> notably randomized controlled trials that compare mortality.
Putting people into a control group so you can observe the effects of not treating them might not make it past the ethics committee.
Putting people into a control group so you can observe the effects of not treating them might not make it past the ethics committee.
In the current trials a part of the subjects get the new experimental drug and the control group get the current state of the art treatment.
This is a real problem when the Minister wants to know if it’s worth spending money on treatments, because all you have is a disjointed set of trials, none of which are necessarily representative of the population at large, or the population wide incidence of the disease (assuming there is even data on that (notifiable illnesses are the exception).
That's not what happens.
Is this just a hypothetical?
Everything will be compared to one standard of care, or perhaps two which will have been compared to each other. If a new treatment is much better, then it will become standard of care.
Trials cost a lot of money, so they are conducted rationally.
Suppose D is only slightly less effective than C, but more effective than A, and B, but 100x cheaper, and/or has less bad side effects. If you only compare with C, all you know is it's not as good as C.
Can you point to particular drugs or are you also making up examples?
I admittedly do not know of every trial that happens everywhere but this is exactly the sort of thing that a layman expects would occur but which does not happen.
I don't see how stem cells relate to the idea of trials for successive standard-of-care treatments. Can you explain your thinking?