 |
|
Run-in Periods in Randomized Trials
Implications for the Application of Results in Clinical Practice
Ariel Pablos-Méndez, MD, MPH;
R. Graham Barr, MD;
Steven Shea, MD
JAMA. 1998;279:222-225.
Prerandomization run-in periods are being used to select or exclude patients in an increasing number of clinical trials, but the implications of run-in periods for interpreting the results of clinical trials and applying these results in clinical practice have not been systematically examined. We analyzed illustrative examples of reports of clinical trials in which run-in periods were used to exclude noncompliant subjects, placebo responders, or subjects who could not tolerate or did not respond to active drug. The Physicians' Health Study exemplifies the use of a prerandomization run-in period to exclude subjects who are nonadherent, while recent trials of tacrine for Alzheimer disease and carvedilol for congestive heart failure typify the use of run-in periods to exclude patients who do not tolerate or do not respond to the study drug. The reported results of these studies are valid. However, because the reported results apply to subgroups of patients who cannot be defined readily based on demographic or clinical characteristics, the applicability of the results in clinical practice is diluted. Compared with results that would have been observed without the run-in period, the reported results overestimate the benefits and underestimate the risks of treatment, underestimate the number needed to treat, and yield a smaller P value. The Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial exemplifies the use of an active-drug run-in period that enhances clinical applicability by selecting a group of study subjects who closely resembled patients undergoing active clinical management for this problem. Run-in periods can dilute or enhance the clinical applicability of the results of a clinical trial, depending on the patient group to whom the results will be applied. Reports of clinical trials using run-in periods should indicate how this aspect of their design affects the application of the results to clinical practice.
From the Division of General Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Columbia University (Drs Pablos-Méndez, Barr, and Shea), and the Division of Epidemiology, Columbia University School of Public Health (Drs Pablos-Méndez and Shea), New York, NY.
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
Placebo effects: clinical aspects and neurobiology
Oken
Brain 2008;131:2812-2823.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The efficacy and safety of intensive statin therapy: a meta-analysis of randomized trials
Josan et al.
CMAJ 2008;178:576-584.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Placebo response in clinical trials of depression and its implications for research on chronic neuropathic pain
Dworkin et al.
Neurology 2005;65:S7-S19.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Challenges in Systematic Reviews of Therapeutic Devices and Procedures
Hartling et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2005;142:1100-1111.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Systematic Review: Cardiac Resynchronization in Patients with Symptomatic Heart Failure
McAlister et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2004;141:381-390.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Multiple-stage screening and mortality in the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial
Eberly et al.
Clin Trials 2004;1:148-161.
ABSTRACT
Effectiveness of St John's Wort in Major Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Shelton et al.
JAMA 2001;285:1978-1986.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Placebo-Associated Blood Pressure Response and Adverse Effects in the Treatment of Hypertension: Observations From a Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study
Preston et al.
Arch Intern Med 2000;160:1449-1454.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Use of Exclusion Criteria in Selecting Research Subjects and Its Effect on the Generalizability of Alcohol Treatment Outcome Studies
Humphreys and Weisner
Am. J. Psychiatry 2000;157:588-594.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Real-world effectiveness of antihypertensive drugs
Caro and Payne
CMAJ 2000;162:190-190.
FULL TEXT
Concerns About Run-in Periods in Randomized Trials
Glynn et al.
JAMA 1998;279:1526-1527.
FULL TEXT
|
