Unethical use of placebo controls

A. K. Jainer

St Michael's Hospital, St Michael's Road, South Warwickshire Primary Care Trust, South Warwickshire CV34 5QW, UK

N. Soni

The Caludon Centre, Coventry Primary Care Trust, Coventry, UK

Klysner et al (2002) evaluated the prophylactic efficacy of citalopram in comparison with placebo in elderly patients, and stated ‘the highly recurrent nature of major depression in the young and the elderly warrants long-term antidepressant treatment’. In view of this, is it ethical to use a placebo arm? The answer to this question depends upon whether or not there is an already available treatment of proven or accepted value. In this context, Cochrane (1989) stated that ‘placebo controlled trials are appropriate when there is no existing treatment for a disorder, otherwise comparison trials are indicated. No new treatments should be introduced into medicine unless they have been shown, in randomised controlled trials, to be superior to existing treatments, or equivalent to existing treatment but cheaper or safer’. Similarly, section 12.4 of the National Health and Medical Research Council (1999) statement on ethical conduct in research involving humans states: ‘the use of a placebo alone or the incorporation of a non-treatment control group is ethically unacceptable in a controlled trial where: (a) other available treatment has already been clearly shown to be effective; and (b) there is a risk of significant harm in the absence of treatment. If there is genuine uncertainty about the net clinical benefit of a treatment, a placebo controlled trial or a trial with a no-treatment arm may be considered’.

The use of placebo in this clinical drug trial raises questions of deception, of patient information and of informed consent. The patients in the placebo group were left without any active treatment for 48 weeks — this raises doubt as to whether patients were fully informed, before giving their consent, that they might receive a placebo by random allocation. We are keen to know why the authors did not try to compare the efficacy of citalopram with existing antidepressants.

EDITED BY KHALIDA ISMAIL

REFERENCES

Cochrane, A. L. (1989) Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services. London: British Medical Journal.

Klysner, R., Bent-Hansen, J., Hansen H. L., et al (2002) Efficacy of citalopram in the prevention of recurrent depression in elderly patients: placebo-controlled study of maintenance therapy. British Journal of Psychiatry, 181, 29-35.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

National Health and Medical Research Council (1999) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans. Canberra: NHMRC.


 

Authors' reply

R. Klysner

Psychiatric Research Clinic, Frederiksberg Hospital, Denmark

M. Andersen

International Clinical Research, H. Lundbeck A/S, Ottiliavej 9, 2500 Valby, Denmark

EDITED BY KHALIDA ISMAIL

Declaration of interest

The study in question was funded by H. Lundbeck A/S. M.A. is an employee of H. Lundbeck A/S.

Drs Jainer and Soni have addressed an important issue in clinical trials in depression when commenting on our article. Our study was the first specifically designed and conducted to evaluate the therapeutic value of prevention of recurrence of a depressive episode in an elderly population. The study was designed using the concept of the three phases of antidepressant treatment: acute, continuation and maintenance treatment (Montgomery et al, 1988). The study is unique in that the majority of the population had suffered only one documented depressive episode upon admission into the study.

At the time the study was initiated, there was sparse evidence for the value of prophylactic treatment after a first episode of depression in elderly patients. Thus, the requirement that there be no ‘other available treatment [that] has already been clearly shown to be effective’ was fulfilled.

Prior to initiating the study, the local ethics committee approved the protocol as well as the patient information and the informed consent form. The patient information explicitly mentioned the use of placebo in the double-blind period. All patients gave written informed consent before being included in the study.

Existing guidelines clearly stipulate that treatment of at least 6 months' duration is necessary to reduce the risk of relapse. The study complied with this by providing active treatment with citalopram for 24 weeks. Only patients in remission, after a total of 24 weeks of treatment with citalopram, were randomised to double-blind treatment with citalopram or placebo. The patients were closely monitored during the double-blind period until discontinuation or completion. Patients with recurrence of depression in the double-blind treatment period were withdrawn and treated at the investigators' discretion.

In addition, an active-comparator trial can only provide information regarding relative effect, but not whether prophylactic treatment is clinically warranted. The absolute value of prophylactic treatment can only be concluded from a placebo-controlled trial. Thus, the study had a placebo-controlled design for the double-blind period, in accordance with the National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines as cited by Drs Jainer and Soni (‘If there is a genuine uncertainty about the net clinical benefit of a treatment, a placebo controlled trial or a trial with a no-treatment arm may be considered’).

The study established that long-term treatment with citalopram is effective in preventing recurrence of depression in the elderly and is well tolerated. With this knowledge, along with other currently available information, we certainly agree with the authors that the appropriateness of conducting similar studies in the future should be considered. However, our opinion notwithstanding, there is no consensus regarding the need for prophylactic treatment in the elderly. Until clinical practice and guidelines are changed, studies of a similar nature will have to be undertaken to convince the scientific community of the value of long-term treatment.

REFERENCES

Montgomery, S. A., Dufour, H., Brion, S., et al (1988) The prophylactic efficacy of fluoxetine in unipolar depression. British Journal of Psychiatry, 153 (suppl. 3), 69-76.





This Article
Submit a response
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me when eLetters are posted
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Articles by Jainer, A. K.
Articles by Andersen, M.
Articles citing this Article
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Jainer, A. K.
Articles by Andersen, M.


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Psychiatric Bulletin Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals