• Willard N Applefeld, Jeffrey Wang, Harvey G Klein, Robert L Danner, Peter Q Eichacker, and Charles Natanson.
• Critical Care Medicine Department; Clinical Center, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
• Crit Care Resusc. 2020 Jun 1; 22 (2): 110118110-118.

AbstractComparative effectiveness research can help guide the use of common, routine medical practices. However, to be safe and informative, such trials must include at least one treatment arm that accurately portrays current practices. While comparative effectiveness research is widely perceived as safe and to involve no or only minimal risks, these assumptions may not hold true if unrecognised deviations from usual care exist in one or more study arms. For critically ill subjects in particular, such practice deviations may increase the risk of death or injury and undermine safety monitoring. Furthermore, unrecognised unusual care seems likely to corrupt informed consent documents, with underappreciated risks shrouded under the reassuring "comparative effectiveness" research label. At present, oversight measures are inadequate to ensure that research subjects enrolled in comparative effectiveness trials are actually receiving usual and not unusual care. Oversight by governmental and non-governmental entities with appropriate expertise, empowered to ensure that current clinical practice has been properly represented, could help prevent occurrences in clinical trials of unusual care masquerading as usual care.

15 keywords...

hide…