Abstract
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are central to evidence-based clinical and health-policy decisions. However, RCTs highlight the tension between the therapeutic obligations of the physician and the scientific obligations of the investigator. Clinical equipoise, defined as honest professional disagreement among expert clinicians about the preferred treatment, is often cited as the solution to this RCT dilemma. Nevertheless, there are numerous practical and conceptual problems with the notion of equipoise. These problems include its mistaken imposition of therapeutic norms on the scientific enterprise of research, the difficulty of knowing when a state of equipoise exists, the susceptibility of expert judgment to bias and weak evidence, and its inability to support evidence necessary for health-policy decisions. An alternate approach to risk–benefit assessment that is congruent with the scientific purpose of RCTs can better guide ethical evaluation of these trials, as discussed in this Perspective.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 12 print issues and online access
$209.00 per year
only $17.42 per issue
Rent or buy this article
Prices vary by article type
from$1.95
to$39.95
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Joffe, S. & Truog, R. D. in The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics Ch. 24 (eds Emanuel, E. J. et al.) 245–260 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008).
Shatz, D. Randomized clinical trials and the problem of suboptimal care: an overview of the controversy. Cancer Invest. 8, 191–205 (1990).
Freedman, B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. N. Engl. J. Med. 317, 141–145 (1987).
Weijer, C. The ethical analysis of risk. J. Law Med. Ethics 28, 344–361 (2000).
Weijer, C. & Miller, P. B. When are research risks reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits? Nat. Med. 10, 570–573 (2004).
Miller, P. B. & Weijer, C. Rehabilitating equipoise. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 13, 93–118 (2003).
Hellman, S. & Hellman, D. S. Of mice but not men. Problems of the randomized clinical trial. N. Engl. J. Med. 324, 1585–1589 (1991).
Marquis, D. Leaving therapy to chance. Hastings Cent. Rep. 13, 40–47 (1983).
Joffe, S. & Miller, F. G. Bench to bedside: mapping the moral terrain of clinical research. Hastings Cent. Rep. 38, 30–42 (2008).
Hill, A. B. Medical ethics and controlled trials. BMJ 1, 1043–1049 (1963).
Fried, C. Medical experimentation: personal integrity and social policy (eds. Bearn, A. G., Black, D. A. K. & Hiatt, H. H.) (American Elsevier Publishing Company, New York, 1974).
Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences. International ethical guidelines for biomedical research involving human subjects. Geneva: Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences; 2002 [accessed 21 December 2011]). http://www.cioms.ch/publications/guidelines/guidelines_nov_2002_blurb.htm
National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants. Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, August 2001 http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/pubs.html
Miller, F. G. Dispensing with equipoise. Am. J. Med. Sci. 342, 276–281 (2011).
Miller, F. G. & Joffe, S. Equipoise and the dilemma of randomized clinical trials. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 476–480 (2011).
Miller, F. G. & Rosenstein, D. L. The therapeutic orientation to clinical trials. N. Engl. J. Med. 348, 1383–1386 (2003).
Miller, F. G. & Brody, H. A critique of clinical equipoise. Therapeutic misconception in the ethics of clinical trials. Hastings Cent. Rep. 33, 19–28 (2003).
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report: ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of biomedical and behavioral research (U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1979). http://www.hhs.gov/ohrp/humansubjects/guidance/belmont.html
National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Ethical and policy issues in international research: clinical trials in developing countries. Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, April 2001. http://bioethics.georgetown.edu/nbac/pubs.html
Veatch, R. M. The irrelevance of equipoise. J. Med. Philos. 32, 167–183 (2007).
Chalmers, I. & Matthews, R. What are the implications of optimism bias in clinical research? Lancet 367, 449–450 (2006).
Clark, W. F. et al. Effect of awareness of a randomized controlled trial on use of experimental therapy. JAMA 290, 1351–1355 (2003).
Moseley, J. B. et al. A controlled trial of arthroscopic surgery for osteoarthritis of the knee. N. Engl. J. Med. 347, 81–88 (2002).
Gifford, F. So-called “clinical equipoise” and the argument from design. J. Med. Philos. 32, 135–150 (2007).
Gifford, F. Community-equipoise and the ethics of randomized clinical trials. Bioethics 9, 127–148 (1995).
Goss, P. E. et al. A randomized trial of letrozole in postmenopausal women after five years of tamoxifen therapy for early-stage breast cancer. N. Engl. J. Med. 349, 1793–1802 (2003).
Bryant, J. & Wolmark, N. Letrozole after tamoxifen for breast cancer–what is the price of success? N. Engl. J. Med. 349, 1855–1857 (2003).
Halting a breast cancer trial. New York Times 4, (New York, 2003).
Johnson, N., Lilford, R. J. & Brazier, W. At what level of collective equipoise does a clinical trial become ethical? J. Med. Ethics 17, 30–34 (1991).
Rid, A. & Wendler, D. A framework for risk-benefit evaluations in biomedical research. Kennedy Inst. Ethics J. 21, 141–179 (2011).
Miller, F. G. & Wertheimer, A. Facing up to paternalism in research ethics. Hastings Cent. Rep. 37, 24–34 (2007).
Miller, F. G. & Pearson, S. D. Linking insurance coverage for innovative invasive procedures with participation in clinical research. JAMA 306, 2024–2025 (2011).
DiBenedetto, J. Jr et al. Ondansetron for nausea and vomiting associated with moderately emetogenic cancer chemotherapy. Clin. Ther. 17, 1091–1098 (1995).
Beck, T. M. et al. Efficacy of oral ondansetron in the prevention of emesis in outpatients receiving cyclophosphamide-based chemotherapy. The Ondansetron Study Group. Ann. Intern. Med. 118, 407–413 (1993).
Demetri, G. D. et al. Efficacy and safety of sunitinib in patients with advanced gastrointestinal stromal tumour after failure of imatinib: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 368, 1329–1338 (2006).
Love, R. R. et al. Oophorectomy and tamoxifen adjuvant therapy in premenopausal Vietnamese and Chinese women with operable breast cancer. J. Clin. Oncol. 20, 2559–2566 (2002).
Acknowledgements
The opinions expressed by F. G. Miller are the views of the author and do not necessarily reflect the policy of the National Institutes of Health, the Public Health Service, or the US Department of Health and Human Services.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Both authors researched the data for the article, provided a substantial contribution to the discussion of the content, wrote the manuscript, and edited the article before submission.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
S. Joffe declares that he is a consultant (paid member of a data monitoring committee) for Genzyme/Sanofi. F. G. Miller declares no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Joffe, S., Miller, F. Equipoise: asking the right questions for clinical trial design. Nat Rev Clin Oncol 9, 230–235 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.211
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2011.211
This article is cited by
-
Surrogacy and the Valuation of ATMPs: Taking Our Place in the Evidence Generation/Assessment Continuum
PharmacoEconomics (2024)
-
Taking the principle of the primacy of the human being seriously
Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy (2021)
-
Designing development programs for non-traditional antibacterial agents
Nature Communications (2019)
-
What questions can a placebo answer?
Monash Bioethics Review (2016)