Assessing Preventive and Therapeutic Interventions: Randomized Trials
Overview: The randomized trial (RT) is a rigorous design for evaluating the efficacy and safety of treatments.
Historical Context:
Galen noted that treatments work for those who need them, implying the need for effective assessments.
Early thoughts on randomized trials trace back to Sir Francis Galton and experiments regarding prayer's efficacy, culminating in studies evaluating prayer's effects.
Learning Objectives
Describe significant elements of randomized trials.
Define the purpose of randomization and masking.
Introduce design issues related to trials: stratified randomization, crossovers, factorial design, and noncompliance issues.
Goals of Clinical Trials
Modify or delay the natural history of diseases to prevent death or disability.
Determine the best available preventive or therapeutic interventions to improve population health.
Assess whether interventions are effective and safe.
Elements of Randomized Trials
Randomization: The process that eliminates bias by randomly assigning participants to treatment groups, ensuring comparability.
Treatment Arms: Clearly specified treatment groups for assessment (e.g., new treatment vs. standard treatment).
Eligibility Criteria: Specific criteria must be established a priori to determine who can be included in the study, ensuring replicable procedures.
Historical Examples of Trials
Ambroise Paré's Observational Trial: Not formally randomized, resulted in abandoning boiling oil as a treatment for wounds based on patient outcomes.
James Lind's Experiment on Scurvy: A pioneer controlled trial in naval medicine assessed the effectiveness of citrus fruits, leading to significant changes in naval diet.
Crossover Design in Trials
Types of Crossover: (1) Planned - where subjects switch between treatments for control. (2) Unplanned - happens naturally or by patient choice and can lead to data interpretation issues.
Stratified Randomization
Groups are stratified by important prognostic variables (e.g., age, sex) before randomization to enhance comparability.
Addressing Noncompliance
Noncompliance Types: Dropouts or participants not following the assigned treatment plan can skew results, driving efficacy results toward the null.
Solutions: Incorporate checks (e.g., blood tests, adherence aids) into the study design to monitor compliance.
Masking (Blinding) Results
Masking participants and observers can help prevent bias, especially with subjective outcomes; using placebo can be effective but may not guarantee masking success.
Analyzing Trial Outcomes
Trials compare metrics like morbidity, mortality, or adverse events to assess efficacy (the ideal scenario) versus effectiveness (real-world scenarios).
Efficacy may be quantitatively assessed using risk ratios and survival curves.
Generalizability of Findings
Important to assess if results in the study population can be generalized to the broader population affected by the condition under study.
The issue of selection bias often impacts generalizability, particularly in studies involving unexpected outcomes or low enrollment.
Phases of Clinical Trials
Phase I: Assess safety and dosage in a small patient group.
Phase II: Evaluate effectiveness on a larger scale, 100-300 participants.
Phase III: Large-scale randomized controlled trials for efficacy, usually recruiting thousands.
Phase IV: Postmarketing surveillance to detect delayed adverse effects.
Publication Bias and Registration of Trials
Only positive results often get published, skewing the available data on treatments.
The requirement for trial registration aims to reduce biases by ensuring all trials are recorded prior to enrolling participants.
Ethical Considerations
Ethics of Randomization: Ethical quandaries arise from withholding treatments, but necessary when comparing treatments whose efficacy is unknown.
Informed Consent: Obtaining it during times of shock (e.g., serious diagnoses) raises ethical questions about understanding and comfort.
Summary of Key Terms
Type I Error (α): Incorrect determination that treatments differ when they do not.
Type II Error (β): Incorrect determination that treatments do not differ when they do.
Power: The likelihood that a study will detect a difference when one exists (1 - β).