Malta Medicines Authority, Life Science Park, Sir Temi Żammit, San Gwann, 3000, Malta.
Pharmaceut Med. 2022 Oct;36(5):287-293. doi: 10.1007/s40290-022-00438-8. Epub 2022 Jul 25.
The randomised controlled trial (RCT) has been considered for a long time as the gold standard for evidence generation to support regulatory decision making for medicines. The randomisation procedure involves an ethical dilemma since it means leaving the treatment choice to chance. Although currently contested, the ethical justification for the RCT that has gained widespread acceptance is the notion of 'clinical equipoise'. This state exists when "there is no consensus within the expert clinical community about the comparative merits of the alternatives to be tested"; it is argued that this confers the ethical grounds for the conduct of an RCT. The prominent position of the RCT is being challenged by new therapeutic modalities for which this study design may be unsuitable. Moreover, alternative approaches to evidence generation represent another area where innovation may have implications for the relevance of the RCT. Against the backdrop of the debate around the equipoise principle and some recent therapeutic and data analytical innovations, the aim of this article is to explore the current standing of the RCT from a regulatory perspective.
随机对照试验(RCT)长期以来一直被认为是产生证据以支持药品监管决策的金标准。随机化程序涉及到一个伦理困境,因为这意味着将治疗选择交给机会。尽管目前存在争议,但 RCT 的伦理依据已被广泛接受,其理念是“临床均衡”。当“专家临床界对要测试的替代方案的相对优点没有共识”时,就会出现这种状态;有人认为,这为进行 RCT 提供了伦理依据。新的治疗方法对 RCT 的突出地位提出了挑战,因为这种研究设计可能不适合这些新的治疗方法。此外,证据生成的替代方法代表了另一个可能对 RCT 的相关性产生影响的创新领域。本文在围绕均衡原则的争论和一些最近的治疗和数据分析创新的背景下,从监管的角度探讨 RCT 的现状。