Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

An unconventional clinical trial design might have advantages over classical trials for testing treatments for Ebola virus disease (EVD), suggests a study published this week in PLOS Medicine. The work of an international team led by John Whitehead of Lancaster University, UK and Ben Cooper (Oxford University, UK, and Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU), Bangkok, Thailand) provides much-needed data to inform a debate on the scientific and ethical justification for non-randomized EVD trials that has taken place in the editorial pages of a number of medical journals in past months.

Ebola virus

The researchers compared three different scenarios using analytic methods and computer simulations and report that, compared with two different approaches using all randomized trials, a multi-stage approach (MSA) that includes a component without randomization has the potential under certain circumstances to reduce patient harm and the time to roll-out of an effective treatment for EVD.

Although alternative evaluation designs are possible, the researchers suggest that beginning with a non-randomized phase II stage can be the quickest way to triage potential treatments and to decide how to test them further. For treatments that show strong evidence of benefit, it might even be possible to recommend the treatment without undertaking an RCT, they suggest.

While stressing that “RCTs are usually the best method for evaluating interventions”, the researchers argue that “the current Ebola epidemic in west Africa is an unprecedented situation where there is substantial uncertainty that RCTs can be conducted successfully and safely”. “Given these operational concerns and the results of our analysis”, they say, “the MSA—which begins with a less operationally challenging design and yet retains the ability to provide robust and informative results—must be considered.”

PLOS Medicine news article

Similar stories

How did people in Europe and SE Asia experience the first COVID-19 wave?

An international team, led by Phaik Yeong Cheah, conducted an anonymous online survey from May-June 2020, asking 5,058 people in Thailand, Malaysia, United Kingdom, Italy and Slovenia to share their experiences. Anne Osterrieder and colleagues report the unequal impacts of public health measures, and the prevalence of ‘fake news’.

Recruitment surges in COPCOV COVID-19 prevention study

As high COVID-19 daily cases and highly transmissible variants risk overwhelming countries’ healthcare systems, COPCOV, the world’s last-standing large prophylaxis RCT, faces tight timelines to determine whether chloroquine/ hydroxychloroquine prevents COVID-19

Simple blood tests may help improve malaria diagnosis in clinical studies

About one-third of children diagnosed with severe malaria may instead have an alternative cause of illness, but simple blood tests could help researchers distinguish between the two and speed up research on new treatments.

OUCRU scientists identify combination of biological markers associated with severe dengue

Nguyen Lam Vuong, Sophie Yacoub & colleagues have identified a combination of biological markers in patients with dengue that could predict whether they go on to develop moderate to severe disease. Biomarkers are used to identify the state or risk of a disease in patients; these findings could aid the development of biomarker panels for clinical use and help improve triage and risk prediction in patients with dengue.

RECOVERY trial finds Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody combination reduces deaths for hospitalised COVID-19 patients who have not mounted their own immune response

The Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy (RECOVERY) trial has demonstrated that the investigational antibody combination developed by Regeneron reduces the risk of death when given to patients hospitalised with severe COVID-19 who have not mounted a natural antibody response of their own.

RECOVERY trial finds aspirin does not improve survival for patients hospitalised with COVID-19

The RECOVERY trial was established as a randomised clinical trial to test a range of potential treatments for patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Patients with COVID-19 are at increased risk of blood clots forming in their blood vessels, particularly in the lungs. Between November 2020 and March 2021, the RECOVERY trial included nearly 15,000 patients hospitalised with COVID-19 in an assessment of the effects of aspirin, which is widely used to reduce blood clotting in other diseases. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality