Premium
A case study comparing a randomized withdrawal trial and a double‐blind long‐term trial for assessing the long‐term efficacy of an antidepressant
Author(s) -
Mallinckrodt Craig,
ChuangStein Christy,
McSorley Paul,
Schwartz Jeffrey,
Archibald Donald G.,
Perahia David G.,
Detke Michael J.,
Alphs Larry
Publication year - 2006
Publication title -
pharmaceutical statistics
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.421
H-Index - 38
eISSN - 1539-1612
pISSN - 1539-1604
DOI - 10.1002/pst.234
Subject(s) - randomized controlled trial , term (time) , research design , clinical study design , clinical trial , medicine , placebo , psychology , computer science , risk analysis (engineering) , intensive care medicine , alternative medicine , statistics , mathematics , surgery , physics , pathology , quantum mechanics
Assessing long‐term efficacy in psychiatric drugs involves a number of complex questions, and the priaority of these questions is different for different disorders and for different stakeholders. Therefore, it is essential that we not adopt a one‐method‐fits‐all approach, but rather adapt the specific details of the designs and analysis of data from long‐term trials to individual disease states. Randomized withdrawal (RW) designs, even though addressing a specific question of particular interest, face some difficult methodological and ethical challenges. A less common alternative design, termed the double‐blind long‐term efficacy (DBLE) design, is logistically similar to traditional responder extension designs. However, use of an analytic approach that includes all randomized patients rather than only the selected subset that continued beyond acute treatment avoids the major criticism of the extender design. The present paper illustrates the attributes of the RW and DBLE designs by analyzing data from trials adopting these designs. The RW and DBLE designs address different questions, and are thus not directly comparable. Potential benefits of the DBLE design include: (1) the parsimonious use of patients and the resultant reduced exposure to placebo as each patient can contribute to multiple developmental objectives; (2) the results are generalizable to actual clinical practice as the design matches treatment guidelines; and, (3) results of safety assessments are meaningful as they involve all randomized patients. Our case study suggests that the DBLE design can provide definitive answers to important questions and may be a useful design for assessing long‐term treatment effects. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.