Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • COVID-19 submission information
    • Institutional open access agreements
    • Peer reviewer login
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Randomised controlled trials and real-life studies: two answers for one question

Sergio Harari
European Respiratory Review 2018 27: 180080; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0080-2018
Sergio Harari
U.O. di Pneumologia e Terapia Semi-Intensiva Respiratoria, Servizio di Fisiopatologia Respiratoria ed Emodinamica Polmonare, Ospedale San Giuseppe, MultiMedica IRCCS, Milan, Italy
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Real-life studies have a place alongside randomised controlled trials http://ow.ly/7S5Q30lCiYN

Real-life studies have become increasingly important in the scientific world in recent years. Although they have numerous limitations, they have the advantage of better representing the population with which we normally have to deal in our everyday clinical practice. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) remain the most effective form of evaluation of the efficacy of a therapeutic intervention to date, but their selection criteria limit the recruitment of patients in upper or lower age ranges or suffering from multiple comorbidities. These are individuals who are suffering from severe medical conditions and take several different medications, and these are the subjects we meet and we take care of when taking charge of the general population. This is so true that in some RCTs the screening failure rate has exceeded 70% of patients [1]. Therefore, integrating RCTs with real-life studies is increasingly important, as is deepening the discussion of the selection criteria used in the registration studies, so that they better reflect the true situation of our patients. Moving from the ideal world to the real world may represent a hazardous shock that in the past has caused both surprises and bitter disappointments [2].

Recently, an article in Nature highlighted these problems, noting that: “Nearly 20% of publicly funded cancer clinical trials in the United States fail because investigators are unable to enrol enough participants” [3]. The author, quoting some American researchers, recalls HIV as an example of questionable selection criteria: “People with HIV, for example, were once excluded from trials because of their poor prognosis. Now, with treatment, they often live as long as people without the virus and should be included in many cancer trials”. The same source also questions the age for participation in clinical trials: is the age of 18 years an appropriate limit, even though the metabolism of drugs is already mature long before this time? The same could apply to upper age limits. This article also indicates that: “A joint project by the FDA [US Food and Drug Administration], the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) in Alexandria, Virginia, and the advocacy group Friends of Cancer Research in Washington DC has found that five common criteria for cancer-trial eligibility often could be amended without harming participants or the integrity of the trial” [4].

These are all legitimate questions that can be used to encourage a debate, which today has not yet yielded precise answers but which should be further explored, without prejudice to the fundamental role of the RCTs. Real-life studies have several limitations and should be interpreted cautiously, although they can fill the important gap between efficacy and effectiveness: efficacy meaning proof in a carefully controlled trial, and effectiveness meaning success in the circumstances of everyday life [2]. However, even today, these studies are considered by the scientific community to be of lesser dignity, while the possibility of their being published in prestigious journals remains very limited; and yet, effectiveness is what interests us the most.

Footnotes

  • Provenance: Submitted article, peer reviewed.

  • Conflict of interest: S. Harari has relationships with drug companies. In addition to being investigator in trials involving these companies, relationships include lectures and membership of scientific advisory boards.

  • Received August 16, 2018.
  • Accepted August 24, 2018.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2018.

ERR articles are open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.

References

  1. ↵
    1. King TE Jr.,
    2. Bradford WZ,
    3. Castro-Bernardini S, et al.
    A phase 3 trial of pirfenidone in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 2083–2092.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. ↵
    1. Harari S,
    2. Caminati A
    . Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: from clinical trials to real-life experiences. Eur Respir Rev 2015; 24: 420–427.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Ledford H
    . Cancer researchers push to relax rules for clinical trials. Nature 2018; 556: 12–13.
    OpenUrl
  4. ↵
    1. Kim ES,
    2. Bruinooge SS,
    3. Roberts S, et al.
    Broadening eligibility criteria to make clinical trials more representative: American Society of Clinical Oncology and Friends of Cancer Research Joint Research Statement. J Clin Oncol 2017; 35: 3737–3744.
    OpenUrl
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 27 Issue 149 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Review: 27 (149)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Randomised controlled trials and real-life studies: two answers for one question
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Randomised controlled trials and real-life studies: two answers for one question
Sergio Harari
European Respiratory Review Sep 2018, 27 (149) 180080; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0080-2018

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Randomised controlled trials and real-life studies: two answers for one question
Sergio Harari
European Respiratory Review Sep 2018, 27 (149) 180080; DOI: 10.1183/16000617.0080-2018
Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Respiratory clinical practice
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

  • Clinical and prognostic value of ventilatory efficiency in cardiorespiratory disorders
  • Guidance production before evidence generation for critical issues: COVID-19
  • Modulator treatment for people with cystic fibrosis
Show more Editorial

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERR

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising
  • Sponsorship

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN: 0905-9180
Online ISSN: 1600-0617

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society