High-dose therapy and autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation as front-line consolidation in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: a systematic review.

High-dose therapy (HDT) followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplantation (auto-HCT) is offered to patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) both as front-line consolidation and in the relapsed setting. The role of HDT in the front-line consolidation setting in CLL is uncertain. Literature search of PUBMED and Cochrane until 14 November 2014 and the last 2 years of abstracts from relevant conferences was undertaken. End points included benefits (overall survival; OS, PFS, event-free survival; EFS) and harms (adverse events, secondary malignancies, treatment-related mortality). The search identified 495 references of which four studies met inclusion criteria. Altogether, 301 patients were randomized to the HDT/auto-HCT arm and 299 patients to the control arm. Offering front-line HDT/auto-HCT did not result in statistically significant improvement in OS (Hazard ratio (HR)=0.91; 95% confidence interval (CI)= 0.62, 1.33) or PFS (HR=0.70; 95% CI= 0.32, 1.52). There was a statistically significant advantage favoring HDT/auto-HCT for EFS (HR=0.46; 95% CI= 0.26, 0.83). Moreover, HDT/auto-HCT did not result in higher rate of secondary malignancy (risk ratio=1.06; 95% CI=0.55, 2.05) or treatment-related mortality (risk ratio=1.32; 95% CI= 0.43, 4.06). Offering HDT/auto-HCT as front-line consolidation in patients with CLL does not improve OS. At present this approach should not be offered outside the context of a clinical trial.

Platelet transfusion: a clinical practice guideline from the AABB

BACKGROUND: The AABB (formerly, the American Association of Blood Banks) developed this guideline on appropriate use of platelet transfusion in adult patients. METHODS: These guidelines are based on a systematic review of randomized, clinical trials and observational studies (1900 to September 2014) that reported clinical outcomes on patients receiving prophylactic or therapeutic platelet transfusions. An expert panel reviewed the data and developed recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. RECOMMENDATION 1: The AABB recommends that platelets should be transfused prophylactically to reduce the risk for spontaneous bleeding in hospitalized adult patients with therapy-induced hypoproliferative thrombocytopenia. The AABB recommends transfusing hospitalized adult patients with a platelet count of 10 × 109 cells/L or less to reduce the risk for spontaneous bleeding. The AABB recommends transfusing up to a single apheresis unit or equivalent. Greater doses are not more effective, and lower doses equal to one half of a standard apheresis unit are equally effective. (Grade: strong recommendation; moderate-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 2: The AABB suggests prophylactic platelet transfusion for patients having elective central venous catheter placement with a platelet count less than 20 × 109 cells/L. (Grade: weak recommendation; low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 3: The AABB suggests prophylactic platelet transfusion for patients having elective diagnostic lumbar puncture with a platelet count less than 50 × 109 cells/L. (Grade: weak recommendation; very-low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 4: The AABB suggests prophylactic platelet transfusion for patients having major elective nonneuraxial surgery with a platelet count less than 50 × 109 cells/L. (Grade: weak recommendation; very-low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 5: The AABB recommends against routine prophylactic platelet transfusion for patients who are nonthrombocytopenic and have cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. The AABB suggests platelet transfusion for patients having bypass who exhibit perioperative bleeding with thrombocytopenia and/or evidence of platelet dysfunction. (Grade: weak recommendation; very-low-quality evidence). RECOMMENDATION 6: The AABB cannot recommend for or against platelet transfusion for patients receiving antiplatelet therapy who have intracranial hemorrhage (traumatic or spontaneous). (Grade: uncertain recommendation; very-low-quality evidence).(AU)

Comparing efficacy of reduced-toxicity allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation with conventional chemo-(immuno) therapy in patients with relapsed or refractory CLL: a Markov decision analysis.

