Enhanced Supression of the Platelet IIb/IIIa Receptor with Integrilin Trial (ESPRIT) was a multicenter randomized controlled clinical trial in which participants were randomized between eptifibatide and placebo. A “clinical hold” was initially placed on the trial by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which was concerned about the placebo-only control arm. The hold was lifted after additional information concerning the use of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in clinical practice, derived from a survey of interventional cardiologists, was provided. The trial's principal investigator and colleagues have described how these issues were resolved, and advance a claim of equipoise for the trial. In this critical appraisal we examine the information and arguments proffered in support of the trial design and conclude that they evidence a misunderstanding of equipoise. We believe that a placebo-only control arm was not justified by the information provided by the trialists.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
1. O'Shea JC, Hafley GE, Greenberg S et al. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa integrin blockade with eptifibatide in coronary stent intervention: the ESPRIT trial: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA2001; 285: 2468–2273.
2.
2. O'Shea JC, Tcheng JE. Eptifibatide in percutaneous coronary intervention: the ESPRIT trial results. Curr Interv Cardiol Rep2001; 3: 62–68.
3.
3. Tcheng JE, Madan M, O'Shea JC et al. Ethics and equipoise: rationale for a placebo-controlled study design of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition in coronary intervention. J Interv Cardiol2003; 16: 97–105.
4.
4. Sackett DL. Uncertainty about clinical equipoise. There is another exchange on equipoise and uncertainty. BMJ2001; 322: 795–796.
5.
5. Freedman B. Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research. New England Journal of Medicine1987; 317: 141–145.
6.
6. Djulbegovic B. Acknowledgment about uncertainty: a fundamental means to ensure scientific and ethical validity in research. Curr Oncol Rep2001; 3: 389–395.
7.
7. Mann H, Djulbegovic B. Why comparisons must address genuine uncertainties. James Lind Library, www.jameslindlibrary.org. (accessed 22 March 2005).
8.
8. Mann H, Djulbegovic B. Choosing a control intervention for a randomised clinical trial. BMC Med Res Methodol2003; 3:7-7.
9.
9. Winslow R. A type of heart drug wins wide use owing to small firm's efforts. Wall Street Journal. New York, 2000; 17 November Section A, Page 7-7.
10.
10. London AJ. The ambiguity and the exigency: clarifying ‘standard of care’ arguments in international research. J Med Philos2000, 25: 379–397.
11.
11. Ashcroft R. Equipoise, knowledge and ethics in clinical research and practice. Bioethics1999; 13: 314–326.
12.
12. Eisenberg MJ, Califf RM, Cohen EA et al. Use of evidence-based medical therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization in the United States, Europe, and Canada. Coronary Angioplasty Versus Excisional Atherectomy Trial (CAVEAT-I) and Canadian Coronary Atherectomy Trial (CCAT) investigators. Am J Cardiol1997; 79: 867–872.
13.
13. Davis D, Evans M, Jadad A et al. The case for knowledge translation: shortening the journey from evidence to effect. BMJ2003; 327: 33–35.
14.
14. Ferguson JJ. What have We learned from ESPRIT? What will we learn from TARGET?J Invasive Cardiol2000; 12: 317–319.
15.
15. Freedman B. A response to a purported ethical difficulty with randomized clinical trials involving cancer patients. J Clin Ethics1992; 3: 231–234.
16.
16. Freedman B. Placebo-controlled trials and the logic of clinical purpose. IRB1990; 12:1–6.
17.
17. Herper M. Eli Lilly changing ReoPro pricing. Forbes New York, 19 February 2003; http://www.forbes.com/2003/02/19/cx_mh_0219reopro.html (accessed 23 March 2005).
18.
18. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products: Points to consider on switching between superiority and non-inferiority. 17 July 2000; http://www.emea.eu.int/pdfs/human/ewp/048299en (accessed 23 March 2005).
19.
19. Emanuel E, Wendler D, Grady CWhat makes clinical research ethical?Journal of the American Medical Association2000; 283: 2701–2211.
20.
20. Weijer C. The ethical analysis of risk. Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics2000; 28: 344–361.
21.
21. National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Ethical and policy issues in research involving human participants. Bethesda, Maryland, 2001; http://www.georgetown.eduresearch/nredbl/nbac/pubs.html (accessed 23 March 2005).
22.
22. O'Shea JC, Tcheng JE. Drug company sponsorship and the declaration of helsinki. Lancet2001; 357: 1448–1149.
23.
23. Marquis D: How to resolve an ethical dilemma concerning randomized clinical trials. New England Journal of Medicine1999; 341: 691–693.
24.
24. Edwards SJ, Lilford RJ, Hewison J. The ethics of randomised controlled trials from the perspectives of patients, the public, and healthcare professionals. BMJ1998; 317: 1209–1112.
25.
25. Lilford RJ. Ethics of clinical trials from a bayesian and decision analytic perspective: whose equipoise is it anyway?BMJ2003; 326: 980–981.
26.
26. Veatch RM. Indifference of subjects: an alternative to equipoise in randomized clinical trials. Soc Philos Policy2002; 19: 295–323.
27.
27. Canadian Tri-Council Policy Statement. Section 7E – analysis and dissemination of the results of clinical trials. 2000; http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/english/policystatement/policystatement.cfm (accessed 23 March 2005).
28.
28. Johnson N, Lilford RJ, Brazier W. At what level of collective equipoise does a clinical trial become ethical?J Med Ethics1991; 17: 30–34.
29.
29. Menikoff J. The hidden alternative: getting investigational treatments off-study. Lancet2003; 361: 63–67.
30.
30. Temple R, Ellenberg SS. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 1: ethical and scientific issues. Ann Intern Med2000; 133: 455–463.
