Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2011 Feb;4(1):10-6.
doi: 10.1111/j.1752-8062.2010.00253.x.

Random treatment assignment using mathematical equipoise for comparative effectiveness trials

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Random treatment assignment using mathematical equipoise for comparative effectiveness trials

Harry P Selker et al. Clin Transl Sci. 2011 Feb.

Abstract

In controlled clinical trials, random assignment of treatment is appropriate only when there is equipoise, that is, no clear preference among treatment options. However, even when equipoise appears absent because prior trials show, on average, one treatment yields superior outcomes, random assignment still may be appropriate for some patients and circumstances. In such cases, enrollment into trials may be assisted by real-time patient-specific predictions of treatment outcomes, to determine whether there is equipoise to justify randomization. The percutaneous coronary intervention thrombolytic predictive instrument (PCI-TPI) computes probabilities of 30-day mortality for patients having ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), if treated with thrombolytic therapy (TT), and if treated with PCI. We estimated uncertainty around differences in their respective predicted benefits using the estimated uncertainty of the model coefficients. Using the 2,781-patient PCI-TPI development dataset, we evaluated the distribution of predicted benefits for each patient. For three typical clinical situations, randomization was potentially warranted for 70%, 93%, and 80% of patients. Predictive models may allow real-time patient-specific determination of whether there is equipoise that justifies trial enrollment for a given patient. This approach may have utility for comparative effectiveness trials and for application of trial results to clinical practice.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Predicted (PCI) survival benefit: p(live) with PCI minus p(live) with TT; * percutaneous coronary intervention (angioplasty), ** thrombolytic therapy.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Distribution of predicted mortality for ST elevation myocardial infarction by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and thrombolytic therapy (TT) mortality for n = 2,781. Subjects in PCI–TPI development sample, together with line of equivalence and zone of equipoise (<20% benefit of either treatment compared to each other for given circumstance).

References

    1. Rothwell PM. Can overall results of clinical trials be applied to all patients Lancet. 1995; 345(8965): 1616–1619. - PubMed
    1. Kravitz RL, Duan N, Braslow J. Evidence‐based medicine, heterogeneity of treatment‐effects, and the trouble with averages. Milbank Q. 2004; 82(4): 661–687. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kent DM, Hayward F. Limitations of applying summary results of clinical trials to individual patients: the need for risk stratification. JAMA. 2007; 298(10): 1209–1212. - PubMed
    1. Rothwell PM, Mehta Z, Howard SC, Gutnikov SA, Warlow CP. Treating individuals 3: from subgroups to individuals: general principles and the example of carotid endarterectomy. Lancet. 2005; 365(9455): 256–265. - PubMed
    1. Kent DM, Hayward RA. When averages hide individual differences in clinical trials. Am Sci. 2007; 95: 60–68.

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources