The size of clinical trials has now become a raging issue. I came across it on Twitter, and I’d like to put in my perspective to it.
The Wall Street Journal article presents a reasonably nuanced view about the need for trials. What it leaves out in the process is that some diseases like those involving brain, because of their relative rarity, would always need a clinical trial. Likewise, for common cancers arising in breast and prostate, the opinion for long-term clinical trials is divided because it is a significant public health problem.
The treatment protocols for brain tumours like gliomas hasn’t changed much in the past 15+ years. For even rarer diseases like CNS lymphomas, the role of chemotherapy has expanded manifold. Patients present to different facilities with varying standard of care. Not everyone has access to the “research facilities”, and especially in developing countries, that conceptual framework is non-existent. The treatment protocols are often the trial and error in what “fits” in with the Indian subset of patients. It is true primarily because out of pocket expenditure is a significant public health issue.
Now comes the emerging role of “personalised medicine” where the opinion for big or small trials is even more sharply divided. What everyone secretly agrees but never speaks out in the open? It is more important to understand the need to publish negative trials. The focus of the oncological community is towards the big bang positive studies; especially for the “blockbuster” drugs. These are often intricately linked to prevailing stock prices. There are perverse incentives as well, not to take the financial risks. It is the pharma companies that decide on “treatment protocols” and the “standard of care” where conflicts of interest are given short shrift in the protocols. That is the reason why I insist on public funding of trials where a leeway has to be made to fail. Previously, I have also argued that “personalised medicine” is way too much in its infancy. We are only nibbling at the outliers and nowhere near the core of the problem.
It is also incredibly naive to assume that if a company is offering an “unrestricted educational grant”, it has no say in the outcomes. It gets them a seat on the board to be able to influence the reports indirectly.
So does size matter? More extensive trials, are time honed but require immense resources. I strongly feel that hair-splitting in current treatment options offers no means to an end. Instead of a clear focus on the outliers (like the drugs), protocols need to include radiation therapy as an inherent component of treatment.
Translational medicine needs to become the centre-stage, and public funding should avoid a substantial scale duplication of work. It comes with its caveats.