A placebo arm is not always necessary in clinical trials of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.

Riluzole is currently the only approved medication for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). While other potential neuroprotective agents have been tested in clinical trials, none has been effective, and few symptomatic treatments have been studied. Randomized placebo-controlled trials are necessary to establish the effectiveness of a drug, but an increasing number of potential therapies combined with limited resources means that only a few drugs at a time can be tested for efficacy in ALS. Therefore, priority must be given to agents that show an advantage in early phase trials before proceeding to Phase III efficacy trials. New strategies are being used to screen different agents, along with their correct dose, in a variety of neurological illnesses, including ALS. Early phase trial designs conducted without a placebo arm improve efficiency, reduce cost, and appeal to patients. Dose-ranging, futility, and selection trials are examples of Phase I and II trial designs that can be conducted without placebo groups.

Can we eliminate placebo in ALS clinical Trials?

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is a fatal disease with limited treatment options. Controlled studies are a necessary part of Phase II and Phase III assessments of proposed therapies. Due to the relatively small number of patients with ALS, several study designs have been proposed to improve the efficiency of Phase II studies. Some of these advocate the use of historical controls in place of placebo controls. However, the characteristics of historical controls may not mirror those of patients in the treatment group. Novel study designs can be used to decrease the number of patients required for Phase II studies. The use of placebo controls rather than historical controls in these novel study designs likely leads to better predictions of treatments that will be successful in Phase III studies. There is general agreement on the necessity of placebo controls in Phase III studies.

Suicide risk in placebo vs active treatment in placebo-controlled trials for schizophrenia.

BACKGROUND: If there is an increased risk of suicide in the placebo arms of placebo-controlled studies in patients with schizophrenia, it would be a strong ethical argument against the conduct of placebo-controlled studies in this patient population. We tested whether the risk of suicide and attempted suicide in the placebo arms of placebo-controlled studies among patients with schizophrenia is higher than in the active treatment arms of such studies. METHODS: All placebo-controlled double-blind studies that were part of a registration dossier for the indication schizophrenia, and that were submitted to the regulatory authority of the Netherlands from January 1, 1992, through December 31, 2002, were reviewed for suicide and attempted suicide. RESULTS: In 31 studies, 7152 patients were included: 1888 in placebo groups (398.2 person-years) and 5264 in active compound groups (981.3 person-years). One suicide occurred in the placebo groups (0.05%, or an incidence rate of 251 per 100,000 years of exposure) and 1 in the active compound groups (0.02%, or an incidence rate of 102 per 100,000 years of exposure). This difference was not statistically significant. Two attempted suicides occurred in the placebo groups (0.11%, or an incidence rate of 502 per 100,000 years of exposure) and 11 in the active compound groups (0.21%, or an incidence rate of 1121 per 100,000 years of exposure). This difference was also not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: Concern about increased risk of suicide or attempted suicide in the placebo group should not be an argument against the conduct of placebo-controlled trials in schizophrenia, provided that appropriate precautions are taken.

Ethical issues in psychosocial interventions research involving controls.

Psychiatric research is of critical importance in improving the care of persons with mental illness. Yet it may also raise difficult ethical issues. This article explores those issues in the context of a particular kind of research: psychosocial intervention research with control groups. We discuss 4 broad categories of ethical issues: consent, confidentiality, boundary violations, and risk-benefit issues. We believe that, despite the potential difficulties, psychosocial intervention research is vital and can be accomplished in an ethical manner. Further discussion and research into these issues are warranted.

Trials in developing countries.

Good clinical trials can be carried out in the developing countries but ethical issues concerning the trials are frequently brought up for international debate. The concern has its own merit but can be amended if investigators (local and international) pay serious attention to these criticisms and work out the way that will most benefit the trial participants. Although scientific progress is important, it must come after the rights, the safety and the benefit of the patients. Frequently, the ethical standard is delicately balanced, depending on who looks at it and from what angles they look. Critics, investigators, volunteers, sponsors and regulatory agencies have their own mandates, expectations and limitations, and thus they need to keep an open line of communication in order to benefit all parties involved.