4.5 Article

Head to head comparisons as an alternative to placebo-controlled trials

期刊

EUROPEAN NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 22, 期 11, 页码 800-803

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2011.11.011

关键词

Placebo; Non-inferiority; Methodology; Psychopharmacology

资金

  1. Instituto de Salud Carlos III
  2. Centro de Investigacion Biomedica en Red de Salud Mental (CIBERSAM), Spain
  3. Almirall
  4. AstraZeneca
  5. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  6. Eli Lilly
  7. Forest Research Institute
  8. Gedeon Richter
  9. Glaxo-Smith-Kline
  10. Janssen-Cilag
  11. Jazz
  12. Johnson Et Johnson
  13. Lundbeck
  14. Merck
  15. Novartis
  16. Organon
  17. Otsuka
  18. Pfizer
  19. Pierre-Fabre
  20. Qualigen
  21. Sanofi-Aventis
  22. Servier
  23. Shering-Plough
  24. Solvay
  25. Takeda
  26. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (CIBERSAM)
  27. Seventh European Framework Programme (ENBREC)
  28. Stanley Medical Research Institute
  29. United Biosource Corporation
  30. Wyeth
  31. American Psychiatric Association
  32. Astra Zeneca
  33. CIBERSAM

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Head to head trials have been proposed as an alternative to the ethical and methodological concerns related to placebo-controlled trials. While those studies may be particularly informative from the clinical and cost-effectiveness point-of-view, avoiding placebo poses several regulatory concerns: for superiority designs, the choice of the trial population, outcomes, dose and escalation of the comparator, as well as the comparator itself may be an issue; for non-inferiority studies, issues related to uncertain assay sensitivity and exposure of large samples to potentially ineffective or unsafe drugs make them inappropriate, in the absence of a previous positive superiority trial, for regulatory purposes. The inclusion of active comparators in regulatory trials should not be seen as an alternative, but as a useful complement to the information that can be obtained from placebo-controlled studies. (C) 2011 Elsevier B.V. and ECNP. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据