Cargando…

Uses of equipoise in discussions of the ethics of randomized controlled trials of COVID-19 therapies

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the urgent need to discover effective therapies for COVID-19 prompted questions about the ethical problem of randomization along with its widely accepted solution: equipoise. In this scoping review, uses of equipoise in discussions of randomized controlled...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nix, Hayden P., Weijer, Charles
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8528943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34674679
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00712-5
_version_ 1784586356061634560
author Nix, Hayden P.
Weijer, Charles
author_facet Nix, Hayden P.
Weijer, Charles
author_sort Nix, Hayden P.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the urgent need to discover effective therapies for COVID-19 prompted questions about the ethical problem of randomization along with its widely accepted solution: equipoise. In this scoping review, uses of equipoise in discussions of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of COVID-19 therapies are evaluated to answer three questions. First, how has equipoise been applied to COVID-19 research? Second, has equipoise been employed accurately? And third, do concerns about equipoise pose a barrier to the ethical conduct of COVID-19 RCTs? METHODS: Google Scholar and Pubmed were searched for articles containing substantial discussion about equipoise and COVID-19 RCTs. 347 article titles were screened, 91 full text articles were assessed, and 48 articles were included. Uses of equipoise were analyzed and abstracted into seven categories. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Approximately two-thirds of articles (33/48 articles) used equipoise in a way that is consistent with the concept. They invoked equipoise to support (1) RCTs of specific therapies, (2) RCTs in general, and (3) the early termination of RCTs after achieving the primary outcome. Approximately one-third of articles (15/48 articles) used equipoise in a manner that is inconsistent with the concept. These articles argued that physician preference, widespread use of unproven therapies, patient preference, or expectation of therapeutic benefit may undermine equipoise and render RCTs unethical. In each case, the purported ethical problem can be resolved by correcting the use of equipoise. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the continued relevance of equipoise as it supports the conduct of well-conceived RCTs and provides moral guidance to physicians and researchers as they search for effective therapies for COVID-19. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00712-5.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8528943
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-85289432021-10-21 Uses of equipoise in discussions of the ethics of randomized controlled trials of COVID-19 therapies Nix, Hayden P. Weijer, Charles BMC Med Ethics Research BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the urgent need to discover effective therapies for COVID-19 prompted questions about the ethical problem of randomization along with its widely accepted solution: equipoise. In this scoping review, uses of equipoise in discussions of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of COVID-19 therapies are evaluated to answer three questions. First, how has equipoise been applied to COVID-19 research? Second, has equipoise been employed accurately? And third, do concerns about equipoise pose a barrier to the ethical conduct of COVID-19 RCTs? METHODS: Google Scholar and Pubmed were searched for articles containing substantial discussion about equipoise and COVID-19 RCTs. 347 article titles were screened, 91 full text articles were assessed, and 48 articles were included. Uses of equipoise were analyzed and abstracted into seven categories. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Approximately two-thirds of articles (33/48 articles) used equipoise in a way that is consistent with the concept. They invoked equipoise to support (1) RCTs of specific therapies, (2) RCTs in general, and (3) the early termination of RCTs after achieving the primary outcome. Approximately one-third of articles (15/48 articles) used equipoise in a manner that is inconsistent with the concept. These articles argued that physician preference, widespread use of unproven therapies, patient preference, or expectation of therapeutic benefit may undermine equipoise and render RCTs unethical. In each case, the purported ethical problem can be resolved by correcting the use of equipoise. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the continued relevance of equipoise as it supports the conduct of well-conceived RCTs and provides moral guidance to physicians and researchers as they search for effective therapies for COVID-19. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12910-021-00712-5. BioMed Central 2021-10-21 /pmc/articles/PMC8528943/ /pubmed/34674679 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00712-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Nix, Hayden P.
Weijer, Charles
Uses of equipoise in discussions of the ethics of randomized controlled trials of COVID-19 therapies
title Uses of equipoise in discussions of the ethics of randomized controlled trials of COVID-19 therapies
title_full Uses of equipoise in discussions of the ethics of randomized controlled trials of COVID-19 therapies
title_fullStr Uses of equipoise in discussions of the ethics of randomized controlled trials of COVID-19 therapies
title_full_unstemmed Uses of equipoise in discussions of the ethics of randomized controlled trials of COVID-19 therapies
title_short Uses of equipoise in discussions of the ethics of randomized controlled trials of COVID-19 therapies
title_sort uses of equipoise in discussions of the ethics of randomized controlled trials of covid-19 therapies
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8528943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34674679
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12910-021-00712-5
work_keys_str_mv AT nixhaydenp usesofequipoiseindiscussionsoftheethicsofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsofcovid19therapies
AT weijercharles usesofequipoiseindiscussionsoftheethicsofrandomizedcontrolledtrialsofcovid19therapies