Despite therapeutic advances, relapsed/refractory CLL, particularly after fludarabine-based regimens, remains a major challenge for which optimal therapy is undefined. No randomized comparative data exist to suggest the superiority of reduced-toxicity allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (RT-allo-HCT) over conventional chemo-(immuno) therapy (CCIT). By using estimates from a systematic review and by meta-analysis of available published evidence, we constructed a Markov decision model to examine these competing modalities. Cohort analysis demonstrated superior outcome for RT-allo-HCT, with a 10-month overall life expectancy (and 6-month quality-adjusted life expectancy (QALE)) advantage over CCIT. Although the model was sensitive to changes in base-case assumptions and transition probabilities, RT-allo-HCT provided superior overall life expectancy through a range of values supported by the meta-analysis. QALE was superior for RT-allo-HCT compared with CCIT. This conclusion was sensitive to change in the anticipated state utility associated with the post-allogeneic HCT state; however, RT-allo-HCT remained the optimal strategy for values supported by existing literature. This analysis provides a quantitative comparison of outcomes between RT-allo-HCT and CCIT for relapsed/refractory CLL in the absence of randomized comparative trials. Confirmation of these findings requires a prospective randomized trial, which compares the most effective RT-allo-HCT and CCIT regimens for relapsed/refractory CLL.

Antithymocyte globulin for acute-graft-versus-host-disease prophylaxis in patients undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation: a systematic review.

Graft-versus-host-disease (GVHD) is a major complication associated with allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT). Antithymocyte globulin (ATG) is recommended for GVHD prophylaxis following allo-HCT, however, evidence on efficacy of ATG is conflicting. Accordingly, we undertook a systematic review. All phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ATG versus control for prevention of GVHD in patients undergoing allo-HCT were eligible. Medline and Cochrane databases were searched. Data on methodological quality, benefits and harms were extracted for each trial and pooled under a random effects model. Seven RCTs enrolling 733 patients met inclusion criteria. Pooled results showed no difference for overall survival with use of ATG (hazard ratio was 0.91; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.75-1.10; P = 0.32). There was a significant benefit for prevention of grade III/IV acute GVHD (risk ratio (RR) = 0.51; 95% CI, 0.27-0.94; P = 0.03). There was no benefit associated with ATG use for prevention of either grade II (RR = 0.79; 95% CI, 0.48-1.30; P = 0.35) or grade I acute GVHD (RR = 1.42; 95% CI, 0.75-2.69; P = 0.28). Use of ATG was not associated with significant reduction in non-relapse mortality (RR = 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53-1.03; P = 0.08). Future trials with adequate sample size are required to provide more definitive answers.

Timing of first-line cancer treatments - early versus late - a systematic review of phase III randomized trials.

PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of all phase III randomized controlled trials comparing efficacy of early versus late first-line or initial treatments for cancer. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE and Cochrane library databases was performed (1966-2008). Data was extracted and pooled as per the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. RESULTS: Of the 570 identified studies, 10 (3811 patients) met inclusion criteria: three each in prostate cancer and multiple myeloma (MM), two in chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), and one each in lung cancer, and follicular lymphoma. The analyses showed no survival benefit with early treatment except in prostate cancer (hazard ratio [HR]=1.23, 95% CI 1.11-1.37 p<0.001). There was no survival difference in MM (HR=0.92, 95% CI 0.56-1.52 p=0.74), CLL (HR=0.76, 95% CI 0.56-1.04 p=0.09), lung cancer (HR=0.95, 95% CI 0.72-1.24 p=0.71), or follicular lymphoma (HR=1, 95% CI 0.55-1.83 p=0.99). No statistically significant difference in response rate between early and late treatment was detected in any cancer type. CONCLUSIONS: Data shows that delaying cancer treatments does not necessarily compromise therapeutic outcomes except possibly in locally advanced prostate cancer. These findings provide a unique window to oncologists and patients to address time-sensitive issues if desired by patients.

