Literature DB >> 12220365

Physicians' preferences for active-controlled versus placebo-controlled trials of new antihypertensive drugs.

Scott D Halpern1, Peter A Ubel, Jesse A Berlin, Raymond R Townsend, David A Asch.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate physicians' preferences for referring patients to, and using information from, active-controlled trials (ACTs) versus placebo-controlled trials (PCTs) of new antihypertensive drugs. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Nationwide mailed survey, with telephone contact of nonresponders to assess nonresponse bias. PARTICIPANTS: One thousand two hundred primary care physicians randomly selected from the American Medical Association's Master File. Of 1,154 physicians eligible to respond, 651 (56.4%) returned completed questionnaires.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured physicians' stated willingness to encourage hypertensive patients to enroll in ACTs and PCTs of new antihypertensive drugs, their views of the relative merits of ACTs versus PCTs, their stated willingness to prescribe new drugs tested in ACTs or PCTs, and their views regarding the overall justifiability of the 2 designs. Physicians were significantly more likely to indicate they would encourage their patients to enroll in ACTs than in PCTs (P <.0001). Physicians thought ACTs provided more valuable information for their practices, were more likely to lead to a public health benefit, offered enrolled patients greater opportunity for personal benefit, and were less likely to expose enrolled patients to unnecessary risks (all P <.0001). Physicians were more likely to prescribe new drugs that had been compared in ACTs (P <.0001), and viewed ACTs as a more justifiable method for testing new antihypertensive drugs (P <.0001). There was no evidence of nonresponse bias for these main results.
CONCLUSIONS: Although PCTs remain the standard method for testing new antihypertensive drugs, physicians strongly prefer ACTs. Using ACTs to test new antihypertensive drugs may enhance the efficiency of patient recruitment and more strongly influence physicians' prescribing practices.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biomedical and Behavioral Research; Empirical Approach

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 12220365      PMCID: PMC1495099          DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2002.11024.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  34 in total

1.  Integrating conflicting professional roles: physician participation in randomized clinical trials.

Authors:  K M Taylor
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 4.634

2.  Tribulations for clinical trials.

Authors:  I M Macintyre
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-05-11

3.  Randomised clinical trials with clinician-preferred treatment.

Authors:  E L Korn; S Baumrind
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1991-01-19       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 4.  Impact of randomized clinical trials on medical practices.

Authors:  J P Boissel
Journal:  Control Clin Trials       Date:  1989-12

5.  Morbidity and mortality in patients randomised to double-blind treatment with a long-acting calcium-channel blocker or diuretic in the International Nifedipine GITS study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT).

Authors:  M J Brown; C R Palmer; A Castaigne; P W de Leeuw; G Mancia; T Rosenthal; L M Ruilope
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2000-07-29       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods.

Authors:  B Jones; P Jarvis; J A Lewis; A F Ebbutt
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1996-07-06

7.  Physicians' reasons for not entering eligible patients in a randomized clinical trial of surgery for breast cancer.

Authors:  K M Taylor; R G Margolese; C L Soskolne
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1984-05-24       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  Fundamental dilemmas of the randomized clinical trial process: results of a survey of the 1,737 Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group investigators.

Authors:  K M Taylor; M L Feldstein; R T Skeel; K J Pandya; P Ng; P P Carbone
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1994-09       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Physician participation in a randomized clinical trial for ocular melanoma.

Authors:  K M Taylor
Journal:  Ann Ophthalmol       Date:  1992-09

10.  Oncologists' reluctance to accrue patients onto clinical trials: an Illinois Cancer Center study.

Authors:  A B Benson; J P Pregler; J A Bean; A W Rademaker; B Eshler; K Anderson
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  1991-11       Impact factor: 44.544

View more
  8 in total

1.  Practitioners and clinical trials.

Authors:  Eugene V Boisaubin
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  Using empirical data to inform the ethical evaluation of placebo controlled trials.

Authors:  Jeremy Sugarman
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 3.525

Review 3.  Developments in post-marketing comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  S Schneeweiss
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2007-06-06       Impact factor: 6.875

4.  Geometry of the randomized evidence for treatments of pulmonary hypertension.

Authors:  Adriano R Tonelli; Joe Zein; John P A Ioannidis
Journal:  Cardiovasc Ther       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 3.023

5.  Systemic Sclerosis Trial Design Moving Forward.

Authors:  Sindhu R Johnson; Dinesh Khanna; Yannick Allanore; Marco Matucci-Cerinic; Daniel E Furst
Journal:  J Scleroderma Relat Disord       Date:  2018-01-23

6.  A web-based patient activation intervention to improve hypertension care: study design and baseline characteristics in the web hypertension study.

Authors:  Jeffrey Thiboutot; Heather Stuckey; Aja Binette; Donna Kephart; William Curry; Bonita Falkner; Christopher Sciamanna
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2010-09-17       Impact factor: 2.226

Review 7.  The placebo response of injectable GLP-1 receptor agonists vs. oral DPP-4 inhibitors and SGLT-2 inhibitors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Helena M de Wit; Maarten Te Groen; Maroeska M Rovers; Cees J Tack
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016-04-22       Impact factor: 4.335

8.  Placebo-controlled clinical trials: how trial documents justify the use of randomisation and placebo.

Authors:  Tapani Keränen; Arja Halkoaho; Emmi Itkonen; Anna-Maija Pietilä
Journal:  BMC Med Ethics       Date:  2015-01-11       Impact factor: 2.652

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.