The TEAM trial: safety and efficacy of endovascular treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms in the prevention of aneurysmal hemorrhages: a randomized comparison with indefinite deferral of treatment in 2002 patients followed for 10 years

Understanding the research-care demarcation and why it must be revised

BACKGROUND

A clean-cut separation between research and care was artificially created at the time of the Belmont report more than 40 years ago. The demarcation was initially controversial but eventually was implemented for political reasons. We examine why it must be revised.

METHODS

We review historical research scandals as well as the theoretical basis for the Belmont demarcation. We then discuss consequences on medical practice and propose an alternative.

DISCUSSION

Most research scandals involved abusing human beings supposedly for the sake of science. Belmont commissioners were aware the research/care problem was double-headed. While research subjects should be protected from abuse in the research context, patients need to be protected from unvalidated medical and surgical interventions in the care context. For political reasons the Commission recommended the regulation of research but to leave medical practice untouched. Thus the Commission had to distinguish research from care. The notion of 'generalizable knowledge' was introduced to define and regulate research, but the inadvertent result was that by trying to protect research subjects, the regulation has not only failed to protect all other patients, but also encouraged the widespread practice of unvalidated interventions within the care context. The notion of validated care should be re-introduced into a proper analysis of the care-research demarcation, for care research is an integral ingredient of a good medical practice.

CONCLUSION

The research-care demarcation should be revised to leave room for the validated/unvalidated care distinction. Care research, essential to guide medical practice, should be facilitated at all levels.

Surgical or Endovascular Treatment of MCA Aneurysms: An Agreement Study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

MCA aneurysms are still commonly clipped surgically despite the recent development of a number of endovascular tools and techniques. We measured clinical uncertainty by studying the reliability of decisions made for patients with middle cerebral artery (MCA) aneurysms.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A portfolio of 60 MCA aneurysms was presented to surgical and endovascular specialists who were asked whether they considered surgery or endovascular treatment to be an option, whether they would consider recruitment of the patient in a randomized trial, and whether they would provide their final management recommendation. Agreement was studied using κ statistics. Intrarater reliability was assessed with the same, permuted portfolio of cases of MCA aneurysm sent to the same specialists 1 month later.

RESULTS

Surgical management was the preferred option for neurosurgeons (n = 844/1320; [64%] responses/22 raters), while endovascular treatment was more commonly chosen by interventional neuroradiologists (1149/1500 [76.6%] responses/25 raters). Interrater agreement was only "slight" for all cases and all judges (κ = 0.094; 95% CI, 0.068-0.130). Agreement was no better within specialties or with more experience. On delayed requestioning, 11 of 35 raters (31%) disagreed with themselves on at least 20% of cases. Surgical management and endovascular treatment were always judged to be a treatment option, for all patients. Trial participation was offered to patients 65% of the time.

CONCLUSIONS

Individual clinicians did not agree regarding the best management of patients with MCA aneurysms. A randomized trial comparing endovascular with surgical management of patients with MCA aneurysms is in order.

Unruptured aneurysms: Why observational studies fall short no matter how "Big" the Data

BACKGROUND

The best management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs) remains unknown, despite multiple observational studies. A randomized trial (RCT) is in order. Yet, a National Institute Neurological Disorders and Stroke workshop has once again proposed to use prospective observational studies (POS) of large databases to address such problems.

METHODS

We review the historical misconceptions that have been associated with observations of UIAs and their treatments. We critically examine some recent methods that have been proposed to address shortcomings of observational studies. We finally review the ethical principles underlying the use of trial methods in the care of patients.

RESULTS

Replacing RCTs with POS submits patients to management options that have never been proven beneficial, while making them involuntary research subjects of studies that are inevitably biased. A science of practice cannot be an outsider's examination of the behavior of clinicians incapable of questioning their practice. The thesis we propose is that a science of practice must not only eventually determine what best practice will be; It must engage agents involved in medical practice to transparently reveal the uncertainty that calls for management options to be offered under the guidance of declared and controlled care research, to optimize patient outcomes in spite of the uncertainty.

CONCLUSION

To use POS rather than RCTs in medical practice is to renege on scientific and ethical principles that characterize modern medicine. Instead, we must learn to integrate care research into our practice to provide optimal medical care in real time.

