Abstract
Comparative effectiveness research generates evidence from observational studies and randomized controlled trials. For many clinical questions, the observational study is an efficient design. Sometimes inherent biases in observational studies yield false results that require refutation by a randomized controlled trial. An illustrative example occurred with hormone replacement therapy in post-menopausal women. Numerous observational studies showed benefits of estrogen plus progesterone to prevent coronary heart disease and other adverse outcomes. A subsequent large, randomized controlled trial demonstrated that the harms of hormone replacement therapy exceeded the benefits. Randomized controlled trials play an important role in comparative effectiveness research. To understand this role, it is necessary to have knowledge about bias, ethics, efficacy, and effectiveness. The current chapter explains the benefits of randomization to reduce bias in the context of controlled clinical trials. There is also an explanation of the ethical principles that inform the design of trials. Finally, the chapter differentiates efficacy from effectiveness and explores trial design characteristics related to the differences.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group. The Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (2002) Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA 288(23):2981–2997
Campbell MK, Piaggio G, Elbourne DR, Altman DG, CONSORT Group (2012) Consort 2010 statement: extension to cluster randomised trials. BMJ 345:e5661
Chobanian AV, Bakris GL, Black HR et al (2003) The seventh report of the joint national committee on prevention, detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood pressure: the JNC 7 report. JAMA 289(19):2560–2572
Lidz CW, Appelbaum PS, Arnold R, Candilis P, Gardner W, Myers S, Simon L (2012) How closely do institutional review boards follow the common rule? Academic Medicine 87(7):969–74. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182575e2e
Colburn WA (2000) Optimizing the use of biomarkers, surrogate endpoints, and clinical endpoints for more efficient drug development. J Clin Pharmacol 40(12 pt 2):1419–1427
Moher D, Hopewell S, Schulz KF, et al Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Group (2010) CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Clin Epidemiol 63(8):e1–37. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.03.004
Davis BR, Cutler JA, Gordon DJ et al (1996) Rationale and design for the Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). ALLHAT Research Group. Am J Hypertens 9(4 Pt 1):342–360
Eisenstein EL, Lemons PW 2nd, Tardiff BE, Schulman KA, Jolly MK, Califf RM (2005) Reducing the costs of phase III cardiovascular clinical trials. Am Heart J 149(3):482–488
Ellenberg SS, Temple R (2000) Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 2: practical issues and specific cases. Ann Intern Med 133(6):464–470
Getz KA, Wenger J, Campo RA, Seguine ES, Kaitin KI (2008) Assessing the impact of protocol design changes on clinical trial performance. Am J Ther 15(5):450–457
Gluud LL (2006) Bias in clinical intervention research. Am J Epidemiol 163(6):493–501
Goldstein J (2008) Study found cheap blood pressure meds are best. No one cared. In: The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones Company. Available via http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/11/28/study-found-cheap-blood-pressure-meds-are-best-no-one-cared/. Accessed 6 Sep 2015
Institute of Medicine (2009) Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. National Academies Press, Washington, DChttp://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2009/ComparativeEffectivenessResearchPriorities/CER%20report%20brief%2008-13-09.ashx
Miller PB, Weijer C (2003) Rehabilitating equipoise. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 13(2):93–118http://www.iom.edu/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2009/ComparativeEffectivenessResearchPriorities/CER%20report%20brief%2008-13-09.ashx
Dixon DO, Weiss S, Cahill K et al (2011) Data and safety monitoring policy for National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases clinical trials. Clin Trials 8(6):727–735
Pressel S, Davis BR, Louis GT et al (2001) Participant recruitment in the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). Control Clin Trials 22(6):674–686
Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension. Final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). SHEP Cooperative Research Group (1991) JAMA 265(24):3255–3264
Protection of human subjects; Belmont Report: notice of report for public comment (1979) Fed Regist 44(76):23191–23197
Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL et al (2002) Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the women’s health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA 288(3):321–333
Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG et al (2012) Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med 157(6):429–438
Selker HP, Oye KA, Eichler HG et al (2014) A proposal for integrated efficacy-to-effectiveness (E2E) clinical trials. Clin Pharmacol Ther 95(2):147–153
Sugarman J, Califf RM (2014) Ethics and regulatory complexities for pragmatic clinical trials. JAMA 311(23):2381–2382
Temple R, Ellenberg SS (2000) Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 1: ethical and scientific issues. Ann Intern Med 133(6):455–463
Thorpe KE, Zwarenstein M, Oxman AD et al (2009) A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers. CMAJ 180(10):E47–E57
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kalva, N.R., Graumlich, J.F. (2016). Randomized Controlled Trials. In: Asche, C. (eds) Applying Comparative Effectiveness Data to Medical Decision Making. Adis, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23329-1_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23329-1_2
Publisher Name: Adis, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22064-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-23329-1
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)