Document 0188 DOCN M9590188 TI The ideal clinical trial: a clinician's perspective. DT 9509 AU Pinching AJ; Department of Immunology, Medical College of Saint Bartholomew's; Hospital, West Smithfield, London, UK. SO Annu Conf Australas Soc HIV Med. 1994 Nov 3-6;6:88 (unnumbered abstract). Unique Identifier : AIDSLINE ASHM6/95291911 AB Therapy is always provisional, based on the patient's clinical state and on currently available evidence regarding potential interventions from clinical trial and other data. Acknowledging the continuing areas of uncertainty is important for patient choice in electing to initiate or continue a therapeutic intervention. However, recognition and acceptance of the limits of current knowledge also provide a crucial basis on which to pursue clinical trials to extend it. It is important to appreciate the intrinsic limitations of the clinical trial process in informing the particular circumstances of a patient engaging in a therapeutic decision. Trials, in order to meet their scientific objectives, necessarily impose certain constraints on eligibility, concomitant medication and end-points that may limit the generalisability of their conclusions. They have an element of caricature and tend to simplify the issues addressed because of the need to limit the variables in a patient population. They can be seen as having something akin to the relationship between opera and real life. In seeking an ideal clinical trial, the main objectives must be relevance, reality and robustness. Relevance needs to be to the actual questions of importance in the practicalities of patient care, conduct in the patient population to which the conclusions will be applied, and the likelihood of continuing relevance over the time frame of study. Realistic appraisal of the likely benefits of an intervention is essential and study design must be such as to ensure that there is maximum generalisability to the real life settings in which it is to be deployed. Robustness is a fundamental need to ensure that the outcome of the trial provides a secure basis for subsequent therapy, providing realistic appraisal of potential benefits and risks, in terms of clinically appropriate end-points and over a time-scale that is pertinent to the disease process. Phase I/II studies, apart from their role in evaluation of safety, are essentially hypothesis-generating and must be seen as such by all parties. They may need to be conducted in fairly pure populations to avoid confounding variables. It is usual to use surrogate markers for Phase I/II efficacy assessment, as a legitimate filter; however, they must be seen by all as being a prelude to large scale clinical trials (Phase III/IV) with clinical end-points, and not as providing answers in their own right. The definitive, hypothesis-testing clinical trials should be of sufficient size and duration to yield conclusions with clinical end-points, and with stopping rules based on clinical relevance, not just statisticsal significance. Trials should be flexible enough to relate as closely as possible to subsequent application and to enable the bulk of patient within the defined scope to participate. The conclusions of clinical trials must be published in a timely fashion and with clear delineation of what they do and do not show, and with a full and balanced account of benefits and hazards to allow patients and clinicians to make their own assessment of the applicability of the results. DE *Attitude of Health Personnel *Clinical Trials Clinical Trials, Phase I Clinical Trials, Phase II Human HIV Infections/*DRUG THERAPY *Patient Selection Treatment Outcome MEETING ABSTRACT SOURCE: National Library of Medicine. NOTICE: This material may be protected by Copyright Law (Title 17, U.S.Code).