Placebo Control and Blinding in Randomized Trials of Procedural Interventions: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression.

Importance: Unlike medications, procedural interventions are rarely trialed against placebo prior to becoming accepted in clinical practice. When placebo-controlled trials are eventually conducted, procedural interventions may be less effective than previously believed. Objective: To investigate the importance of including a placebo arm in trials of surgical and interventional procedures by comparing effect sizes from trials of the same procedure that do and do not include a placebo arm. Data Sources: Searches of MEDLINE and Embase identified all placebo-controlled trials for procedural interventions in any specialty of medicine and surgery from inception to March 31, 2019. A secondary search identified randomized clinical trials assessing the same intervention, condition, and end point but without a placebo arm for paired comparison. Study Selection: Placebo-controlled trials of anatomically site-specific procedures requiring skin incision or endoscopic techniques were eligible for inclusion; these were then matched to trials without placebo control that fell within prespecified limits of heterogeneity. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Random-effects meta-regression, with placebo and blinding as a fixed effect and intervention and end point grouping as random effects, was used to calculate the impact of placebo control for each end point. Data were analyzed from March 2019 to March 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: End points were examined in prespecified subgroups: patient-reported or health care professional-assessed outcomes, quality of life, pain, blood pressure, exercise-related outcomes, recurrent bleeding, and all-cause mortality. Results: Ninety-seven end points were matched from 72 blinded, placebo-controlled trials (hereafter, blinded) and 55 unblinded trials without placebo control (hereafter, unblinded), including 111 500 individual patient end points. Unblinded trials had larger standardized effect sizes than blinded trials for exercise-related outcomes (standardized mean difference [SMD], 0.59; 95% CI, 0.29 to 0.89; P < .001) and quality-of-life (SMD, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.11 to 0.53; P = .003) and health care professional-assessed end points (SMD, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.61; P < .001). The placebo effect accounted for 88.1%, 55.2%, and 61.3% of the observed unblinded effect size for these end points, respectively. There was no significant difference between unblinded and blinded trials for patient-reported end points (SMD, 0.31; 95% CI, -0.02 to 0.64; P = .07), blood pressure (SMD, 0.26; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.62; P = .15), all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR], 0.23; 95% CI, -0.26 to 0.72; P = .36), pain (SMD, 0.03; 95% CI, -0.52 to 0.57; P = .91), or recurrent bleeding events (OR, -0.12; 95% CI, -1.11 to 0.88; P = .88). Conclusions and Relevance: The magnitude of the placebo effect found in this systematic review and meta-regression was dependent on the end point. Placebo control in trials of procedural interventions had the greatest impact on exercise-related, quality-of-life, and health care professional-assessed end points. Randomized clinical trials of procedural interventions may consider placebo control accordingly.

Allopurinol initiation and change in blood pressure in older adults with hypertension.

Hypertension is a key risk factor for cardiovascular disease, and new treatments are needed. Uric acid reduction lowers blood pressure (BP) in adolescents, suggesting a direct pathophysiological role in the development of hypertension. Whether the same relationship is present in older adults is unknown. We explored change in BP after allopurinol initiation using data from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink. Data were extracted for patients with hypertension aged >65 years who were prescribed allopurinol with pretreatment and during treatment BP readings. Data from comparable controls were extracted. The change in BP in patients with stable BP medication was the primary outcome and was compared between groups. Regression analysis was used to adjust for potential confounding factors, and a propensity-matched sample was generated. Three hundred sixty-five patients who received allopurinol and 6678 controls were included. BP fell in the allopurinol group compared with controls (between-group difference in systolic and diastolic BP: 2.1 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, -0.6 to 4.8; and 1.7 mm Hg; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-3.1, respectively). Allopurinol use was independently associated with a fall in both systolic and diastolic BP on regression analysis (P<0.001). Results were consistent in the propensity-matched sample. There was a trend toward greater fall in BP in the high-dose allopurinol group, but change in BP was not related to baseline uric acid level. Allopurinol use is associated with a small fall in BP in adults. Further studies of the effect of high-dose allopurinol in adults with hypertension are needed.