Non eticità dei trial di non inferiorità

Translated title of the contribution: Non inferiority trials are unethical

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

There are several alleged reasons for using equivalence or non-inferiority trials rather than superiority designs. The true reason is that proving non-inferiority of new products is less risky than aiming to establish their superiority. Failure to prove superiority can tarnish the product's commercial image, but it may provide more information for physicians and patients. This is why non-inferiority trials clearly aim to over look differences that might stop the product from getting onto the market, rather than highlighting them, so as to define true place for the new treatment in therapy. A demonstration of non-inferiority leaves the product in a kind of limbo: its place in therapy is not established, but its place on the market is assured. This paper tries to prove that the scientific community should ban non-inferiority and equivalence trials simply because they are unethical, no matter which measures are taken to prevent their methodological pitfalls and inappropriate interpretation of results. Randomisation should not even be allowed, since it is unethical to leave it to chance whether patients receive a treatment that, at best, is the same as what they would have received anyway, but might also reduce most of the previous therapeutic advantages. Furthermore, the uncertainty surrounding alleged non-inferiority is hard to accept: however small the allowed increase in relative risk, it unavoidably implies an unacceptable absolute excess of adverse events in the patient population.

Original languageItalian
Pages (from-to)61-67
Number of pages7
JournalRicerca e Pratica
Volume24
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - Mar 2008

Fingerprint

Therapeutics
Random Allocation
Uncertainty
Physicians
Population

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology

Cite this

Non eticità dei trial di non inferiorità. / Garattini, Silvio; Bertele, Vittorio.

In: Ricerca e Pratica, Vol. 24, No. 2, 03.2008, p. 61-67.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{c1ac33417bd947f59ed7fbdb7082cf4c,
title = "Non eticit{\`a} dei trial di non inferiorit{\`a}",
abstract = "There are several alleged reasons for using equivalence or non-inferiority trials rather than superiority designs. The true reason is that proving non-inferiority of new products is less risky than aiming to establish their superiority. Failure to prove superiority can tarnish the product's commercial image, but it may provide more information for physicians and patients. This is why non-inferiority trials clearly aim to over look differences that might stop the product from getting onto the market, rather than highlighting them, so as to define true place for the new treatment in therapy. A demonstration of non-inferiority leaves the product in a kind of limbo: its place in therapy is not established, but its place on the market is assured. This paper tries to prove that the scientific community should ban non-inferiority and equivalence trials simply because they are unethical, no matter which measures are taken to prevent their methodological pitfalls and inappropriate interpretation of results. Randomisation should not even be allowed, since it is unethical to leave it to chance whether patients receive a treatment that, at best, is the same as what they would have received anyway, but might also reduce most of the previous therapeutic advantages. Furthermore, the uncertainty surrounding alleged non-inferiority is hard to accept: however small the allowed increase in relative risk, it unavoidably implies an unacceptable absolute excess of adverse events in the patient population.",
keywords = "Clinical trials, Ethic of research, Research design, Therapeutic equivalency",
author = "Silvio Garattini and Vittorio Bertele",
year = "2008",
month = "3",
language = "Italian",
volume = "24",
pages = "61--67",
journal = "Ricerca e Pratica",
issn = "1120-379X",
publisher = "Il Pensiero Scientifico Editore s.r.l.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Non eticità dei trial di non inferiorità

AU - Garattini, Silvio

AU - Bertele, Vittorio

PY - 2008/3

Y1 - 2008/3

N2 - There are several alleged reasons for using equivalence or non-inferiority trials rather than superiority designs. The true reason is that proving non-inferiority of new products is less risky than aiming to establish their superiority. Failure to prove superiority can tarnish the product's commercial image, but it may provide more information for physicians and patients. This is why non-inferiority trials clearly aim to over look differences that might stop the product from getting onto the market, rather than highlighting them, so as to define true place for the new treatment in therapy. A demonstration of non-inferiority leaves the product in a kind of limbo: its place in therapy is not established, but its place on the market is assured. This paper tries to prove that the scientific community should ban non-inferiority and equivalence trials simply because they are unethical, no matter which measures are taken to prevent their methodological pitfalls and inappropriate interpretation of results. Randomisation should not even be allowed, since it is unethical to leave it to chance whether patients receive a treatment that, at best, is the same as what they would have received anyway, but might also reduce most of the previous therapeutic advantages. Furthermore, the uncertainty surrounding alleged non-inferiority is hard to accept: however small the allowed increase in relative risk, it unavoidably implies an unacceptable absolute excess of adverse events in the patient population.

AB - There are several alleged reasons for using equivalence or non-inferiority trials rather than superiority designs. The true reason is that proving non-inferiority of new products is less risky than aiming to establish their superiority. Failure to prove superiority can tarnish the product's commercial image, but it may provide more information for physicians and patients. This is why non-inferiority trials clearly aim to over look differences that might stop the product from getting onto the market, rather than highlighting them, so as to define true place for the new treatment in therapy. A demonstration of non-inferiority leaves the product in a kind of limbo: its place in therapy is not established, but its place on the market is assured. This paper tries to prove that the scientific community should ban non-inferiority and equivalence trials simply because they are unethical, no matter which measures are taken to prevent their methodological pitfalls and inappropriate interpretation of results. Randomisation should not even be allowed, since it is unethical to leave it to chance whether patients receive a treatment that, at best, is the same as what they would have received anyway, but might also reduce most of the previous therapeutic advantages. Furthermore, the uncertainty surrounding alleged non-inferiority is hard to accept: however small the allowed increase in relative risk, it unavoidably implies an unacceptable absolute excess of adverse events in the patient population.

KW - Clinical trials

KW - Ethic of research

KW - Research design

KW - Therapeutic equivalency

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=46449084102&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=46449084102&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Articolo

VL - 24

SP - 61

EP - 67

JO - Ricerca e Pratica

JF - Ricerca e Pratica

SN - 1120-379X

IS - 2

ER -