res. 2003;18(6):1154-115912817775PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
US Department of Health and Human Services; Food and Drug Administration; Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; Center for Devices and Radiologic Health.  Guidance for Industry: Clinical Development Programs for Drugs, Devices, and Biological Products for the Treatment of Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA). February 1999. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm071579.pdf. Accessed October 10, 2011
22.
Stang A, Hense HW, Jöckel KH, Turner EH, Tramèr MR. Is it always unethical to use a placebo in a clinical trial?  PLoS Med. 2005;2(3):e7215783259PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
23.
Temple R, Ellenberg SS. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments, I: ethical and scientific issues.  Ann Intern Med. 2000;133(6):455-46310975964PubMedGoogle Scholar
24.
 International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use: ICH harmonised tripartite guideline: choice of control group and related issues in clinical trials E10. July 20, 2000. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E10/Step4/E10_Guideline.pdf. Accessed December 5, 2011
25.
European Medicines Agency; Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products.  Points to consider on clinical investigation of medicinal products other than NSAIDS for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. 2003. (CPMP/EWP556/95 rev1/Final). December 17, 2003. http://www.emea.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003439.pdf. Accessed December 5, 2011
26.
Smolen JS, Boers M, Abadie EC,  et al.  Recommendations for an update of 2003 European regulatory requirements for registration of drugs to be used in the treatment of RA.  Curr Med Res Opin. 2011;27(2):315-32521142618PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
27.
Boers M. A new design for registration trials in rheumatoid arthritis allowing secondary head-to-head comparisons with standard of care treatment including biologicals.  Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(1):4-620007620PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
28.
Boers M. The time has come to limit the placebo period in rheumatoid arthritis trials to 3 months: a systematic comparison of 3- and 6-month response rates in trials of biological agents.  Ann Rheum Dis. 2010;69(1):186-19219773287PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Donahue KE, Gartlehner G, Jonas DE,  et al.  Systematic review: comparative effectiveness and harms of disease-modifying medications for rheumatoid arthritis.  Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(2):124-13418025440PubMedGoogle Scholar
30.
van Vollenhoven RF. Unresolved issues in biologic therapy for rheumatoid arthritis.  Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2011;7(4):205-21521386796PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
European Medicines Agency.  EU standard of medicinal product registration/clinical evaluation of risk/benefit—the role of comparator studies. 2004. (EMEA/119319/04). November 2010. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2011/01/WC500100710.pdf. Accessed December 5, 2011
32.
Gartlehner G, Fleg A. Pharmaceutical company–sponsored drug trials: the system is broken.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(2):128-12919880288PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
World Health Organization.  International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). October 6, 2011. http://www.who.int/ictrp/en. Accessed December 5, 2011
Original Investigation
Feb 13, 2012

Lack of Head-to-head Trials and Fair Control Arms: Randomized Controlled Trials of Biologic Treatment for Rheumatoid Arthritis

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: INSERM U738 Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (Drs Estellat and Ravaud), Département d’Epidémiologie et Recherche Clinique, site Bichat, Hôpitaux Universitaire Paris Nord Val de Siene, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, and Université Paris Diderot (Dr Estellat), and Centre d’Epidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, Assistance Publique–Hôpitaux de Paris, and Université Paris Descartes (Dr Ravaud), Paris, France.

Arch Intern Med. 2012;172(3):237-244. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.1209
Abstract

Background One of the key elements of comparative treatment effectiveness research is head-to-head trials. We herein describe the control arms and the treatment received by patients in recently conducted or ongoing randomized controlled trials of biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) for rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods We identified all protocols recorded in ClinicalTrials.gov to October 1, 2009. We extracted trial length and funding, prior treatment, disease activity in eligible patients, and the treatment received in both trial arms.

Results Among the 91 trials identified (15 DMARD-naive trials, 63 biologic-naive trials, and 13 biologic–second-line trials) involving 18 554 patients in control arms (3059, 13 095, and 2400 patients, respectively), only 5 compared biologic DMARDs head-to-head (2 of 7 noncommercially funded trials and 3 of 84 commercially funded trials). Two-thirds (66%) of these trials are ongoing. Networks of treatment comparisons reflect a predominant use of placebo as a comparator (81 of 102 comparisons among the 91 trials). In all 15 DMARD-naive trials, all control patients received a new treatment. In 54 of the 63 biologic-naive trials, 9224 of the 13 095 control patients received their previously ineffective treatment, 3848 for more than 6 months, despite high levels of disease activity and contrary to guidelines. In biologic–second-line trials, 851 of the 2400 control patients received treatment comparable to their previously ineffective one.

Conclusions Head-to-head trials of biologic DMARDs are still exceptions. Exposing patients in control arms who had a previous partial response or nonresponse to an inadequate treatment could lead to irreversible deterioration in condition.

×