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.
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