研究伦理与创新交汇处的随机对照试验。

IF 3.1 Q2 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Pharmaceutical Medicine Pub Date : 2022-10-01 Epub Date: 2022-07-25 DOI:10.1007/s40290-022-00438-8
Torbjörn Callréus
{"title":"研究伦理与创新交汇处的随机对照试验。","authors":"Torbjörn Callréus","doi":"10.1007/s40290-022-00438-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The randomised controlled trial (RCT) has been considered for a long time as the gold standard for evidence generation to support regulatory decision making for medicines. The randomisation procedure involves an ethical dilemma since it means leaving the treatment choice to chance. Although currently contested, the ethical justification for the RCT that has gained widespread acceptance is the notion of 'clinical equipoise'. This state exists when \"there is no consensus within the expert clinical community about the comparative merits of the alternatives to be tested\"; it is argued that this confers the ethical grounds for the conduct of an RCT. The prominent position of the RCT is being challenged by new therapeutic modalities for which this study design may be unsuitable. Moreover, alternative approaches to evidence generation represent another area where innovation may have implications for the relevance of the RCT. Against the backdrop of the debate around the equipoise principle and some recent therapeutic and data analytical innovations, the aim of this article is to explore the current standing of the RCT from a regulatory perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":19778,"journal":{"name":"Pharmaceutical Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9309994/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Randomised Controlled Trial at the Intersection of Research Ethics and Innovation.\",\"authors\":\"Torbjörn Callréus\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40290-022-00438-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The randomised controlled trial (RCT) has been considered for a long time as the gold standard for evidence generation to support regulatory decision making for medicines. The randomisation procedure involves an ethical dilemma since it means leaving the treatment choice to chance. Although currently contested, the ethical justification for the RCT that has gained widespread acceptance is the notion of 'clinical equipoise'. This state exists when \\\"there is no consensus within the expert clinical community about the comparative merits of the alternatives to be tested\\\"; it is argued that this confers the ethical grounds for the conduct of an RCT. The prominent position of the RCT is being challenged by new therapeutic modalities for which this study design may be unsuitable. Moreover, alternative approaches to evidence generation represent another area where innovation may have implications for the relevance of the RCT. Against the backdrop of the debate around the equipoise principle and some recent therapeutic and data analytical innovations, the aim of this article is to explore the current standing of the RCT from a regulatory perspective.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19778,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pharmaceutical Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9309994/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pharmaceutical Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-022-00438-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/7/25 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmaceutical Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40290-022-00438-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/25 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

长期以来,随机对照试验(RCT)一直被认为是为药品监管决策提供证据的黄金标准。随机化程序涉及道德难题,因为它意味着治疗选择的偶然性。尽管目前存在争议,但 "临床平衡 "概念是 RCT 得到广泛认可的道德理由。这种状态存在于 "临床专家界对待测替代方案的比较优势没有达成共识 "的情况下;有人认为,这为进行 RCT 提供了伦理依据。RCT 的重要地位正受到新治疗模式的挑战,因为这种研究设计可能并不适合。此外,证据生成的替代方法是创新可能对 RCT 相关性产生影响的另一个领域。在围绕 "等效原则 "的争论以及近期一些治疗和数据分析创新的背景下,本文旨在从监管的角度探讨 RCT 目前的地位。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Randomised Controlled Trial at the Intersection of Research Ethics and Innovation.

The randomised controlled trial (RCT) has been considered for a long time as the gold standard for evidence generation to support regulatory decision making for medicines. The randomisation procedure involves an ethical dilemma since it means leaving the treatment choice to chance. Although currently contested, the ethical justification for the RCT that has gained widespread acceptance is the notion of 'clinical equipoise'. This state exists when "there is no consensus within the expert clinical community about the comparative merits of the alternatives to be tested"; it is argued that this confers the ethical grounds for the conduct of an RCT. The prominent position of the RCT is being challenged by new therapeutic modalities for which this study design may be unsuitable. Moreover, alternative approaches to evidence generation represent another area where innovation may have implications for the relevance of the RCT. Against the backdrop of the debate around the equipoise principle and some recent therapeutic and data analytical innovations, the aim of this article is to explore the current standing of the RCT from a regulatory perspective.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Pharmaceutical Medicine
Pharmaceutical Medicine PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.00%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Pharmaceutical Medicine is a specialist discipline concerned with medical aspects of the discovery, development, evaluation, registration, regulation, monitoring, marketing, distribution and pricing of medicines, drug-device and drug-diagnostic combinations. The Journal disseminates information to support the community of professionals working in these highly inter-related functions. Key areas include translational medicine, clinical trial design, pharmacovigilance, clinical toxicology, drug regulation, clinical pharmacology, biostatistics and pharmacoeconomics. The Journal includes:Overviews of contentious or emerging issues.Comprehensive narrative reviews that provide an authoritative source of information on topical issues.Systematic reviews that collate empirical evidence to answer a specific research question, using explicit, systematic methods as outlined by PRISMA statement.Original research articles reporting the results of well-designed studies with a strong link to wider areas of clinical research.Additional digital features (including animated abstracts, video abstracts, slide decks, audio slides, instructional videos, infographics, podcasts and animations) can be published with articles; these are designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. In addition, articles published in Pharmaceutical Medicine may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist readers who have some knowledge of, but not in-depth expertise in, the area to understand important medical advances.All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the Editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信