We argued in our Viewpoint that when the cost of treatment is a factor motivating the design and conduct of a randomized trial, then this should be disclosed in the section of consent documents devoted to describing the purpose of the research. We illustrated this point with respect to the CATT study, which evaluated 2 similar drugs for macular degeneration that differed greatly in cost. Whereas the consent document for this study mentioned the difference in the price of the 2 drugs, in describing the purpose of the study the cost difference was not described as one of the motivations for the research. We did not state or imply that cost was the primary scientific objective of the CATT study, and our article was not intended as a criticism of this important study. Dr Martin and colleagues acknowledge that cost differences between the 2 drugs were one of several secondary outcomes collected.
展开▼
