Considering the case for an antidepressant drug trial involving temporary deception: a qualitative enquiry of potential participants.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews of randomised placebo controlled trials of antidepressant medication show small and decreasing differences between pharmacological and placebo arms. In part this finding may relate to methodological problems with conventional trial designs, including their assumption of additivity between drug and placebo trial arms. Balanced placebo designs, which include elements of deception, may address the additivity question, but pose substantial ethical and pragmatic problems. This study aimed to ascertain views of potential study participants of the ethics and pragmatics of various balanced placebo designs, in order to inform the design of future antidepressant drug trials. METHODS: A qualitative approach was employed to explore the perspectives of general practitioners, psychiatrists, and patients with experience of depression. The doctors were chosen via purposive sampling, while patients were recruited through participating general practitioners. Three focus groups and 12 in-depth interviews were conducted. A vignette-based topic guide invited views on three deceptive strategies: post hoc, authorised and minimised deception. The focus groups and interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed. Transcripts were analysed thematically using Framework. RESULTS: Deception in non-research situations was typically perceived as acceptable within specific parameters. All participants could see the potential utility of introducing deception into trial designs, however views on the acceptability of deception within antidepressant drug trials varied substantially. Authorized deception was the most commonly accepted strategy, though some thought this would reduce the effectiveness of the design because participants would correctly guess the deceptive element. The major issues that affected views about the acceptability of deception studies were the welfare and capacity of patients, practicalities of trial design, and the question of trust. CONCLUSION: There is a trade-off between pragmatic and ethical responses to the question of whether, and under what circumstances, elements of deception could be introduced into antidepressant drug trials. Ensuring adequate ethical safeguards within balanced placebo designs is likely to diminish their ability to address the crucial issue of additivity. The balanced placebo designs considered in this study are unlikely to be feasible in future trials of antidepressant medication. However there remains an urgent need to improve the quality of antidepressant drug trials.

Adverse drug reactions as cause of admission to hospital: prospective analysis of 18 820 patients.

OBJECTIVE: To ascertain the current burden of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) through a prospective analysis of all admissions to hospital. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Two large general hospitals in Merseyside, England. PARTICIPANTS: 18 820 patients aged > 16 years admitted over six months and assessed for cause of admission. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of admissions due to an ADR, length of stay, avoidability, and outcome. RESULTS: There were 1225 admissions related to an ADR, giving a prevalence of 6.5%, with the ADR directly leading to the admission in 80% of cases. The median bed stay was eight days, accounting for 4% of the hospital bed capacity. The projected annual cost of such admissions to the NHS is 466m pounds sterling (706m Euros, 847m dollars). The overall fatality was 0.15%. Most reactions were either definitely or possibly avoidable. Drugs most commonly implicated in causing these admissions included low dose aspirin, diuretics, warfarin, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs other than aspirin, the most common reaction being gastrointestinal bleeding. CONCLUSION: The burden of ADRs on the NHS is high, accounting for considerable morbidity, mortality, and extra costs. Although many of the implicated drugs have proved benefit, measures need to be put into place to reduce the burden of ADRs and thereby further improve the benefit:harm ratio of the drugs.

Reporting of adverse drug reactions by nurses.

Schemes for spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions are important to post-marketing safety surveillance worldwide. In the UK, doctors, dentists, coroners, and pharmacists are allowed to report through the yellow card scheme, but nurses were not until October, 2002. We used a similar programme to assess the role of community and hospital nurses in reporting of adverse drug reactions. The proportion and quality of reports received from nurses was similar to that of those received from doctors: we received reports from one in seven nurses eligible to report, compared with one in eight doctors; 137 of 177 nurse reports and 676 of 984 doctor reports were judged to be appropriate according to regulatory authority criteria (95% CI for difference between proportions 1.4-15.0, z=2.3, p=0.02). Our findings suggest that nurses, who form the largest proportion of health-care staff in the UK, can play a valuable part in improvement of pharmacovigilance.