Ethical clinical trial design and differences in treatment effects.

IF 5.7 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Bulletin of the World Health Organization Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-08-25 DOI:10.2471/BLT.24.292177
Roger J Lewis, Kert Viele, Margareth Ndomondo-Sigonda, Samba Sow, Elvis Temfack, Nathalie Strub-Wourgaft
{"title":"Ethical clinical trial design and differences in treatment effects.","authors":"Roger J Lewis, Kert Viele, Margareth Ndomondo-Sigonda, Samba Sow, Elvis Temfack, Nathalie Strub-Wourgaft","doi":"10.2471/BLT.24.292177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many global clinical trials primarily estimate a single overall treatment effect. However, when treatment effects are likely to differ between populations, for example due to differences in the disease, population characteristics or health-care systems, this approach can lead to misleading conclusions and raise ethical concerns. Justice is compromised when research conducted in low-resourced countries benefits primarily or exclusively populations of wealthier countries. A clinical trial design and analysis that focuses on estimating a single treatment effect, assumed to apply to all participating populations, goes against the ethical principle of justice and the positions of the World Health Assembly. To address this issue, we suggest a methodological strategy based on hierarchical modelling. This approach enables researchers to estimate treatment effects that are valid for each participating population, while potentially retaining efficiency comparable to traditional pooled analysis, as we demonstrate in an example. When substantial between-population differences exist, it produces valid, region-specific results. Strategies such as this one, if adopted into the standards for global trials, would allow regulators, funders and other stakeholders to ensure that trials are designed to help preserve justice for all participant populations.</p>","PeriodicalId":9465,"journal":{"name":"Bulletin of the World Health Organization","volume":"103 10","pages":"619-625"},"PeriodicalIF":5.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12477512/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bulletin of the World Health Organization","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.24.292177","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/8/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Many global clinical trials primarily estimate a single overall treatment effect. However, when treatment effects are likely to differ between populations, for example due to differences in the disease, population characteristics or health-care systems, this approach can lead to misleading conclusions and raise ethical concerns. Justice is compromised when research conducted in low-resourced countries benefits primarily or exclusively populations of wealthier countries. A clinical trial design and analysis that focuses on estimating a single treatment effect, assumed to apply to all participating populations, goes against the ethical principle of justice and the positions of the World Health Assembly. To address this issue, we suggest a methodological strategy based on hierarchical modelling. This approach enables researchers to estimate treatment effects that are valid for each participating population, while potentially retaining efficiency comparable to traditional pooled analysis, as we demonstrate in an example. When substantial between-population differences exist, it produces valid, region-specific results. Strategies such as this one, if adopted into the standards for global trials, would allow regulators, funders and other stakeholders to ensure that trials are designed to help preserve justice for all participant populations.

Abstract Image

伦理临床试验设计及治疗效果差异。
许多全球临床试验主要估计单一的总体治疗效果。然而,当治疗效果在不同人群之间可能存在差异时,例如由于疾病、人群特征或卫生保健系统的差异,这种方法可能导致误导性结论并引起伦理问题。当在资源匮乏国家进行的研究主要或只惠及较富裕国家的人口时,正义就会受到损害。临床试验设计和分析的重点是估计单一治疗效果,假设适用于所有参与人群,这违背了正义的道德原则和世界卫生大会的立场。为了解决这个问题,我们提出了一种基于分层建模的方法策略。这种方法使研究人员能够估计对每个参与人群有效的治疗效果,同时潜在地保持与传统汇集分析相当的效率,正如我们在一个例子中所证明的那样。当人口之间存在实质性差异时,它会产生有效的、特定地区的结果。如果将这类战略纳入全球试验标准,将使监管机构、资助者和其他利益攸关方能够确保试验的设计有助于维护所有参与人群的正义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Bulletin of the World Health Organization
Bulletin of the World Health Organization 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
11.50
自引率
0.90%
发文量
317
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Bulletin of the World Health Organization Journal Overview: Leading public health journal Peer-reviewed monthly journal Special focus on developing countries Global scope and authority Top public and environmental health journal Impact factor of 6.818 (2018), according to Web of Science ranking Audience: Essential reading for public health decision-makers and researchers Provides blend of research, well-informed opinion, and news
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信