{"id":58645,"date":"2015-08-01T16:57:09","date_gmt":"2015-08-01T20:57:09","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=58645"},"modified":"2015-08-01T17:15:51","modified_gmt":"2015-08-01T21:15:51","slug":"backwards-2","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2015\/08\/01\/backwards-2\/","title":{"rendered":"backwards&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div align=\"justify\" class=\"small\">Continuing from <a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2015\/07\/31\/the-why-of-it\/\" target=\"_blank\">the why of it&hellip;<\/a>, there&#8217;s something <em><font color=\"#200020\">backwards<\/font><\/em> about Randomized Clinical Trials [probably best called randomized, double blinded, placebo controlled, clinical trials]. If you don&#8217;t know the story of how they came to be, these resources on the history of Louis Lasagna ought to help: David Healy&#8217;s blog, <font color=\"#990000\"><a href=\"http:\/\/davidhealy.org\/the-tragedy-of-lou-lasagna\/\" target=\"_blank\">The Tragedy of Lou Lasagna<\/a><\/font> and Don Klein&#8217;s <a href=\"https:\/\/www.google.com\/url?sa=t&#038;rct=j&#038;q=&#038;esrc=s&#038;source=web&#038;cd=14&#038;ved=0CGcQFjANahUKEwjg2__ls4bHAhXF1IAKHfNBCB8&#038;url=http%3A%2F%2Fd.plnk.co%2FACNP%2F50th%2FTranscripts%2FLouis%2520Lasagna%2520by%2520Donald%2520Klein.doc&#038;ei=1_S7VaCUKcWpgwTzg6H4AQ&#038;v6u=https%3A%2F%2Fs-v6exp1-ds.metric.gstatic.com%2Fgen_204%3Fip%3D24.75.165.3%26ts%3D1438381272148561%26auth%3Dzghuxgebksjbaa2mafnw6jf2lflhcslk%26rndm%3D0.3841285073055798&#038;v6s=2&#038;v6t=41233&#038;usg=AFQjCNHDiSfz2q7v-XqCx0QvPN8IEdZZ8g&#038;sig2=PClDJITkliWgazXNmec5Yw&#038;bvm=bv.99261572,d.eXY&#038;cad=rja\" target=\"_self\">interview with Louis Lasagna<\/a>. Lasagna was quite a figure &#8211; originating the study of the placebo effect, rewriting the Hippocratic Oath, and as Senator Kefauver&#8217;s science guy in the legislation that brought the efficacy requirement and Clinical Trials into the FDA Mandate in 1962. Prior to 1962, the FDA&#8217;s job was to make sure drugs were safe. After 1962, they were required to also certify that they did what the drug maker said they did [efficacy] &#8211; at&nbsp; least sort of. The bar was set low &#8211; two positive <span class=\"entry-summary\">&ldquo;<em><font color=\"#200020\">adequate and well controlled studies carried out by experts with scientific training<\/font><\/em><\/span>&quot; [out of as many trials as you care to run]. It makes sense. How else can you measure efficacy other than trying the drug out in the target population?<\/div>\n<ul><sup>           <\/p>\n<li>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\">placebo controlled:<\/font><\/strong> The subjects on the drug and the controls get identical pills&#8230;<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\">randomized:<\/font><\/strong> subjects are assigned to groups by a random number generator&#8230;<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\">double blind:<\/font><\/strong> Neither the subjects nor staff know who&#8217;s on what until it&#8217;s over&#8230;<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\">protocol:<\/font><\/strong> Analytic methods and outcome parameters are defined <u>before<\/u> the trial begins&#8230;<\/div>\n<\/li>\n<p>            <\/sup><\/ul>\n<div align=\"justify\" class=\"small\">These trials are limited, artificial, usually short term, and analyzed primarily by statistical rather than clinical effects. So what a positive trial usually says about a treatment is that it&#8217;s not inert,&nbsp; not that it&#8217;s clinically effective &#8211; and that it&#8217;s not toxic, at least short-term.