Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
    • Obituary notices
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
    • Obituary notices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
    • Avis de décès
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Placebo trials and tribulations

Charles Weijer
CMAJ March 05, 2002 166 (5) 603-604;
Charles Weijer
Dr. Weijer is Associate Professor of Medicine, Department of Bioethics, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS.
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

The most divisive debate within psychiatric research today involves the proper role of placebo controls in clinical trials that test the effectiveness of new drugs. Canada's Tri-Council Policy Statement carefully defines the conditions under which placebo controls may be used legitimately.1 Article 7.4 stipulates that “[t]he use of placebo controls in clinical trials is generally unacceptable when standard therapies or interventions are available for a particular patient population.” This is not an idiosyncratic position. Indeed, the most recent revision of the Declaration of Helsinki (paragraph 29) similarly prohibits the use of a placebo control when effective therapy exists for the medical condition being studied.2 But ethical guidelines are only as good as their application in practice. Are Canada's researchers, research institutions and government abiding by these requirements?

Unfortunately, at least in some cases, it appears that the answer is no. Consider the following ongoing clinical trial for which I served as an external reviewer for a local research ethics board (REB). The study is a multicentre, randomized controlled trial comparing a new selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, paroxetine, and placebo in the treatment of major depressive disorder. Given the existence of proven, effective treatment for major depressive disorder,3 the local REB concluded that the use of a placebo control was inappropriate and, in accordance with the Tri-Council Policy Statement and paragraph 29 of the Declaration of Helsinki, rejected the study. The local REB's decision placed it in the minority of Canadian REBs that had considered the same study: 16 other REBs approved the protocol for use by 19 investigators.4

In order to explain this disparity, each of the many levels of Canada's regulatory system that is designed to protect research subjects must be examined. The first level of protection for research subjects is provided by the clinical investigator and by each subject's own physician. When may the responsible physician offer trial enrolment to her or his patient? Clinical equipoise provides the most widely accepted answer to this question.5 According to this concept, there must exist at the start of the trial a state of honest, professional disagreement in the community of expert clinicians as to the preferred treatment. Under these circumstances a state of clinical equipoise is said to exist, and the physician may offer trial enrolment to his or her patients legitimately.

Placebo controls may be used when there is no available treatment for a disorder, or when an adjunctive treatment is being tested, so that all participants receive the standard treatment.6 Second-generation treatments, however, must be tested against the best available therapy.6 In the case of depression, the effectiveness of drug treatment is well established.3 In such cases, the scrupulous clinician cannot offer participation in a placebo-controlled trial ethically to his or her patients.3

The second level of protection for Canada's research subjects is the research institution, be it a university or hospital. Research institutions that receive funds from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council or the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council must uphold the ethical standards for research laid out in the Tri-Council Policy Statement.1 Lack of compliance may be associated with serious consequences: “The Councils will consider funding (or continued funding) only to individuals and institutions which certify compliance with this policy regarding research involving human subjects.”1 The REB's role is to ensure that research meets the standards set by the Policy Statement.

The protocol described earlier was approved by REBs from a number of Canada's leading universities and their teaching hospitals. This suggests a lack of clarity on a national level regarding the need for adherence to the Tri-Council Policy Statement. The funding councils themselves may have perpetuated this state of affairs. To date, the councils have failed to caution or suspend funding to any institution for failing to adhere to the Policy Statement.

The third level of protection for Canada's research subjects is the government. All research for the licensing of new drugs, including the protocol described here, is conducted under the aegis of Health Canada's Therapeutic Products Directorate (TPD), which was part of the Therapeutic Products Programme (TPP) until April 2001. The TPD does not officially endorse the Tri-Council Policy statement. Rather, new drug research must comply with the guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH), an international standard-setting body for the licensing of new drugs.7,8 Obviously, any discrepancy between ICH guidelines and the Policy Statement will translate into a double standard for Canadian research subjects.

Further problems are posed by the fact that the ICH documents give conflicting guidance about the conduct of placebo-controlled trials. At one point, ICH guidelines take a relatively permissive stance on the use of placebo controls, allowing them when effective treatment exists as long as subjects are not exposed to the risk of death or permanent morbidity (Section 2.1.3).7 At another point, however, ICH guidelines require that “[c]linical trials should be conducted in accordance with … the Declaration of Helsinki …”(Section 2.1) and, thus, prohibit the same trials that other ICH guidelines permit.8 Clearly, this regulatory conflict must be resolved.

The TPD relies on arms-length review by the REBs to ensure that research is conducted ethically. In some cases, these REBs are not affiliated with any institution (and as such are not bound by the Tri-Council Policy Statement) and charge for ethics review. These “for profit” REBs are neither accredited by government nor are they subject to government oversight despite the obvious conflict of interest posed by “for profit” ethics review.9 At least 2 of the REBs that reviewed the protocol described here are “for-profit” REBs.4

The TPD must itself avoid the appearance of conflict of interest. After the local REB rejected the protocol under discussion, it received a copy of a letter from the then TPP written to a project manager at a research centre and forwarded by a researcher at the same centre that stated the following:

We believe judicious use of placebo controlled trials to establish unequivocally the efficacy of a new drug, together with a comprehensive risk management protocol and appropriate informed consent, is ethical. To use an inconclusive trial design when a conclusive trial design is possible, is unethical.10

REB review must be independent and it was, therefore, inherently improper for the TPP to tell an REB what is ethical. The facts of this case are problematic for 2 reasons. First, whether a particular practice is ethical or not is a matter set forth in national and international guidelines to be interpreted by REBs. The TPP should not have promulgated idiosyncratic views. Second, though the letter from the TPP made its way to the REB indirectly and the TPP may not have been aware of the investigator's intention to so distribute it, the TPP ought to have made it clear that this action by the investigator was inappropriate and should have reassured the REB that the TPP had no intention of interfering with the REB review process. I raised this issue in a letter to the TPP's then Acting Director General, Dr. Robert Peterson, dated Sept. 27, 2000.11 I wrote, “For the TPP to attempt to influence the decision of a particular REB, or for it to even appear to do so, is a violation of proper procedure, and undermines the REB's role as a societal mechanism to protect Canadians in research.”11 To date, I have not received a reply.

The placebo-controlled trial is a litmus test for the adequacy of Canada's regulatory system for research. The case discussed here reveals the need for change at all levels. Clinician investigators must reaffirm their commitment first and foremost to the well-being of their patients. REBs must follow the ethical guidance given by the Tri-Council Policy Statement. The funding councils must enforce these standards. Finally, the TPD must formally adopt the Policy Statement to ensure that all Canadians who give of themselves to further research are afforded the highest level of protection.

Footnotes

  • The World Medical Association recently offered a “Note of clarification on paragraph 29” that seems to allow for limited use of placebo controls when “compelling and scientifically sound methodological reasons” exist or when subjects will not be placed at “any additional risk of serious or irreversible harm.” The interpretation of this development is hindered by the fact that these “clarifications” of paragraph 29 in fact contradict it. Nonetheless, Dr. Delon Human, Secretary General of the WMA, seems to suggest that research on common psychiatric conditions would not fall into these exceptions. According to Human, the exceptional use of placebo controls is only acceptable “where research is done to find more effective treatments for a minor condition, such as baldness or allergic rhinitis. For this type of clinical situation there would be no additional risk or irreversible harm for the control group, who would be receiving placebo (no treatment)” [emphasis added] (www.wma.net/e/press.html [accessed 2002 Feb 4]). The reader should note that all the events discussed in this commentary occurred before the note of clarification was published.

    This article arose from a solicited manuscript submitted to the Journal of Addiction and Mental Health (JAMH), a publication of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health at the University of Toronto, in May 2000. The author received an extensively edited and revised version of the paper for approval. In Dr. Weijer's view, the alterations so fundamentally altered his criticism of placebo-controlled trials in psychiatric research that he felt compelled to withdraw the manuscript.

    CMAJ became aware of the manuscript when these events were reported in the Globe and Mail last year (2001 May 1; Sect A:6). We invited Dr. Weijer to submit the paper to us. An edited version approved by the author is published here.

    This article has been peer reviewed.

    Acknowledgements: I am grateful to Mr. Anthony Belardo and 2 anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on a draft version of this paper.

    Professor Weijer's research is supported by a CIHR New Investigator Award and Operating Grant, as well as a Dalhousie University Clinical Research Scholar Award.

    Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Canadian Institutes of Health, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-council policy statement: ethical conduct for research involving humans. Updated 2000 Nov 21. Available: www.nserc.ca/programs/ethics/english/policy.htm (accessed 2002 Jan 23).
  2. 2.↵
    World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. 2000. Available: www.wma.net/e/policy/17-c_e.html (accessed 2002 Jan 23).
  3. 3.↵
    Whooley MA, Simon GE. Managing depression in medical outpatients. N Engl J Med 2000;343(26):1942-50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. 4.↵
    Email correspondence from Roopa Ganapathy, Astra Zeneca, to Helen Begin, St. Joseph's Health Care, Hamilton, Ont., re approval given by ethics boards. 2001 June 18.
  5. 5.↵
    Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N Engl J Med 1987; 317: 141-5.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Weijer C. Placebo-controlled trials in schizophrenia: Are they ethical? Are they necessary? Schizophr Res 1999;35:211-8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH Harmonised Tripartite guideline: choice of control group and related issues in clinical trials (E10). 2000. Available: www.ifpma.org/ich5e.html#GCP (accessed 2002 Jan 23).
  8. 8.↵
    International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH Harmonised Tripartite guideline: guideline for good clinical practice (E6). 1996. Available: www.ifpma.org/ich5e.html#GCP (accessed 2002 Jan 23).
  9. 9.↵
    Lemmens T, Freedman B. Ethics review for sale? Conflict of interest and commercial research review boards. Milbank Q 2000;78:547-84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Letter from Dr. Siddiki Mithani, Manager, Clinical Trials & Special Access Programme, Health Canada, Ottawa, to Ms. Lorelei Audas, Project Manager, Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre, Halifax, re placebo-controlled trials. 2000 Aug 15.
  11. 11.↵
    Letter from Dr. Charles Weijer, Dalhousie University, Halifax, to Dr. Robert Peterson, Acting Director General, Therapeutic Products Programme (TPP), Health Canada, Ottawa, re TTP policy concerning placebo-controlled trials. 2000 Sept 27.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 166, Issue 5
5 Mar 2002
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Placebo trials and tribulations
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Placebo trials and tribulations
Charles Weijer
CMAJ Mar 2002, 166 (5) 603-604;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Placebo trials and tribulations
Charles Weijer
CMAJ Mar 2002, 166 (5) 603-604;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • Assessing the bioethical integrity of a clinical trial in surgery
  • Getting a fix on good governance
  • Placebo tribulations
  • Placebo tribulations
  • Placebo tribulations
  • Placebo tribulations
  • The ethics of placebo in clinical psychopharmacology: the urgent need for consistent regulation
  • The better-than-nothing idea: debating the use of placebo controls
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Ensuring timely genetic diagnosis in adults
  • The case for improving the detection and treatment of obstructive sleep apnea following stroke
  • Laser devices for vaginal rejuvenation: effectiveness, regulation and marketing
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Drugs: psychotherapeutic
    • Journalology & publication ethics

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire