Control treatments in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) should not deliberately disadvantage patients. The objectives of the study were to compare (1) willingness to include vs. (2) willingness to prescribe control treatment among physicians randomized to assess, respectively, either (1) enrollment in a trial or (2) appropriateness of control treatment in a care context for the same fictional patient.
Physicians were authors of articles about rheumatoid arthritis (RA), involved in RA patient care, and used to enrolling patients in trials. The outcomes were willingness to give control treatment: trial enrollment or control-treatment appropriateness in care context. We derived three case vignettes of fictional standard eligible patients for each of 30 RCTs assessing biologics in RA. Physicians were randomly allocated to the "trial" or "care" arm. For each of the 90 fictional patients, physicians assigned to the trial arm were asked if they would enroll the patient in the RCT the patient was derived from. For the same 90 fictional patients, physicians assigned to the care arm were asked if the control treatment of the RCT was appropriate in a context of usual care.
Of the 1,779 physicians invited to participate, 151 were randomized. Half of the fictional patients {41/90; 45% [95% confidence interval (CI): 37%, 53%]} would be enrolled in the RCT although the control-arm treatment of the RCT was not considered appropriate for them in the context of care. This rate differed by type of comparator [55% for non-head-to-head RCTs vs. 6% for head-to-head RCTs; adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 23.9 (95% CI: 5.5, 92.7)] and duration of trial control treatment [56% for ≤24 weeks and 15% for >24 weeks; aOR, 10.7 (95% CI: 2.8, 63.9)] but not patient RA activity [aOR, 2.5 (95% CI: 1.0, 6.6)]. The limitation of this study was that physicians gave their opinion on fictional patients with only RA.
Control treatments in RCTs of biologics in RA are often deemed not acceptable in the context of usual care, especially those for non-head-to-head RCTs. These findings raise ethical concerns and challenge the choice of the comparator in RCTs.