Dataset Information

Drug*placebo interaction effect may bias clinical trials interpretation: hybrid balanced placebo and randomized placebo-controlled design.

ABSTRACT: Conventional randomized placebo-controlled study design assumes the absence of drug*placebo interaction. We hypothesized the presence of such an interaction and that conventionally estimated drug effect might be biased. The objectives of the study were to determine the drug*placebo interaction effect (main) and compare conventionally estimated and interaction model-estimated drug effects (secondary).We used a hybrid of balanced placebo and randomized placebo-controlled designs. Four hundred eighty healthy volunteers were randomized to three groups. The first received hydroxyzine (25 mg) described as hydroxyzine or placebo, the second received placebo described as hydroxyzine or placebo, and the third received hydroxyzine and placebo described as unknown; each in a randomized crossover design. Seven participants failed to crossover. Group assignment was concealed from participants and study coordinators. Coordinators were blinded to group and intervention assignment. Participants and coordinators were deceived as to study objectives. Main outcomes were mean area-under-the-curve of drowsiness (therapeutic outcome) and mouth-dryness (adverse outcome), self-reported on 100 mm visual analog scale over 7 h. Drug, placebo, placebo?+?interaction, and total effects were estimated using analysis of covariance by comparing received hydroxyzine/told placebo to received placebo/told placebo, received placebo/told hydroxyzine to received placebo/told placebo, received hydroxyzine/told hydroxyzine to received hydroxyzine/told placebo, and received hydroxyzine/told hydroxyzine to received placebo/told placebo, respectively. Drug effect was also conventionally estimated in the third group.Mean (SD) age was 31.4 (6.6) years, 65% were males. There was significant difference between placebo?+?interaction effect and placebo effect for both drowsiness and mouth-dryness with a mean difference (95% confidence interval) of 35.1 (5.6 to 64.6) and 23.8 (2.4 to 45.2) mm*hr, respectively. Total effect was larger than the sum of drug and placebo effects for drowsiness (139.7 (109.8 to 169.6) vs. 99.1 (68.2 to 130.0) mm*hr) and mouth-dryness (63.6 (41.1 to 86.1) vs. 34.7 (11.1 to 58.4) mm*hr). Conventionally estimated drug effect was larger than interaction model-estimated drug effect for drowsiness (69.2 (45.5 to 92.8) vs. (58.3 (31.6 to 85.0) mm*hr) and mouth-dryness (19.9 (5.3 to 34.5) vs. 9.5 (-9.2 to 28.1) mm*hr).There is significant and important drug*placebo interaction effect that may bias conventionally estimated drug effect.ClinicalTrial.gov identifier: NCT01501591 (registered December 25, 2011).

SUBMITTER: Hammami MM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5129641 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Drug*placebo interaction effect may bias clinical trials interpretation: hybrid balanced placebo and randomized placebo-controlled design.

Hammami Muhammad M MM Hammami Safa S Al-Swayeh Reem R Al-Gaai Eman E Farah Faduma Abdi FA De Padua Sophia J S SJ

BMC medical research methodology 20161129 1

<h4>Background</h4>Conventional randomized placebo-controlled study design assumes the absence of drug*placebo interaction. We hypothesized the presence of such an interaction and that conventionally estimated drug effect might be biased. The objectives of the study were to determine the drug*placebo interaction effect (main) and compare conventionally estimated and interaction model-estimated drug effects (secondary).<h4>Methods</h4>We used a hybrid of balanced placebo and randomized placebo-co ...[more]

PMID: 27899067

Similar Datasets

Project description:The total effect of a medication is the sum of its drug effect, placebo effect (meaning response), and their possible interaction. Current interpretation of clinical trials' results assumes no interaction. Demonstrating such an interaction has been difficult due to lack of an appropriate study design.180 adults were randomized to caffeine (300 mg) or placebo groups. Each group received the assigned intervention described by the investigators as caffeine or placebo, in a randomized crossover design. 4-hour-area-under-the-curve of energy, sleepiness, nausea (on 100 mm visual analog scales), and systolic blood pressure levels as well as caffeine pharmacokinetics (in 22 volunteers nested in the caffeine group) were determined. Caffeine drug, placebo, placebo-plus-interaction, and total effects were estimated by comparing outcomes after, receiving caffeine described as placebo to receiving placebo described as placebo, receiving placebo described as caffeine or placebo, receiving caffeine described as caffeine or placebo, and receiving caffeine described as caffeine to receiving placebo described as placebo, respectively.The placebo effect on area-under-the-curve of energy (mean difference) and sleepiness (geometric mean ratio) was larger than placebo-plus-interaction effect (16.6 [95% CI, 4.1 to 29.0] vs. 8.4 [-4.2 to 21.0] mm*hr and 0.58 [0.39 to 0.86] vs. 0.69 [0.49 to 0.97], respectively), similar in size to drug effect (20.8 [3.8 to 37.8] mm*hr and 0.49 [0.30 to 0.91], respectively), and its combination with the later was larger than total caffeine effect (29.5 [11.9 to 47.1] mm*hr and 0.37 [0.22 to 0.64]). Placebo-plus-interaction effect increased caffeine terminal half-life by 0.40 [0.12 to 0.68] hr (P=0.007).Drug and placebo effects of a medication may be less than additive, which influences the interpretation of clinical trials. The placebo effect may increase active drug terminal half-life, a novel mechanism of placebo action.ClinicalTrials.gov identification number - NCT00426010.

