Maintaining the blind in sham controlled interventional trials: lessons from the EPISOD study

Abstract

Objective and study aims This study was designed to demonstrate the techniques used and the effectiveness of blinding in the EPISOD study (Evaluating Predictors and Interventions in Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction). This was a large sham-controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of endoscopic sphincterotomy treatment for patients with suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction.

Patients and methods We describe the methods intended to ensure that the subjects, caregivers and those assessing the outcomes were blinded to the treatment allocation and systematically assess the success of subject blinding procedures using the Bang’s Blinding Index (BI) for each treatment arm as an indicator of potential unblinding.

Results Blinding procedures proved to be acceptable and adhered to by the study team at each site. The BI indicated “wishful thinking” by the subjects regardless of treatment assignment, even when they were confident in their opinions.

Conclusion We conclude that it is possible to design and maintain a system for blinding the treatment allocation in a sham-controlled interventional study. Treatment guess plus confidence in the guess should be collected to examine the success of blinding procedures. The EPISOD study provides a blueprint for future sham-controlled trials in endoscopy.

• References

• 1 Horng S, Miller FG. Is placebo surgery unethical?. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 137-139
• 2 George AJT, Collett C, Carr AJ. et al. When should placebo surgery as a control in clinical trials be carried out?. Bull R Coll Surg Eng 2016; 98: 75-79
• 3 Polgar S, Ng J. Ethics, methodology and the use of placebo controls in surgical trials. Brain Res Bull 2005; 67: 290-297
• 4 Miller FG. Sham surgery: an ethical analysis. Sci Eng Ethics 2004; 10: 157-166
• 5 Miller FG, Wendler D. The ethics of sham invasive intervention trials. Clinical Trials 2009; 6: 401-402
• 6 Gelijns AC, Ascheim DD, Parides MK. et al. Randomized trials in surgery. Surgery 2009; 145: 581-587
• 7 Tenery R, Rakatansky H, Riddick FA. et al. Surgical “placebo” controls. Ann Surg 2002; 235: 303-307
• 8 Wilcox CM. Exploring the use of sham design: implications for endoscopic research. Gastrointest Endosc 2008; 67: 123-127
• 9 Cotton PB, Durkalski V, Romagnuolo J. et al. A multicenter, randomized trial of endoscopic sphincterotomy for suspected sphincter of Oddi dysfunction in patients with pain after cholecystectomy – the EPISOD trial. JAMA 2014; 311: 2101-2109
• 10 Durkalski V, Stewart W, MacDougall P. et al. measuring episodic abdominal pain and disability in suspected sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 21: 4416-4421
• 11 Bang H, Ni L, Davis C. Assessment of blinding in clinical trials. Controlled Clin Trials 2004; 25: 143-146
• 12 Bang H. Random guess and wishful thinking are the best blinding scenarios. Contemp Clin Trials Comm 2016; 3: 117-121
• 13 Schwartz MP, Wellink H, Gooszen HG. et al. Endoscopic gastroplication for the treatment of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease: a randomized, sham-controlled trial. Gut 2007; 56: 20-28