Do we need a new procedure for the assessment of adverse events in anti-migraine clinical trials?

Martina Amanzio
{"title":"Do we need a new procedure for the assessment of adverse events in anti-migraine clinical trials?","authors":"Martina Amanzio","doi":"10.2174/157488911794079109","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The large number of randomized controlled clinical trials on migraine have drawn the attention of some authors to the need to improve the design of such trials. In particular, adequate methodology is a critical issue in their planning and execution, as different methodological approaches can translate into different results. The side-effects observed in both the active medication arm and the placebo arm--considering anti-migraine randomized clinical trials--are often influenced by non specific factors. This issue can be quantified by using a systematic review approach to study the rates of adverse events reported in the placebo arms of clinical trials. Such a study requires increased standardization of the methods used to collect adverse data in clinical trials. This focused review article provides a critical re-analysis of the results obtained, by our group, in a recent systematic review of adverse events reported in the placebo groups of clinical trials for three classes of anti-migraine drugs: NSAIDs, triptans and anticonvulsants [Amanzio et al., 2009]. We consider the need for caution in interpreting side-effect profiles of the different placebo groups. In particular, since the side-effects observed in both the active medication and placebo arms of randomized clinical trials are often influenced by patients' and investigators' expectations, the nocebo phenomenon may help to understand the occurrence of (adverse) non-specific side effects observed in these groups. We also discuss the importance of evaluating the role of contributing factors in the results obtained, such as the need for the examiner to be blind to the expected side-effects of the drug being evaluated and a better rationalization of informed consent in order to avoid the occurrence of negative expectations in patients, aimed at preventing negative expectation effects among both investigators and patients. Currently, there is one patented design for investigating reductions in the placebo effect in controlled clinical trials. This paper discusses how these ideas may be helpful in the assessment of adverse events in active and placebo groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":87737,"journal":{"name":"Recent patents on CNS drug discovery","volume":"6 1","pages":"41-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2011-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Recent patents on CNS drug discovery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/157488911794079109","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The large number of randomized controlled clinical trials on migraine have drawn the attention of some authors to the need to improve the design of such trials. In particular, adequate methodology is a critical issue in their planning and execution, as different methodological approaches can translate into different results. The side-effects observed in both the active medication arm and the placebo arm--considering anti-migraine randomized clinical trials--are often influenced by non specific factors. This issue can be quantified by using a systematic review approach to study the rates of adverse events reported in the placebo arms of clinical trials. Such a study requires increased standardization of the methods used to collect adverse data in clinical trials. This focused review article provides a critical re-analysis of the results obtained, by our group, in a recent systematic review of adverse events reported in the placebo groups of clinical trials for three classes of anti-migraine drugs: NSAIDs, triptans and anticonvulsants [Amanzio et al., 2009]. We consider the need for caution in interpreting side-effect profiles of the different placebo groups. In particular, since the side-effects observed in both the active medication and placebo arms of randomized clinical trials are often influenced by patients' and investigators' expectations, the nocebo phenomenon may help to understand the occurrence of (adverse) non-specific side effects observed in these groups. We also discuss the importance of evaluating the role of contributing factors in the results obtained, such as the need for the examiner to be blind to the expected side-effects of the drug being evaluated and a better rationalization of informed consent in order to avoid the occurrence of negative expectations in patients, aimed at preventing negative expectation effects among both investigators and patients. Currently, there is one patented design for investigating reductions in the placebo effect in controlled clinical trials. This paper discusses how these ideas may be helpful in the assessment of adverse events in active and placebo groups.

我们是否需要一个新的程序来评估抗偏头痛临床试验中的不良事件?
大量的偏头痛随机对照临床试验引起了一些作者对改进此类试验设计的关注。特别是,适当的方法是计划和执行中的一个关键问题,因为不同的方法方法可以转化为不同的结果。考虑到抗偏头痛的随机临床试验,在积极药物组和安慰剂组观察到的副作用通常受到非特异性因素的影响。这个问题可以通过使用系统评价方法来研究临床试验中安慰剂组报告的不良事件发生率来量化。这样的研究需要提高在临床试验中收集不良数据的方法的标准化。这篇重点综述文章对我们小组最近对三种抗偏头痛药物(非甾体抗炎药、曲坦类药物和抗惊厥药)的临床试验中安慰剂组报告的不良事件进行了系统回顾,对结果进行了批判性的重新分析[Amanzio等,2009]。我们认为在解释不同安慰剂组的副作用时需要谨慎。特别是,由于随机临床试验中主动用药组和安慰剂组观察到的副作用往往受到患者和研究者期望的影响,因此反安慰剂现象可能有助于理解在这些组中观察到的(不良)非特异性副作用的发生。我们还讨论了评估影响因素在获得结果中的作用的重要性,例如审查员需要对被评估药物的预期副作用视而不见,以及为了避免患者产生负面预期而更好地合理化知情同意,旨在防止研究者和患者产生负面预期效应。目前,有一项专利设计用于在对照临床试验中研究安慰剂效应的减少。本文讨论了这些想法如何有助于评估活性组和安慰剂组的不良事件。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
小红书