Background and Aims
Sham procedures in endoscopy are used with the intention of controlling for placebo response, potentially allowing more precise evaluation of treatment effect. Nevertheless, this type of study may impose significant risk without potential benefit for those in the sham group. The aim of the current study is to systematically review and analyze the endoscopic literature to assess the safety of sham controls.
Methods
MEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for endoscopic sham procedures for all dates through July 2017. Only randomized controlled trials comparing an endoscopic therapy with a sham were included. Primary outcome was adverse events (AE) categorized as mild, moderate, or severe. Results were combined using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed with I-squared, and publication bias was assessed with the Egger test and funnel plots.
Results
Data were extracted from 34 publications (1987–2017; 100% full-text), with a total of 2,492 procedures (1,355 treatment/1,137 sham). Sham procedures involved upper endoscopy (31 studies) and ERCP (3 studies). Treatment arms included procedures with the following indications: weight loss (38.2%), GI bleeding (26.5%), GERD (20.6%), sphincter of Oddi dysfunction (SOD) (8.8%), and dysphagia (6.2%). Overall percentage of severe adverse events (SAE) in the sham group was 1.7% (19/1137). Of these, the most common SAE in sham groups were need for surgery/intensive care unit (ICU) stay (35.3%), post-ERCP pancreatitis (23.5%), and perforation (11.8%). There was no significant difference in the odds of developing a severe adverse event between the treatment group and the sham group (OR, 1.3; 95% CI, 0.7 – 2.3]).
Conclusion
The frequency of adverse events in endoscopic sham procedures is substantial, and subjects patients to considerable morbidity. These results raise a serious ethical dilemma regarding the use of sham-controlled trials.