Are adaptive randomised trials or non-randomised studies the best way to address the Ebola outbreak in west Africa?

Simone Lanini, Alimuddin Zumla, John P A Ioannidis, Antonino Di Caro, Sanjeev Krishna, Lawrence Gostin, Enrico Girardi, Michel Pletschette, Gino Strada, Aldo Baritussio, Gina Portella, Giovanni Apolone, Silvio Cavuto, Roberto Satolli, Peter Kremsner, Francesco Vairo, Giuseppe Ippolito

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

The Ebola outbreak that has devastated parts of west Africa represents an unprecedented challenge for research and ethics. Estimates from the past three decades emphasise that the present effort to contain the epidemic in the three most affected countries (Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone) has been insufficient, with more than 24 900 cases and about 10 300 deaths, as of March 25, 2015. Faced with such an exceptional event and the urgent response it demands, the use of randomised controlled trials (RCT) for Ebola-related research might be both unethical and infeasible and that potential interventions should be assessed in non-randomised studies on the basis of compassionate use. However, non-randomised studies might not yield valid conclusions, leading to large residual uncertainty about how to interpret the results, and can also waste scarce intervention-related resources, making them profoundly unethical. Scientifically sound and rigorous study designs, such as adaptive RCTs, could provide the best way to reduce the time needed to develop new interventions and to obtain valid results on their efficacy and safety while preserving the application of ethical precepts. We present an overview of clinical studies registered at present at the four main international trial registries and provide a simulation on how adaptive RCTs can behave in this context, when mortality varies simultaneously in either the control or the experimental group.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)738-745
Number of pages8
JournalLancet Infectious Diseases
Volume15
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2015
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Liberia
Compassionate Use Trials
Sierra Leone
Guinea
Research Ethics
Western Africa
Uncertainty
Disease Outbreaks
Registries
Randomized Controlled Trials
Safety
Mortality
Research
Clinical Studies

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Infectious Diseases
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Lanini, S., Zumla, A., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Di Caro, A., Krishna, S., Gostin, L., ... Ippolito, G. (2015). Are adaptive randomised trials or non-randomised studies the best way to address the Ebola outbreak in west Africa? Lancet Infectious Diseases, 15(6), 738-745. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(15)70106-4

Are adaptive randomised trials or non-randomised studies the best way to address the Ebola outbreak in west Africa? / Lanini, Simone; Zumla, Alimuddin; Ioannidis, John P A; Di Caro, Antonino; Krishna, Sanjeev; Gostin, Lawrence; Girardi, Enrico; Pletschette, Michel; Strada, Gino; Baritussio, Aldo; Portella, Gina; Apolone, Giovanni; Cavuto, Silvio; Satolli, Roberto; Kremsner, Peter; Vairo, Francesco; Ippolito, Giuseppe.

In: Lancet Infectious Diseases, Vol. 15, No. 6, 01.06.2015, p. 738-745.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lanini, S, Zumla, A, Ioannidis, JPA, Di Caro, A, Krishna, S, Gostin, L, Girardi, E, Pletschette, M, Strada, G, Baritussio, A, Portella, G, Apolone, G, Cavuto, S, Satolli, R, Kremsner, P, Vairo, F & Ippolito, G 2015, 'Are adaptive randomised trials or non-randomised studies the best way to address the Ebola outbreak in west Africa?', Lancet Infectious Diseases, vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 738-745. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1473-3099(15)70106-4
Lanini, Simone ; Zumla, Alimuddin ; Ioannidis, John P A ; Di Caro, Antonino ; Krishna, Sanjeev ; Gostin, Lawrence ; Girardi, Enrico ; Pletschette, Michel ; Strada, Gino ; Baritussio, Aldo ; Portella, Gina ; Apolone, Giovanni ; Cavuto, Silvio ; Satolli, Roberto ; Kremsner, Peter ; Vairo, Francesco ; Ippolito, Giuseppe. / Are adaptive randomised trials or non-randomised studies the best way to address the Ebola outbreak in west Africa?. In: Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2015 ; Vol. 15, No. 6. pp. 738-745.
@article{0358e9a320ef40c79767bc65a5fc2840,
title = "Are adaptive randomised trials or non-randomised studies the best way to address the Ebola outbreak in west Africa?",
abstract = "The Ebola outbreak that has devastated parts of west Africa represents an unprecedented challenge for research and ethics. Estimates from the past three decades emphasise that the present effort to contain the epidemic in the three most affected countries (Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone) has been insufficient, with more than 24 900 cases and about 10 300 deaths, as of March 25, 2015. Faced with such an exceptional event and the urgent response it demands, the use of randomised controlled trials (RCT) for Ebola-related research might be both unethical and infeasible and that potential interventions should be assessed in non-randomised studies on the basis of compassionate use. However, non-randomised studies might not yield valid conclusions, leading to large residual uncertainty about how to interpret the results, and can also waste scarce intervention-related resources, making them profoundly unethical. Scientifically sound and rigorous study designs, such as adaptive RCTs, could provide the best way to reduce the time needed to develop new interventions and to obtain valid results on their efficacy and safety while preserving the application of ethical precepts. We present an overview of clinical studies registered at present at the four main international trial registries and provide a simulation on how adaptive RCTs can behave in this context, when mortality varies simultaneously in either the control or the experimental group.",
author = "Simone Lanini and Alimuddin Zumla and Ioannidis, {John P A} and {Di Caro}, Antonino and Sanjeev Krishna and Lawrence Gostin and Enrico Girardi and Michel Pletschette and Gino Strada and Aldo Baritussio and Gina Portella and Giovanni Apolone and Silvio Cavuto and Roberto Satolli and Peter Kremsner and Francesco Vairo and Giuseppe Ippolito",
year = "2015",
month = "6",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S1473-3099(15)70106-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "15",
pages = "738--745",
journal = "The Lancet Infectious Diseases",
issn = "1473-3099",
publisher = "Lancet Publishing Group",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are adaptive randomised trials or non-randomised studies the best way to address the Ebola outbreak in west Africa?

