Matched vs Nonmatched Placebos in a Randomized Trial of COVID-19 Treatments

• Published in: JAMA network open Vol. 7; no. 5; p. e2410335
• Main Authors: Reis, Gilmar, Savassi, Leonardo Cançado Monteiro, Ferreira, Thiago Santiago, Reis, Luiza Lanna França, Simplicio, Maria Izabel Campos, Ribeiro, Luciene Barra, Silva, Eduardo Augusto Dos Santos Moreira, Lat, Prince Kumar, Harari, Ofir, Forrest, Jamie I, Dron, Louis, Park, Jay J H, Thorlund, Kristian, Mills, Edward J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States American Medical Association 01.05.2024
• Subjects: Adult; Bayes Theorem; Comparative Effectiveness Research; COVID-19; COVID-19 Drug Treatment; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Online Only; Original Investigation; Placebos - administration & dosage; Placebos - therapeutic use; SARS-CoV-2; Statistics and Research Methods; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 2574-3805; 2574-3805
• DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.10335

Matched placebo interventions are complex and resource intensive. Recent evidence suggests matched placebos may not always be necessary. Previous studies have predominantly evaluated potential bias of nonmatched placebos (ie, differing on dose, frequency of administration, or formulation) in pain and mental health, but to date no systematic examination has been conducted in infectious disease. To test for differences between nonmatched and matched placebo arms with respect to clinical outcome measures across multiple therapeutics for COVID-19. In a comparative effectiveness research study, a post hoc analysis was conducted of data on individual patients enrolled in a large, multiarm, platform randomized clinical trial in symptomatic adult outpatients with COVID-19 between January 15, 2021, to September 28, 2023, in which the outcomes of both matched and nonmatched placebo groups were reported. Bayesian and frequentist covariate-adjusted techniques were compared with 7 intervention-placebo pairs. Seven matched and nonmatched placebo pairs (for a total of 7 comparisons) were evaluated throughout the primary platform trial. Comparisons were made between treatment and its associated matched (concurrent) placebo, as well as with nonmatched placebo (alone and in combination) assessed at a similar time point. Outcomes assessed included hospitalizations, EuroQol 5-Dimension 5-level scores, and PROMIS Global-10 scores. A total of 7 intervention-control pairs (N = 2684) were assessed, including 1620 (60.4%) women, with mean (SD) age, 47 (15.2) years; the most common comorbidities were obesity (41.9%) and hypertension (37.9%). In a meta-analysis with decoupled SEs, accounting for overlapping placebo patients, the overall odds ratio (OR) of nonmatched compared with matched placebo was 1.01 (95% credible interval, 0.77-1.32), with posterior probability of equivalence, defined as 0.8 ≤ OR ≤ 1.2 (a deviation from perfect equivalence ie, OR = 1, by no more than 0.2) of 85.4%, implying no significant difference. Unadjusted analysis of the event rate difference between all nonmatched and matched placebo groups did not identify any notable differences across all 7 treatment-placebo combinations assessed. Similar analysis that was conducted for patient-reported quality of life outcomes did not yield statistically significant differences. In this post hoc study of a randomized clinical platform trial, pooling matched and nonmatched placebo patient data did not lead to inconsistencies in treatment effect estimation for any of the investigational drugs. These findings may have significant implications for future platform trials, as the use of nonmatched placebo may improve statistical power, or reduce barriers to placebo implementation.