Clinical trial design in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: current perspectives and considerations with regard to blinding of tiotropium

Public Deposited
Analytics

Downloadable Content

Download PDF
Request Version for Screen Reader
Creator
  • Beeh, Kai-Michael
    • Other Affiliation: Insaf Respiratory Research Institute, Wiesbaden, Germany
  • Beier, Jutta
    • Other Affiliation: Insaf Respiratory Research Institute, Wiesbaden, Germany
  • Donohue, James F
Abstract
  • Randomised, double-blind, controlled trials are considered the gold standard for evaluating a pharmacological agent, as they minimise any potential bias. However, it is not always possible to perform double-blind trials, particularly for medications delivered via specific devices, e.g. inhalers. In such cases, open-label studies can be employed instead. Methods used to minimise any potential bias introduced by open-label study design include randomisation, crossover study design, and objective measurements of primary efficacy and safety variables. Concise reviews analysing the effect of blinding procedures of comparator drugs on outcomes in respiratory trials are limited. Here, we compare data from different chronic obstructive pulmonary disease trials with once-daily indacaterol versus a blinded or non-blinded comparator. The clinical trial programme for indacaterol, a once-daily, long-acting β2-agonist, used tiotropium as a comparator either in an open-label or blinded fashion. Data from these studies showed that the effects of tiotropium were consistent for forced expiratory volume in 1 second, an objective measure, across blinded and non-blinded studies. The data were consistent with previous studies of double-blind tiotropium, suggesting that the open-label use of tiotropium did not introduce treatment bias. The effect of tiotropium on subjective measures (St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire; transition dyspnoea index) varied slightly across blinded and non-blinded studies, indicating that minimal bias was introduced by using open-label tiotropium. Importantly, the studies used randomised, open-label tiotropium patients to treatment allocation, a method shown to minimise bias to a greater degree than blinding. In conclusion, it is important when reporting a clinical trial to be transparent about who was blinded and how the blinding was performed; if the design is open-label, additional efforts must be made to minimise risk of bias. If these recommendations are followed, and the data are considered in the full knowledge of any potential sources of bias, results with tiotropium suggest that data from open-label studies can provide valuable and credible evidence of the effects of therapy.
Date of publication
DOI
Identifier
Resource type
  • Article
Rights statement
  • In Copyright
Rights holder
  • Kai-Michael Beeh et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.
License
Journal title
  • Respiratory Research
Journal volume
  • 13
Journal issue
  • 1
Page start
  • 52
Language
  • English
Is the article or chapter peer-reviewed?
  • Yes
ISSN
  • 1465-9921
Bibliographic citation
  • Respiratory Research. 2012 Jun 22;13(1):52
Publisher
  • BioMed Central Ltd
Access right
  • Open Access
Date uploaded
  • June 3, 2016

Relations

Parents:

This work has no parents.

Items

Thumbnail Title Date Uploaded Visibility Actions
file details 12931_2012_article_1240.pdf 2019-05-07 Public Download
file details 12931_2012_1240_moesm3_esm.bmp 2019-05-07 Public Download
file details 12931_2012_1240_moesm2_esm.bmp 2019-05-07 Public Download
file details 12931_2012_1240_moesm1_esm.bmp 2019-05-07 Public Download