AU - Lanini, Simone

AU - Zumla, Alimuddin

AU - Ioannidis, John P A

AU - Di Caro, Antonino

AU - Krishna, Sanjeev

AU - Gostin, Lawrence

AU - Girardi, Enrico

AU - Pletschette, Michel

AU - Strada, Gino

AU - Baritussio, Aldo

AU - Portella, Gina

AU - Apolone, Giovanni

AU - Cavuto, Silvio

AU - Satolli, Roberto

AU - Kremsner, Peter

AU - Vairo, Francesco

AU - Ippolito, Giuseppe

PY - 2015/6/1

Y1 - 2015/6/1

N2 - The Ebola outbreak that has devastated parts of west Africa represents an unprecedented challenge for research and ethics. Estimates from the past three decades emphasise that the present effort to contain the epidemic in the three most affected countries (Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone) has been insufficient, with more than 24 900 cases and about 10 300 deaths, as of March 25, 2015. Faced with such an exceptional event and the urgent response it demands, the use of randomised controlled trials (RCT) for Ebola-related research might be both unethical and infeasible and that potential interventions should be assessed in non-randomised studies on the basis of compassionate use. However, non-randomised studies might not yield valid conclusions, leading to large residual uncertainty about how to interpret the results, and can also waste scarce intervention-related resources, making them profoundly unethical. Scientifically sound and rigorous study designs, such as adaptive RCTs, could provide the best way to reduce the time needed to develop new interventions and to obtain valid results on their efficacy and safety while preserving the application of ethical precepts. We present an overview of clinical studies registered at present at the four main international trial registries and provide a simulation on how adaptive RCTs can behave in this context, when mortality varies simultaneously in either the control or the experimental group.

AB - The Ebola outbreak that has devastated parts of west Africa represents an unprecedented challenge for research and ethics. Estimates from the past three decades emphasise that the present effort to contain the epidemic in the three most affected countries (Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone) has been insufficient, with more than 24 900 cases and about 10 300 deaths, as of March 25, 2015. Faced with such an exceptional event and the urgent response it demands, the use of randomised controlled trials (RCT) for Ebola-related research might be both unethical and infeasible and that potential interventions should be assessed in non-randomised studies on the basis of compassionate use. However, non-randomised studies might not yield valid conclusions, leading to large residual uncertainty about how to interpret the results, and can also waste scarce intervention-related resources, making them profoundly unethical. Scientifically sound and rigorous study designs, such as adaptive RCTs, could provide the best way to reduce the time needed to develop new interventions and to obtain valid results on their efficacy and safety while preserving the application of ethical precepts. We present an overview of clinical studies registered at present at the four main international trial registries and provide a simulation on how adaptive RCTs can behave in this context, when mortality varies simultaneously in either the control or the experimental group.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84929510507&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84929510507&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)70106-4

DO - 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)70106-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 25881871

AN - SCOPUS:84929510507

VL - 15

SP - 738

EP - 745

JO - The Lancet Infectious Diseases

JF - The Lancet Infectious Diseases

SN - 1473-3099

IS - 6

ER -