Introduction Effects of interventions on patient-reported outcomes may be subjective and modulated by patients’ expectations regarding treatment efficacy. The ‘gold standard’ for minimising such biases are double-blind randomised controlled trials. We analysed the effects of tiotropium on health-related quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in placebo-controlled trials and assessed whether trial design (double-blind versus open-label) is a relevant modifier of the effects of tiotropium.
Methods Trials of ≥6 months’ duration investigating the effect of tiotropium versus placebo on health-related quality of life in COPD (assessed using St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire [SGRQ]) were identified from the Boehringer Ingelheim clinical trial database and by a systematic literature search in MEDLINE, with a cut-off date of 30 November 2011. As a clinical end point, the mean difference between treatment groups in SGRQ total score was assessed. Trials were grouped according to double-blind or open-label design. We performed a network meta-analysis including standard methodology to test for interaction to evaluate whether trial design is a potential modifier of effect size or its direction.
Results We identified 12 trials in which tiotropium had been administered double-blind and three trials with open-label application. The overall effect for mean difference versus placebo in SGRQ total score was -2.98 units (95% confidence interval [CI): -3.49, -2.47). For the double-blind trial subgroup, mean difference versus placebo was -3.20 (95% CI: -3.75, -2.65) compared to -1.67 (95% CI: -3.02, - 0.32) for open-label trials. The p-value for interaction between subgroup and effect on SGRQ total score was 0.04.
Conclusions In patients with COPD, trial design (double-blind versus open-label) was a statistically significant modifier of the effect of inhaled tiotropium on health-related quality of life. The modification was quantitative, resulting in a substantial underestimation of the effect of tiotropium on SGRQ total score when the administration had been open-label compared to the ‘gold standard’ double-blind. A subjective end point such as quality of life is particularly susceptible to bias due to patients’ expectations towards the efficacy of an intervention. Therefore, the validity of studies using non-blinded designs to investigate such end points must be questioned.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.