Project description:IntroductionMortality is the most widely accepted outcome measure in randomized controlled trials of therapies for critically ill adults, but most of these trials fail to show a statistically significant mortality benefit. The reasons for this are unknown.MethodsWe searched five high impact journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, JAMA, The Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine) for randomized controlled trials comparing mortality of therapies for critically ill adults over a ten year period. We abstracted data on the statistical design and results of these trials to compare the predicted delta (delta; the effect size of the therapy compared to control expressed as an absolute mortality reduction) to the observed delta to determine if there is a systematic overestimation of predicted delta that might explain the high prevalence of negative results in these trials.ResultsWe found 38 trials meeting our inclusion criteria. Only 5/38 (13.2%) of the trials provided justification for the predicted delta. The mean predicted delta among the 38 trials was 10.1% and the mean observed delta was 1.4% (P < 0.0001), resulting in a delta-gap of 8.7%. In only 2/38 (5.3%) of the trials did the observed delta exceed the predicted delta and only 7/38 (18.4%) of the trials demonstrated statistically significant results in the hypothesized direction; these trials had smaller delta-gaps than the remainder of the trials (delta-gap 0.9% versus 10.5%; P < 0.0001). For trials showing non-significant trends toward benefit greater than 3%, large increases in sample size (380% - 1100%) would be required if repeat trials use the observed delta from the index trial as the predicted delta for a follow-up study.ConclusionsInvestigators of therapies for critical illness systematically overestimate treatment effect size (delta) during the design of randomized controlled trials. This bias, which we refer to as "delta inflation", is a potential reason that these trials have a high rate of negative results."Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

Project description:BackgroundSevere, chronic, and impairing irritability is a common presenting clinical problem in youth. Indeed, it was recently operationalized as disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (DMDD) in the DSM-5. However, to date, there are no evidence-based treatments that were specifically developed for DMDD. The current randomized controlled trial assesses the efficacy of a computer-based cognitive training intervention (Interpretation Bias Training; IBT) in youth with DMDD. IBT aims to reduce irritability by altering judgments of ambiguous face-emotions through computerized feedback. IBT is based on previous findings that youth with irritability-related psychopathology rate ambiguous faces as more hostile and fear producing.Methods/designThis is a double-blind, randomized controlled trial of IBT in 40 youth with DMDD. Participants will be randomized to receive four IBT sessions (Active vs. Sham training) over 4 days. Active IBT provides computerized feedback to change ambiguous face-emotion interpretations towards happy interpretations. Face-emotion judgments are performed pre and post training, and for 2 weeks following training. Blinded clinicians will conduct weekly clinical ratings. Primary outcome measures assess changes in irritability using the clinician-rated Affective Reactivity Index (ARI) and Clinical Global Impressions-Improvement (CGI-I) scale for DMDD, as well as parent and child reports of irritability using the ARI. Secondary outcome measures include clinician ratings of depression, anxiety, and overall impairment. In addition, parent and child self-report measures of depression, anxiety, anger, social status, and aggression will be collected.DiscussionThe study described in this protocol will perform the first RCT testing the efficacy of IBT in reducing irritability in youth with DMDD. Developing non-pharmacological treatment options for youth suffering from severe, chronic irritability is important to potentially augment existing treatments.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT02531893 . Registered on 25 August 2015.

Dataset Information

Drug*placebo interaction effect may bias clinical trials interpretation: hybrid balanced placebo and randomized placebo-controlled design.

Publications

Drug*placebo interaction effect may bias clinical trials interpretation: hybrid balanced placebo and randomized placebo-controlled design.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets