TIDieR-Placebo: A guide and checklist for reporting placebo and sham controls.

BACKGROUND: Placebo or sham controls are the standard against which the benefits and harms of many active interventions are measured. Whilst the components and the method of their delivery have been shown to affect study outcomes, placebo and sham controls are rarely reported and often not matched to those of the active comparator. This can influence how beneficial or harmful the active intervention appears to be. Without adequate descriptions of placebo or sham controls, it is difficult to interpret results about the benefits and harms of active interventions within placebo-controlled trials. To overcome this problem, we developed a checklist and guide for reporting placebo or sham interventions. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We developed an initial list of items for the checklist by surveying experts in placebo research (n = 14). Because of the diverse contexts in which placebo or sham treatments are used in clinical research, we consulted experts in trials of drugs, surgery, physiotherapy, acupuncture, and psychological interventions. We then used a multistage online Delphi process with 53 participants to determine which items were deemed to be essential. We next convened a group of experts and stakeholders (n = 16). Our main output was a modification of the existing Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist; this allows the key features of both active interventions and placebo or sham controls to be concisely summarised by researchers. The main differences between TIDieR-Placebo and the original TIDieR are the explicit requirement to describe the setting (i.e., features of the physical environment that go beyond geographic location), the need to report whether blinding was successful (when this was measured), and the need to present the description of placebo components alongside those of the active comparator. CONCLUSIONS: We encourage TIDieR-Placebo to be used alongside TIDieR to assist the reporting of placebo or sham components and the trials in which they are used.

Optimizing the design of invasive placebo interventions in randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Placebo-controlled trials play an important role in the evaluation of healthcare interventions. However, they can be challenging to design and deliver for invasive interventions, including surgery. In-depth understanding of the component parts of the treatment intervention is needed to ascertain what should, and should not, be delivered as part of the placebo. Assessment of risk to patients and strategies to ensure that the placebo effectively mimics the treatment are also required. To date, no guidance exists for the design of invasive placebo interventions. This study aimed to develop a framework to optimize the design and delivery of invasive placebo interventions in RCTs. METHODS: A preliminary framework was developed using published literature to: expand the scope of an existing typology, which facilitates the deconstruction of invasive interventions; and identify placebo optimization strategies. The framework was refined after consultation with key stakeholders in surgical trials, consensus methodology and medical ethics. RESULTS: The resulting DITTO framework consists of five stages: deconstruct treatment intervention into constituent components and co-interventions; identify critical surgical element(s); take out the critical element(s); think risk, feasibility and role of placebo in the trial when considering remaining components; and optimize placebo to ensure effective blinding of patients and trial personnel. CONCLUSION: DITTO considers invasive placebo composition systematically, accounting for risk, feasibility and placebo optimization. Use of the framework can support the design of high-quality RCTs, which are needed to underpin delivery of healthcare interventions.

ANTECEDENTES: Los ensayos controlados con placebo juegan un papel importante en la evaluación de las intervenciones sanitarias. Sin embargo, pueden ser difíciles de diseñar e implementar en el caso de intervenciones invasivas, incluida la cirugía. Se necesita un conocimiento profundo de los componentes de la intervención terapéutica (para determinar qué se debe y qué no se debe administrar como parte del placebo). También se precisa de una evaluación del riesgo para los pacientes y de las estrategias para garantizar que el placebo imite el tratamiento de forma efectiva. Hasta la fecha no existen guías para el diseño de intervenciones invasivas con placebo. Este estudio tuvo como objetivo desarrollar un marco para optimizar el diseño y la práctica de intervenciones invasivas con placebo dentro en los ensayos clínicos aleatorizados (ECA). MÉTODOS: Utilizando la literatura publicada, se desarrolló un marco preliminar para i) ampliar el alcance de los modelos existentes para facilitar la deconstrucción de las actuaciones invasivas, y ii) identificar estrategias para optimizar el placebo. El marco se perfeccionó tras consultar con partes interesadas ​​en ensayos quirúrgicos, metodología de consenso y ética médica. RESULTADOS: El marco DITTO resultantes consiste en cinco etapas: Etapa 1: deconstrucción de la intervención de tratamiento en sus componentes esenciales y co-intervenciones; Etapa 2: identificar el(los) elemento(s) quirúrgico(s) básico(s); Etapa 3: eliminar el(los) elemento(s) básico(s); Etapa 4: considerar el riesgo, la viabilidad y el papel del placebo en el ensayo al tener en cuenta los demás componentes; y Etapa 5: optimizar el placebo para garantizar el cegamiento efectivo de los pacientes y del personal del ensayo. CONCLUSIÓN: DITTO considera de forma sistemática la naturaleza invasiva del placebo, teniendo en cuenta el riesgo, la viabilidad y la optimización del placebo. El uso de este marco de referencia puede ayudar al diseño de ECAs de alta calidad, necesarios para afianzar la implementación de intervenciones sanitarias.

Double-blind trials in hyperbaric medicine: A narrative review on past experiences and considerations in designing sham hyperbaric treatment.

Background Hyperbaric oxygen therapy, which consists of breathing 100% oxygen under a higher atmospheric pressure than normal, is utilized worldwide in the treatment of several diseases. With the growing demand for evidence-based research, hyperbaric oxygen therapy has been criticized for delivering too little high-quality research, mainly in the form of randomized controlled trials. While not always indispensable, the addition of a sham-controlled group to such a trial can contribute to the quality of the research. However, the design of a sham (hyperbaric) treatment is associated with several considerations regarding adequate blinding and the use of pressure and oxygen. This narrative review discusses information on the sham profile and the blinding and safety of double-blind trials in hyperbaric medicine, irrespective of the indication for treatment. Methods MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL were searched for sham-controlled trials on hyperbaric oxygen therapy. The control treatment was considered sham if patients were blinded to their allocation and treatment took place in a hyperbaric chamber, with no restrictions regarding pressurization, oxygen levels or indication. Studies involving children or only one session of hyperbaric oxygen were excluded. Information on (the choice of) treatment profile, blinding measures, patient's perception regarding allocation and safety issues was extracted from eligible studies. Results A total of 42 eligible trials were included. The main strategies for sham treatment were (1) use of a lower pressure than that of the hyperbaric oxygen group, while breathing 21% oxygen; (2) use of the same pressure as the hyperbaric oxygen group, while breathing an adjusted percentage of oxygen; and (3) use of the same pressure as the hyperbaric oxygen group, while breathing 21% oxygen. The advantages and disadvantages of each strategy are discussed using the information provided by the trials. Conclusion Based on this review, using a lower pressure than the hyperbaric oxygen group while breathing 21% oxygen best matches the inertness of the placebo. Although studies show that use of a lower pressure does allow adequate blinding, this is associated with more practical issues than with the other strategies. The choice of which sham profile to use requires careful consideration; moreover, to ensure proper performance, a clear and detailed protocol is also required.

Use of Placebo in Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Diseases: A Position Paper From ESPGHAN, ECCO, PIBDnet, and the Canadian Children IBD Network.

Performing well-designed and ethical trials in pediatric inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is a priority to support optimal therapy and reduce the unacceptable long lag between adult and pediatric drug approval. Recently, clinical trials in children have been incorporating placebo arms into their protocols under conditions that created controversy. Therefore, 4 organizations (the European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition; European Crohn's and Colitis Organization; the Canadian Children IBD Network; and the Global Pediatric IBD Network) jointly provide a statement on the role of placebo in pediatric IBD trials. Consensus was achieved by 94 of 100 (94%) voting committees' members that placebo should only be used if there is genuine equipoise between the active treatment and placebo; for example, this may be considered in trials of drugs with new mechanisms of action without existing adult data, especially when proven effective alternatives do not exist outside the trial. Placebo may also be used in situations where it is an "add-on" to an effective therapy or to evaluate exit-strategies of maintenance therapy after long-term deep remission. It has been, however, agreed that no child enrolled in a trial should receive a known inferior treatment both within and outside the trial. This also includes withholding therapy in children who show clinical response after a short induction therapy. Given the similarity between pediatric and adult IBD regarding pathophysiology and response to treatments, drugs generally cannot be considered being in genuine equipoise with placebo if it has proven efficacy in adults. Continued collaboration of all stakeholders is needed to facilitate drug development and evaluation in pediatric IBD.

Model validity of randomised placebo-controlled trials of individualised homeopathic treatment.

BACKGROUND: Though potentially an important limitation in the literature of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of homeopathy, the model validity of homeopathic treatment (MVHT) has not previously been systematically investigated. OBJECTIVE: As an integral part of a programme of systematic reviews, to assess MVHT of eligible RCTs of individualised homeopathic treatment. METHODS: From 46 previously identified papers in the category, 31 papers (reporting a total of 32 RCTs) were eligible for systematic review and were thus the subject of the study. For each of six domains of assessment per trial, MVHT was judged independently by three randomly allocated assessors from our group, who reached a final verdict by consensus discussion as necessary. RESULTS: Nineteen trials were judged overall as 'acceptable' MVHT, nine as 'uncertain' MVHT, and four as 'inadequate' MVHT. CONCLUSIONS: These results do not support concern that deficient MVHT has frequently undermined the published findings of RCTs of individualised homeopathy. However, the 13 trials with 'uncertain' or 'inadequate' MVHT will be a focus of attention in supplementary meta-analysis. New RCTs of individualised homeopathy must aim to maximise MVHT and to enable its assessment through clear reporting.

Ethical Overview of Placebo Control in Psychiatric Research - Concepts and Challenges.

Permissibility of placebo controls in psychiatric research is raising everlasting controversies. The main ethical issue remains: whether, when, under what conditions, and to what extent is it justifiable to disregard subject's present (best) interest for the presumably "greater" ones. In relation to this main ethical concern, two distinct arguments arose: proponents of placebo controls trials (placebo ortxodoxy) and proponents of active controls trials (active-control orthodoxy). More recently, in new ethical guidelines, Declaration of Helsinki and International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, a "middle way" approach was formulated, acceptable to both sides of the argument, saying placebo controls can be justified under certain conditions: when and only when, they firstly present undisputed methodological reasoning, and secondly, fulfill certain ethical considerations - mainly regarding the permissibility of accompanied risks. These ethical evaluations are inevitably contextual and evoke the need for the principle of proportionality. In scope of recent findings of substantial and progressively increasing placebo response in psychiatric research, contextual factors are identified and both theoretical and practical challenges are discussed.

A systematic review of sham acupuncture validation studies.

BACKGROUND: Acupuncture is widely used worldwide; however, studies on its effectiveness have been impeded by limitations regarding the design of appropriate control groups. In clinical research, noninvasive sham acupuncture techniques can only be applied through validation studies. Therefore, this systematic review aimed to evaluate the scope of existing literature on this topic to identify trends. METHODS: We queried Pubmed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to July 2022 for relevant articles. Author names were used to identify additional relevant articles. Two independent reviewers assessed the identified articles based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The following data were extracted: study design, information regarding acupuncturists and participants, general and treatment-related characteristics of the intervention and control groups, participants' experience of acupuncture, and research findings. RESULTS: The database query yielded 673 articles, of which 29 articles were included in the final review. Among these, 18 involved the use of one of three devices: Streitberger (n = 5), Park (n = 7), and Takakura (n = 6) devices. The remaining 11 studies used other devices, including self-developed needles. All the included studies were randomized controlled trials. The methodological details of the included studies were heterogeneous with respect to outcomes assessed, blinding, and results. CONCLUSIONS: Sham acupuncture validation studies have been conducted using healthy volunteers, with a focus on blind review and technological developments in sham acupuncture devices. However, theren may be language bias in our findings since we could not query Chinese and Japanese databases due to language barriers. There is a need for more efforts toward establishing control groups suitable for various acupuncture therapy interventions. Moreover, there is a need for more rigorous sham acupuncture validation studies, which could lead to higher-quality clinical studies.

Use of placebos in pain management.

The American Society for Pain Management Nursing (ASPMN) holds the position that a placebo should not be used by any method to assess and/or manage an individual's pain regardless of their age or diagnosis. The only justifiable use of placebos is for participants enrolled in a blinded clinical trial. These clinical trials must be Institutional Review Board (or equivalent) approved with participants clearly informed that they may receive a placebo before they consent to participate and actually have the sham treatment administered.

Active Placebo, the Parachute Meta-Analysis, the Nobel Prize, and the Efficacy of Electroconvulsive Therapy.

The efficacy of electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) has been recently questioned on the grounds that placebo-controlled (sham ECT) trials are all old and of poor quality; statements have been made that the prescription of ECT should immediately be suspended because its continued use cannot be scientifically justified. These criticisms have come from academicians and have been presented in scientific and news forums with wide readership. A rebuttal is therefore necessary, if only to counter the formation of negative attitudes among patients, health care professionals, and the general public. The quality of sham ECT randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is undoubtedly poor; however, this is so because these RCTs were conducted in an era in which such methodology was par for the field. What critics of ECT have not considered are the large, well-designed, well-conducted, and well-analyzed modern era RCTs that show that bilateral and high dose right unilateral ECT are more effective than low dose right unilateral ECT, or that brief-pulse ECT is more effective than ultrabrief-pulse ECT; in such situations, the inferior form of ECT may be regarded as an active placebo comparison group that represents a scientifically valid substitute for sham ECT. Critics of ECT also do not consider the parachute meta-analysis analogy; just as one does not need a meta-analysis of RCTs to conclude that parachutes work, so too one does not need a meta-analysis of new sham ECT RCTs to conclude that ECT works. ECT is usually recommended to patients who are catatonic, severely ill, or treatment-refractory, and if ECT did not work well in these patients, common sense tells us that it would not continue to be used for such patients more than 80 years after its introduction. Malaria therapy and leucotomy are somatic therapies that were honored with the Nobel Prize, but it is ECT that has survived.

Covid-19, the WHO, and the apparent collapse of traditional medical research ethics.

On January 14, 2021, a WHO Ad Hoc expert group published an article in the highly influential The New England Journal of Medicine, titled: "Placebo-Controlled Trials of Covid-19 Vaccines - Why We Still Need Them" justifying the use of placebo in further trials of Covid-19 vaccines, even after purported efficacious vaccines have become available. Medical research involving human beings ought to conform strictly to principles, rules and procedures established since the Nuremberg Code (1947), especially as elaborated in the Declaration of Helsinki (2013) and the WHO/CIOMS Guidelines (2016). The NEJM article forms part of an observable trend of moral backsliding that needs to be recorded. In this paper, considering traditional medical research ethics under the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic and its ramifications and effects, and with a particular focus on the highly vulnerable populations and countries of sub-Saharan Africa, I make some relevant remarks. My arguments here are anchored in my observations as a moral philosopher though limited by my lack of expertise in any of the branches of medical science.

Problematic Covid-19 vaccine trials in times of vaccine nationalism.

Thanks to an impressive R&D effort, three vaccines for Covid-19 have been conditionally approved by stringent regulators as of February 2021, and sixteen have entered the WHO evaluation process. However, they all need to keep on being evaluated in clinical trials. The WHO Ad Hoc Expert Group on the Next Steps for Covid-19 Vaccine suggested that countries with limited or no access to an effective vaccine could ethically permit placebo-controlled trials, even if effective vaccines were already being marketed elsewhere. Here, I argue that inclusion in a placebo-controlled trial is ethically sound for those who would be in any case ineligible for vaccination outside the trial, and as long as the access to the vaccine outside the trial depends on a transparent and just allocation framework. Conversely, carrying out placebo-controlled studies in countries where vaccines are not (or are insufficiently) available because of unequal global allocation, would be unethical, as an ethical strategy cannot be built on an unethical premise.

Testing vaccines in the time of Covid: The changing landscape.

The initial trials of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines were randomised control trials (RCT) with a placebo as control. The use of a placebo was ethically justified because, as with any new and emerging infectious disease, there was no known vaccine. There are now at least eight vaccines that have been shown to be effective and approved for emergency use, so the use of a placebo in the control group is no longer ethically justified. This article discusses why ethical guidelines should be continually evaluated in a changing landscape and why trust is so important.

Placebo-controlled trials of Covid-19 vaccines - Are they still ethical?

A World Health Organization (WHO) Ad Hoc Expert Group on the Next Steps for Covid-19 Vaccine Evaluation recently recommended placebo-controlled trials (PCT) of Covid-19 vaccines. PCTs are ethically acceptable when there is no proven effective and safe treatment for a certain condition. However, there are already some vaccines that have been approved and which have high levels of efficacy and safety. Any new vaccine under development must be tested against the most effective vaccines available. PCTs go against the participants' best interests, by putting them in a position of disadvantage while taking part in a trial, compared with people who are not in the trial and who could get vaccinated. Particularly in high-income countries, many people are getting vaccinated. This means that, following a recent trend in clinical trials, PCTs would have to be conducted in low- and middle-income countries, where there a number of advantages for drug companies, but where fatality rates of Covid-19 are, in many cases, much higher. For this and other reasons having to do with equal rights, participants in control groups should be protected with the most effective vaccines available.

Effect of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment vs Sham Treatment on Activity Limitations in Patients With Nonspecific Subacute and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Osteopathic manipulative treatment (OMT) is frequently offered to people with nonspecific low back pain (LBP) but never compared with sham OMT for reducing LBP-specific activity limitations. Objective: To compare the efficacy of standard OMT vs sham OMT for reducing LBP-specific activity limitations at 3 months in persons with nonspecific subacute or chronic LBP. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, parallel-group, single-blind, single-center, sham-controlled randomized clinical trial recruited participants with nonspecific subacute or chronic LBP from a tertiary care center in France starting February 17, 2014, with follow-up completed on October 23, 2017. Participants were randomly allocated to interventions in a 1:1 ratio. Data were analyzed from March 22, 2018, to December 5, 2018. Interventions: Six sessions (1 every 2 weeks) of standard OMT or sham OMT delivered by nonphysician, nonphysiotherapist osteopathic practitioners. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations at 3 months as measured by the self-administered Quebec Back Pain Disability Index (score range, 0-100). Secondary outcomes were mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations; mean changes in pain and health-related quality of life; number and duration of sick leaves, as well as number of LBP episodes at 12 months; and consumption of analgesics and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs at 3 and 12 months. Adverse events were self-reported at 3, 6, and 12 months. Results: Overall, 200 participants were randomly allocated to standard OMT and 200 to sham OMT, with 197 analyzed in each group; the median (range) age at inclusion was 49.8 (40.7-55.8) years, 235 of 394 (59.6%) participants were women, and 359 of 393 (91.3%) were currently working. The mean (SD) duration of the current LBP episode was 7.5 (14.2) months. Overall, 164 (83.2%) patients in the standard OMT group and 159 (80.7%) patients in the sham OMT group had the primary outcome data available at 3 months. The mean (SD) Quebec Back Pain Disability Index scores for the standard OMT group were 31.5 (14.1) at baseline and 25.3 (15.3) at 3 months, and in the sham OMT group were 27.2 (14.8) at baseline and 26.1 (15.1) at 3 months. The mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations at 3 months was -4.7 (95% CI, -6.6 to -2.8) and -1.3 (95% CI, -3.3 to 0.6) for the standard OMT and sham OMT groups, respectively (mean difference, -3.4; 95% CI, -6.0 to -0.7; P = .01). At 12 months, the mean difference in mean reduction in LBP-specific activity limitations was -4.3 (95% CI, -7.6 to -1.0; P = .01), and at 3 and 12 months, the mean difference in mean reduction in pain was -1.0 (95% CI, -5.5 to 3.5; P = .66) and -2.0 (95% CI, -7.2 to 3.3; P = .47), respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes. Four and 8 serious adverse events were self-reported in the standard OMT and sham OMT groups, respectively, though none was considered related to OMT. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of patients with nonspecific subacute or chronic LBP, standard OMT had a small effect on LBP-specific activity limitations vs sham OMT. However, the clinical relevance of this effect is questionable. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02034864.

Ethical limits to placebo use and access to Covid-19 vaccines as a human right.

The world is currently facing another severe pandemic, Covid-19, just four decades after the start of AIDS, and the still increasing incidence of HIV infection continues to be one of the greatest global health challenges. The way the latter was confronted is of fundamental importance for a serious discussion on global health, ethics and human rights, and this experience could and can still be applied to Covid-19. The Covid-19 pandemic has specific characteristics and these will be discussed, in relation to vaccine research and especially to the global right to equal access to products proven to be safe and effective. The article focusses primarily on issues related to Covid-19 vaccines, especially the appropriate use and limits on placebo, the right to post-trial access to placebo arm participants, and the use of an active control for subsequent Phase-3 trials after the approval of other safe and efficacious vaccines. Most importantly, it will emphasise that access to Covid-19 vaccines is a human right, which presupposes the establishment of appropriate ethical standards to ensure universal, equal, and affordable access to healthcare and to vaccines for all, and the imperative need for suspension of patents for products developed for Covid-19. It will consider the role of social determinants that contribute to the severity of Covid-19 and that must be addressed to effectively curb the current syndemic.

Placebo control in Covid-19 trials: A missed opportunity for international guidance.

Vaccines preventing Covid-19 have been approved in several countries. Is it still ethically acceptable to use placebo controls during the development of other vaccine options? If two of the most influential international guidelines of biomedical research are consulted, the Declaration of Helsinki and the CIOMS-guidelines, the answer is "no". We discuss the implications for ongoing vaccine research, and how placebo controls might be justified nevertheless. However, the ethical conflict remains highly problematic. We suggest that such ethical dilemmas should be avoided in the future by the introduction of a new system of global governance. Once vaccines are approved, a global regulation should oblige producers to provide the necessary amount of vaccine doses for the control groups of ongoing vaccine research.

Placebo in new Covid-19 vaccine trials: data quality prioritised over participants' rights.

The WHO Ad Hoc Expert Group on the Next Steps for Covid-19 Vaccine Evaluation makes recommendations on the use of placebo controlled trials in ongoing and future Covid-19 vaccine research. These recommendations unequivocally prioritise data quality over participants' rights and safety. Participants in trials of vaccines which have received emergency use listing or authorisation would be refused available vaccines. Placebo-controlled trials that would be impossible to conduct in rich countries would be permitted in poor countries. If these suggestions are implemented, the major beneficiary will be the vaccine industry.