Mark E Whitlock1,2,3, Philip W Woodward1,2,3, Robert C Alexander1,2,3. 1. Dr. Whitlock is BioStatistics Head of Internal Medicine, Early Clinical Development, for Pfizer in Cambridge, United Kingdom. 2. Mr. Woodward is an independent statistics consultant in Newmarket, United Kingdom. 3. Dr. Alexander is with Takeda Pharmaceuticals International Company in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Abstract
Objective: We investigated the accuracy of the often-stated assumption that placebo nonadditivity and an increasing placebo response are major problems in clinical trials and the cause of a trend for smaller treatment effects observed in clinical trials for major depressive disorder (MDD) in recent years. Method of research: We reviewed data from 122 MDD trials conducted between the years 1983 and 2010 (analyzed originally by Undurraga and Baldessarini in 2012) to determine whether the data support the assumption of placebo additivity. Statistical techniques, such as conventional least squares regression, orthogonal least squares regression and locally weighted loess smoothing, were applied to the data set. Results: Re-analysis of the data set showed the active and placebo responses to be highly correlated, to the degree that would be expected assuming placebo additivity, when random variability in both active and placebo response is considered. Despite the placebo responses in MDD trials increasing up to approximately the year 1998, we found no evidence that it has continued to increase since this date, or that it has been the cause of smaller reported treatment effects in recent years. Conclusion: Attempts to reduce the placebo response are unlikely to increase the treatment effect since they are likely to reduce drug nonspecific effects in the treatment arm by a similar amount. Thus, it should come as no surprise that trial designs set up with the sole purpose of reducing placebo response fail to discernibly benefit our ability to identify new effective treatments.
Objective: We investigated the accuracy of the often-stated assumption that placebo nonadditivity and an increasing placebo response are major problems in clinical trials and the cause of a trend for smaller treatment effects observed in clinical trials for major depressive disorder (MDD) in recent years. Method of research: We reviewed data from 122 MDD trials conducted between the years 1983 and 2010 (analyzed originally by Undurraga and Baldessarini in 2012) to determine whether the data support the assumption of placebo additivity. Statistical techniques, such as conventional least squares regression, orthogonal least squares regression and locally weighted loess smoothing, were applied to the data set. Results:Re-analysis of the data set showed the active and placebo responses to be highly correlated, to the degree that would be expected assuming placebo additivity, when random variability in both active and placebo response is considered. Despite the placebo responses in MDD trials increasing up to approximately the year 1998, we found no evidence that it has continued to increase since this date, or that it has been the cause of smaller reported treatment effects in recent years. Conclusion: Attempts to reduce the placebo response are unlikely to increase the treatment effect since they are likely to reduce drug nonspecific effects in the treatment arm by a similar amount. Thus, it should come as no surprise that trial designs set up with the sole purpose of reducing placebo response fail to discernibly benefit our ability to identify new effective treatments.
Authors: Alexander H Tuttle; Sarasa Tohyama; Tim Ramsay; Jonathan Kimmelman; Petra Schweinhardt; Gary J Bennett; Jeffrey S Mogil Journal: Pain Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 6.961
Authors: Jay C Fournier; Robert J DeRubeis; Steven D Hollon; Sona Dimidjian; Jay D Amsterdam; Richard C Shelton; Jan Fawcett Journal: JAMA Date: 2010-01-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: David J McCann; Nancy M Petry; Anders Bresell; Eva Isacsson; Ellis Wilson; Robert C Alexander Journal: J Clin Psychopharmacol Date: 2015-10 Impact factor: 3.153
Authors: Brett D M Jones; Cory R Weissman; Lais B Razza; M Ishrat Husain; Andre R Brunoni; Zafiris J Daskalakis Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-02-16 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Brett D M Jones; Lais B Razza; Cory R Weissman; Jewel Karbi; Tya Vine; Louise S Mulsant; Andre R Brunoni; M Ishrat Husain; Benoit H Mulsant; Daniel M Blumberger; Zafiris J Daskalakis Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-09-01
Authors: Ariel B Ganz; Benjamin Rolnik; Meenakshi Chakraborty; Jacob Wilson; Cyrus Tau; Matthew Sharp; Dallen Reber; George M Slavich; Michael P Snyder Journal: J Psychiatr Res Date: 2022-03-09 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Anna S Levin; Maristela P Freire; Maura Salaroli de Oliveira; Ana Catharina S Nastri; Leila S Harima; Lauro Vieira Perdigão-Neto; Marcello M Magri; Gabriel Fialkovitz; Pedro H M F Figueiredo; Rinaldo Focaccia Siciliano; Ester C Sabino; Danilo P N Carlotti; Davi Silva Rodrigues; Fátima L S Nunes; João Eduardo Ferreira Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2022-09-21 Impact factor: 3.298