When are clinical trials beneficial for study patients and future patients? A factorial vignette-based survey of institutional review board members.
OBJECTIVE
The ethicists believe that the goal of clinical research is to benefit future and not current (trial) patients. Many clinicians believe that the clinical trial enrolment offers best management for their patients. The objective of our study was to identify the situations when a clinical trial is beneficial for the patients enrolled in the trial and future patients.


METHODS
Factorial vignette-based cross-sectional survey via the internet.


METHODS
Institutional review board (IRB) members of the US Medical Schools.


METHODS
Each participant was invited to review 9 clinical vignettes related to (1) study approval and (2) the assessment if the study is designed to help future or current patients more.


RESULTS
A total of 232 IRB members from 42 institutions participated. When considering approval of the trial, we found that uncertainty about treatment effects (OR=1.13; 95% CI 1.08 to 1.19) and requirement for continuation of standard therapy (OR=3.84; 95% CI 2.7 to 5.55) were the only statistically significant factors affecting IRB members' decisions to approve the study. The odds of IRB members approving a trial increased when a trial proposed to enrol patients with life-threatening versus chronic debilitating disease (OR=2.04; 95% CI 1.47 to 2.86). We also found that similar factors affected judgements related to the assessment whether the trial will benefit future or current patients more-(1) future patients: uncertainty (OR=1.27; 95% CI 1.18 to 1.37); continuation of standard treatment (OR=1.66; 95% CI 1.07 to 2.56); seriousness of condition (OR=1.78; 95% CI 1.15 to 2.28); (2) current patients: uncertainty (OR=1.54; 95% CI 1.4 to 1.7); continuation of standard therapy (OR=2.17; 95% CI 1.39 to 3.44).


CONCLUSIONS
IRB members view the proposed studies to be beneficial for current patients and future patients if there is uncertainty regarding treatment effects and if studies do not require stopping the current treatment. This finding supports the design and use of pragmatic trials which may reduce therapeutic misconception and improve trial enrolment, speeding up therapeutic discoveries.
USF Program for Comparative Effectiveness Research and Evidence-Based Medicine, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Rahul
R
Mhaskar
USF Program for Comparative Effectiveness Research and Evidence-Based Medicine, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Branko
B
Miladinovic
University of Virginia, Center for Survey Research, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA.
Thomas M
TM
Guterbock
USF Program for Comparative Effectiveness Research and Evidence-Based Medicine, Morsani College of Medicine, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA.
Benjamin
B
Djulbegovic
Approval; Factorial Survey; Institutional review board; Pragmatic trials; Uncertainty; Vignette
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 May;62(5):476-8
19348972
Lancet. 2004 Jan 24;363(9405):263-70
14751698
JAMA. 2003 Sep 24;290(12):1624-32
14506122
BMJ. 2005 May 21;330(7501):1175
15905256
PLoS Med. 2007 Nov 27;4(11):e324
18044980
Am J Med Sci. 2011 Oct;342(4):282-9
21817885
J Med Philos. 2007 Mar-Apr;32(2):79-98
17454416
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003 Apr 22;3:7
12709266
J Chronic Dis. 1967 Aug;20(8):637-48
4860352
JAMA. 2004 Jan 28;291(4):425-6; author reply 426
14747498
Trials. 2009 Jun 03;10:37
19493350