<\/div>\n<p align=\"center\" class=\"small\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\">And so to, &quot;there&#8217;s something <em>backwards<\/em> about Randomized Clinical Trials&quot;<\/font><\/strong><\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" class=\"small\">This was a low standard. Approval was never intended to tell doctors  what to do with the drugs. The RTCs required for approval weren&#8217;t the end of anything. They were only a rough beginning &#8211; where things started. It was assumed that <em><font color=\"#200020\">Medicine<\/font><\/em> itself would  take over after approval and figure out how to use the drugs in practice  through its collective clinical experience. That&#8217;s why my introduction to the last post [<a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2015\/07\/31\/the-why-of-it\/\" target=\"_blank\">the why of it&hellip;<\/a>] was so awkward. I didn&#8217;t know how to say where I learn about new drugs, because it is from everywhere &#8211; bedside, clinic, colleagues, mentors, conferences, case reports, reps, the PDR, meetings, textbooks, journals, CME, my patients, your patients, even RCTs, etc., and it never really stops. It&#8217;s just part of the ongoing stuff of doctoring.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" class=\"small\">But then along came <font color=\"#200020\">Evidence Based Medicine<\/font> [<em>wince<\/em>]. At first glance, that term ought to be sacrosanct. Who wants a doctor who shoots from the hip? makes wild guesses? Of course, a doctor should base decisions on evidence. But that&#8217;s not what <font color=\"#200020\">Evidence Based Medicine<\/font> has come to mean. It now seems to mean<em><font color=\"#200020\"> &laquo;backed up by a positive clinical trial&raquo;<\/font><\/em>. And that&#8217;s what I mean by &quot;<font color=\"#200020\">there&#8217;s something <em>backwards<\/em> about Randomized Clinical Trials<\/font>.&quot; The weakest link, the one most vulnerable to manipulation and distortion, has been elevated to the position of being the gold standard. <em><font color=\"#200020\">How that happened<\/font><\/em> is a long story that I don&#8217;t know as well as I&#8217;d like. But <em><font color=\"#200020\">the why and the consequences<\/font><\/em> are painfully obvious. <\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\" class=\"small\">Since the pharmaceutical and device industries pay for and essentially write-up the RCTs, it gives them an enormous control over what physicians do. Their jury-rigged articles are further distorted in the direct-to-consumer and other advertisements. And even a trial that is honestly analyzed and published is only a crude approximation of the clinical reality of widespread usage. This kind of <font color=\"#200020\">Evidence Based Medicine <\/font>based on<font color=\"#200020\"> RCTs<\/font> gives Managed Care a tool to deny medications or other treatments [and lots of other things]. It reduces the needs of an individual patient to membership of a proxy grouping. It implies a precision and generalizability to medical science never realized [or realizable]. It trivializes and marginalizes the other very important resources that we physicians traditionally use to learn about and prescribe drugs ourselves. And it takes the responsibility away from a doctor to assess in an ongoing and diligent process all the evidence in his\/her clinical decision making.<\/p>\n<p align=\"center\" class=\"small\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\">So that&#8217;s what&#8217;s <em>backwards<\/em> about Randomized Clinical Trials&quot;<\/font><\/strong><\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\" class=\"small\">The relationship of a model airplane to a Jumbo Jet comes to mind&#8230;<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Continuing from the why of it&hellip;, there&#8217;s something backwards about Randomized Clinical Trials [probably best called randomized, double blinded, placebo controlled, clinical trials]. If you don&#8217;t know the story of how they came to be, these resources on the history of Louis Lasagna ought to help: David Healy&#8217;s blog, The Tragedy of Lou Lasagna and [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-58645","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-opinion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58645","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=58645"}],"version-history":[{"count":46,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58645\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":58691,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/58645\/revisions\/58691"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58645"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=58645"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=58645"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}