Bortezomib in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma: updated time-to-event analyses of the multicenter phase 2 PINNACLE study.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported results of the phase 2, multicenter PINNACLE study, which confirmed the substantial single-agent activity of bortezomib in patients with relapsed or refractory mantle cell lymphoma (MCL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We report updated time-to-event data, in all patients and by response to treatment, after extended follow-up (median 26.4 months). RESULTS: Median time to progression (TTP) was 6.7 months. Median time to next therapy (TTNT) was 7.4 months. Median overall survival (OS) was 23.5 months. In responding patients, median TTP was 12.4 months, median duration of response (DOR) was 9.2 months, median TTNT was 14.3 months, and median OS was 35.4 months. Patients achieving complete response had heterogeneous disease characteristics; among these patients, median TTP and DOR were not reached, and median OS was 36.0 months. One-year survival rate was 69% overall and 91% in responding patients. Median OS from diagnosis was 61.1 months, after median follow-up of 63.7 months. Activity was seen in patients with refractory disease and patients relapsing following high-intensity treatment. Toxicity was generally manageable. CONCLUSIONS: Single-agent bortezomib is associated with lengthy responses and notable survival in patients with relapsed or refractory MCL, with considerable TTP and TTNT in responding patients, suggesting substantial clinical benefit.

Erythropoietin or darbepoetin for patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Anaemia associated with cancer and cancer therapy is an important clinical factor in the treatment of malignant diseases. Therapeutic alternatives are recombinant human erythropoietin (Epo), darbepoetin (Darbepo) and red blood cell transfusions. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effects of Epo or Darbepo to either prevent or treat anaemia in cancer patients. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE and other data bases. Searches were done for the periods 01/1985 to 12/2001 for the first review and 1/2002 to 04/2005 for the update. We also contacted experts in the field and pharmaceutical companies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials on managing anaemia in cancer patients that compared the use of Epo/Darbepo (plus transfusion if needed) with observation until red blood cell transfusion was required. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Several reviewers independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: This update of the systematic review included a total of 57 trials with 9,353 patients. Of these, 27 trials with 3,287 adults were also included in the first Cochrane Review. Thirty trials with 6,066 patients were added during the update process. Use of Epo/Darbepo significantly reduced the relative risk of red blood cell transfusions (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.60 to 0.68, 42 trials, n = 6,510). On average participants in the Epo/Darbepo group received one unit of blood less than the control group (WMD -1.05; 95% CI -1.32 to -0.78, 14 trials, n = 2,353). For participants with baseline haemoglobin below 12 g/dL haematological response was observed more often in participants receiving Epo/Darbepo (RR 3.43; 95% CI 3.07 to 3.84, 22 trials, n = 4,307). There was suggestive evidence that Epo/Darbepo may improve Quality of Life (QoL). The relative risk for thrombo embolic complications was increased in patients receiving Epo/Darbepo compared to controls (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.06; 35 trials, n = 6,769). Uncertainties remain whether and how Epo/Darbepo effects tumour response (fixed effect RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.23, 13 trials, n = 2,833; random effects: RR 1.09; 95% CI 0.94 to 1.26) or overall survival (unadjusted and adjusted data: HR 1.08; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.18; 42 trials, n = 8,167). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is consistent evidence that administration of Epo/Darbepo reduces the relative risk for blood transfusions and the number of units transfused in cancer patients. For patients with baseline haemoglobin below 12 g/dL (mild anaemia) there is strong evidence that Epo/Darbepo improves haematological response. There is suggestive evidence that Epo/Darbepo may improve QoL. However, there is strong evidence that Epo/Darbepo increases the relative risk for thrombo embolic complications. Whether and how Epo/Darbepo effects tumour response and overall survival remains uncertain.

Colony stimulating factors for chemotherapy induced febrile neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: Febrile neutropenia is a frequent event for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and it is potentially a life threatening situation. The current treatment is supportive care plus antibiotics. Colony stimulating factors (CSF) are cytokines that stimulate and accelerate the production of one or more cellular lines in bone marrow. Some clinical trials addressed the question of whether the addition of CSF to antibiotics (ATB) could improve the outcomes of patients with febrile neutropenia. The results of these trials are conflicting and no definitive conclusion could be reached. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the safety and effectiveness of adding colony stimulating factors to ATB when treating febrile neutropenia caused by cancer chemotherapy. SEARCH STRATEGY: The search covered the major electronic databases: CANCERLIT, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, SCI and The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register. Experts were consulted and references from the relevant articles scanned. SELECTION CRITERIA: We looked for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compare CSF plus antibiotics versus antibiotics alone for the treatment of established febrile neutropenia in adults and children. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two of the reviewers independently selected, critically appraised and extracted data from the studies. A meta-analysis of the select studies was performed, using Review Manager. MAIN RESULTS: More than 8000 references were screened. Thirteen studies were included. The overall mortality was not influenced by the use of CSF [Odds Ratio (OR) = 0.68; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 0.43 to 1.08; p=0.1]. A marginally significant result was obtained for the use of CSF in reducing infection related mortality [OR= 0.51; 95% CI = 0.26 to 1.00; p=0.05], but this result was highly influenced by one study. When this study is excluded from our analysis, this possible benefit disappears [OR= 0.85; 95% CI = 0.33 to 2.20; p= 0.7]. The group of patients treated with CSF had a shorter length of hospitalization [Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.63; 95% CI = 0.49 to 0.82; p=0.0006] and a shorter time to neutrophil recovery [HR= 0.32; 95% CI = 0.23 to 0.46; p < 0.00001]. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The use of CSF in patients with febrile neutropenia due to cancer chemotherapy does not affect overall mortality, but reduces the amount of time spent in hospital and the neutrophil recovery period. It was not clear whether CSF has an effect on infection-related mortality.

Early versus deferred treatment for early stage multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Early stage multiple myeloma (MM) represents about 20% of MM. Most of the patients are asymptomatic. Thus, it is far less dramatic than advanced disease and may require different treatment strategies. For these patients, it is not clear whether it is better to start chemotherapy right after the diagnosis or to delay the treatment until symptoms become obvious as the disease progresses. OBJECTIVES: To identify and synthesize all available research evidence on whether early treatment intervention results in improved clinical outcomes when compared with observation alone. The main outcomes of interest that were examined included mortality, disease progression, response rate, and toxicity of early treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: Searches of the following electronic databases were undertaken: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CANCERLIT, LILLIACS and Cochrane Database of RCTs. We have recently compiled a comprehensive database of RCTs in myeloma. This search was updated and supplemented by hand-search of abstracts from main society meetings such as the ASH (American Society of Hematology), ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology), and EHA (European Haematology Association). In addition, we compared our list with a list of RCTs maintained by the Oxford Clinical Trial Service Unit. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCT) with a parallel design that compared early versus deferred treatment of patients with early stage multiple myeloma based on Durie-Salmon (D-S) staging system. We also considered those trials that did not define early stage myeloma according to D-S staging system, but enrolled patients according to clinical uncertainty about the benefits of immediate intervention. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data synthesis was performed for all studies and according to the defined quality criteria. The first reviewer and the contact reviewer of this proposal independently extracted data. Disagreement was resolved by consensus. Revman software (ver 4.1) was used to combine results from all studies and expressed as an overall odds ratio or Peto's Odds Ratio, with 95% confidence interval. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials were included with a total of 131 patients in each of the early treatment and deferred treatment groups. Early MM is asymptomatic stage I in these trials. All trials used standard Melphalan treatment but not stem cell transplantation. No statistically significant heterogeneity among the studies was detected. Beneficial effects of early treatment were seen in delay of myeloma progression (Peto's OR = 0.16, 95% CI: 0.09-0.29), and reduced vertebral compression (OR = 0.18, 95%CI: 0.02-1.59, NNT = 23, 95% CI: an NNT of 11, via infinity, to an NNH of 50). No significant effects on mortality and response rate were seen (Peto's OR = 1.11, 95% CI: 0.67-1.84, and OR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.33-1.23, respectively). Early treatment may increase the risk of acute leukemia (Peto's OR = 3.20, 95% CI: 0.55-18.73, NNH = 44, 95% CI: an NNT of 63, via infinity, to an NNH of 15). REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Early treatment of early stage multiple myeloma inhibits disease progression, and may reduce vertebral compression. However, early treatment may increase the risk of acute leukemia. However, the data on vertebral compression and leukaemic transformation may not be interpretable due to very small numbers. Based on the current evidence, mortality and response rate are not significantly affected by introducing early treatment in the progression of myeloma. However, it is quite possible that the lack of beneficial effects of early intervention in myeloma is a false negative result due to the paucity of the existing evidence. In addition, data on quality of life and toxicity were sparsely reported adding to additional difficulties about management decisions in early stage myeloma.

Bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is a disease characterized by the neoplastic proliferation of a clone of plasma cells that can lead to bone destruction. Bisphosphonates are specific inhibitors of osteoclastic activity. Therefore, there is a pharmacological basis for their use in multiple myeloma. However, the exact clinical role of bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to determine whether adding bisphosphonates to standard therapy in multiple myeloma decreases skeletal-related morbidity (pathological fractures), skeletal-related mortality and overall mortality. Secondary: to determine the effects of bisphosphonates on pain, quality of life and incidence of hypercalcemia. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE (1966 - June 2001), LILACS (1982 - June 2001), EMBASE (1974 - December 2000) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (all years, latest Issue 03/2001) to identify all randomized trials in multiple myeloma. All of these references were accessed in order to identify trials related to the use of bisphosphonates in myeloma. All relevant references in each article were also scanned. We also performed a handsearch of relevant meeting proceedings from 1993 to 2000. Additionally, manufacturers of bisphosphonates and researchers in the field were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials with a parallel design on the use of bisphosphonate in myeloma compared with placebo or no treatment as a control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility, methodological quality and abstracted data. A third reviewer checked all data after the extraction was completed. Statistical heterogeneity was tested using random and fixed effect models. All pooled data are reported using Peto odds ratios and, when appropriate, as absolute risk reduction and the number needed to treat to prevent or to cause a pathological event. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven trials were included with 1113 patients analysed in bisphosphonates groups, and 1070 analysed in control groups. There was no significant statistical heterogeneity among trials for the endpoints selected for comparison in this review. The pooled analysis of the published evidence demonstrated the beneficial effect of bisphosphonates on prevention of pathological vertebral fractures [OR=0.59 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.78); P=0.0001] and on amelioration of pain [OR = 0.59 (95%CI 0.46-0.76); P=0.00005]. However, the analysis of the effect of bisphosphonates on pain was based on clinically heterogeneous data and must be interpreted with caution. Although there was no statistical heterogeneity between groups, the benefit was most apparent with clodronate and pamidronate. In absolute terms, the result may be interpreted to mean that 10 (95%CI 7-20) patients with multiple myeloma should be treated to prevent one vertebral fracture, and 11 (95%CI 7-28) to prevent one patient experiencing pain. We found no significant effect of bisphosphonates on mortality, on the reduction of non-vertebral fractures or on the incidence of hypercalcemia. There were no significant adverse effects associated with the administration of bisphosphonates. Our results are based on the extraction of published data, which were sometimes poorly reported, and thus the results should be understood as the best possible summation of available evidence. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Adding bisphosphonates to the treatment of myeloma reduces pathological vertebral fractures and pain but - from the published evidence - not mortality. On current evidence, clodronate or pamidronate may be the preferred agents.

Bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma.

BACKGROUND: Multiple myeloma is a disease characterized by the neoplastic proliferation of a clone of plasma cells that can lead to bone destruction. Bisphosphonates are specific inhibitors of osteoclastic activity. Therefore, there is a pharmacological basis for their use in multiple myeloma. However, the exact clinical role of bisphosphonates in multiple myeloma remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: Primary: to determine whether adding bisphosphonates to standard therapy in multiple myeloma decreases skeletal-related morbidity (pathological fractures), skeletal-related mortality and overall mortality. Secondary: to determine the effects of bisphosphonates on pain, quality of life and incidence of hypercalcemia. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE (1966 - June 2001), LILACS (1982 - June 2001), EMBASE (1974 - December 2000) and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (all years, latest Issue 03/2001) to identify all randomized trials in multiple myeloma. All of these references were accessed in order to identify trials related to the use of bisphosphonates in myeloma. All relevant references in each article were also scanned. We also performed a handsearch of relevant meeting proceedings from 1993 to 2000. Additionally, manufacturers of bisphosphonates and researchers in the field were contacted. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials with a parallel design on the use of bisphosphonate in myeloma compared with placebo or no treatment as a control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility, methodological quality and abstracted data. A third reviewer checked all data after the extraction was completed. Statistical heterogeneity was tested using random and fixed effect models. All pooled data are reported using Peto odds ratios and, when appropriate, as absolute risk reduction and the number needed to treat to prevent or to cause a pathological event. MAIN RESULTS: Eleven trials were included with 1113 patients analysed in bisphosphonates groups, and 1070 analysed in control groups. There was no significant statistical heterogeneity among trials for the endpoints selected for comparison in this review. The pooled analysis of the published evidence demonstrated the beneficial effect of bisphosphonates on prevention of pathological vertebral fractures [OR=0.59 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45-0.78); P=0.0001] and on amelioration of pain [OR = 0.59 (95%CI 0.46-0.76); P=0.00005]. However, the analysis of the effect of bisphosphonates on pain was based on clinically heterogeneous data and must be interpreted with caution. Although there was no statistical heterogeneity between groups, the benefit was most apparent with clodronate and pamidronate. In absolute terms, the result may be interpreted to mean that 10 (95%CI 7-20) patients with multiple myeloma should be treated to prevent one vertebral fracture, and 11 (95%CI 7-28) to prevent one patient experiencing pain. We found no significant effect of bisphosphonates on mortality, on the reduction of non-vertebral fractures or on the incidence of hypercalcemia. There were no significant adverse effects associated with the administration of bisphosphonates. Our results are based on the extraction of published data, which were sometimes poorly reported, and thus the results should be understood as the best possible summation of available evidence. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: Adding bisphosphonates to the treatment of myeloma reduces pathological vertebral fractures and pain but - from the published evidence - not mortality. On current evidence, clodronate or pamidronate may be the preferred agents.

Acknowledgment of uncertainty: a fundamental means to ensure scientific and ethical validity in clinical research.

Recognition of the importance of uncertainty in the design of randomized, controlled trials (RCT) has reached the status of a principle. The "uncertainty principle," or less ambiguously, equipoise, holds that a patient should be enrolled in an RCT only if there is substantial uncertainty about which of the trial treatments would benefit the patient most. In fact, the "uncertainty principle" addresses the most important issue of a clinical trial--the choice of an adequate comparative control. Studies in which intervention and control group are believed to be non-equivalent violate the uncertainty principle. Therefore, one would expect that both editors and authors would be particularly careful to include a statement concerning prior beliefs of the investigator(s) about the uncertainty of the treatments that are reported. However, we found no evidence of such a policy in the randomized, controlled trials we examined. We also show that there is a predictable relationship between the uncertainty principle, that is, the moral principle upon which trials are based, and the ultimate outcomes of clinical trials. We postulate that about 50% of innovations are successful, leading to the conclusion that preserving the ethics of clinical research may be the best investment strategy available.