Practicing outcome-based medical care using pragmatic care trials

The current separation between medical research and care is an obstacle to essential aspects of good medical practice: the verification that care interventions actually deliver the good outcomes they promise, and the use of scientific methods to optimize care under uncertainty. Pragmatic care trials have been designed to address these problems. Care trials are all-inclusive randomized trials integrated into care. Every item of trial design is selected in the best medical interest of participating patients. Care trials can eventually show what constitutes good medical practice based on patient outcomes. In the meantime, care trials give clinicians and patients the scientific methods necessary for optimization of medical care when no one really knows what to do.We report the progress of 9 randomized care trials that were used to guide the endovascular or surgical management of 1212 patients with acute stroke, intracranial aneurysms, and arteriovenous malformations in a single center in an elective or acute care context. Care trials were used to address long-standing dilemmas regarding rival medical, surgical, or endovascular management options or to offer innovative instead of standard treatments. The trial methodology, by replacing unrepeatable treatment decisions by 1:1 randomized allocation whenever reliable knowledge was not available, had an immediate impact, transforming unverifiable dogmatic medical practice into verifiable outcome-based medical care. We believe the approach is applicable to all medical or surgical domains, but widespread adoption may require the revision of many currently prevalent views regarding the role of research in clinical practice.

Comprehensive Aneurysm Management (CAM): An All-Inclusive Care Trial for Unruptured Intracranial Aneurysms

BACKGROUND

In the absence of randomized evidence, the optimal management of patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIA) remains uncertain.

METHODS

Comprehensive Aneurysm Management (CAM) is an all-inclusive care trial combined with a registry. Any patient with a UIA (no history of intracranial hemorrhage within the previous 30 days) can be recruited, and treatment allocation will follow an algorithm combining clinical judgment and randomization. Patients eligible for at least 2 management options will be randomly allocated 1:1 to conservative or curative treatment. Minimization will be used to balance risk factors, using aneurysm size (≥7 mm), location (anterior or posterior circulation), and age <60 years.

RESULTS

The CAM primary outcome is survival without neurologic dependency (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] score <3) at 10 years. Secondary outcome measures include the incidence of subarachnoid hemorrhage during follow-up and related morbidity and mortality; morbidity and mortality related to endovascular treatment or surgical treatment of the UIA at 1 year; overall morbidity and mortality at 1, 5, and 10 years; when relevant, duration of hospitalization; and, when relevant, discharge to a location other than home. The primary hypothesis for patients randomly allocated to at least 2 options, 1 of which is conservative management, is that active UIA treatment will reduce the 10-year combined neurologic morbidity and mortality (mRS score >2) from 24% to 16%. At least 961 patients recruited from at least 20 centers over 4 years will be needed for the randomized portion of the study.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms can be comprehensively managed within the context of an all-inclusive care trial.

Reporting Interim Results Can Show the Feasibility of Practicing Outcome-Based Neurovascular Care Within Randomized Trials: An Opinion

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials of commonly performed surgical interventions are notoriously difficult to conduct. The trial methodology may nevertheless be the best way to offer outcome-based neurovascular care in the presence of uncertainty. One obstacle to promoting such trials is the conventional prohibition of publication and dissemination of interim results as the trial progresses.

METHODS

We review the scientific and statistical reasons against the publication of interim analyses as well as exceptions that can occur when 1 treatment is unexpectedly shown to be harmful or when the results of other trials have convincingly shown the comparative benefits of a new intervention. We also discuss the promotion of difficult surgical trials.

RESULTS

Reasons to support the conventional ban on publication of interim results include control of statistical errors, prevention of invalid conclusions, and dissemination of false claims of equivalence of rival interventions. In the early phases of a trial, usually 1 treatment cannot be shown superior to the other. We believe, contrary to the received view, that a transparent report of the early progress of certain trials can be justified, even when interim results are inconclusive, to promote the recruitment of participating centers and the practice of a novel way to offer neurovascular care in the presence of uncertainty in the best medical interest of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In our opinion, the early publication of inconclusive interim results may increase awareness of the feasibility of surgical care trials.

Methods for the evaluation of biomarkers in patients with kidney and liver diseases: multicentre research programme including ELUCIDATE RCT

Background

Protein biomarkers with associations with the activity and outcomes of diseases are being identified by modern proteomic technologies. They may be simple, accessible, cheap and safe tests that can inform diagnosis, prognosis, treatment selection, monitoring of disease activity and therapy and may substitute for complex, invasive and expensive tests. However, their potential is not yet being realised.

Design and methods

The study consisted of three workstreams to create a framework for research: workstream 1, methodology – to define current practice and explore methodology innovations for biomarkers for monitoring disease; workstream 2, clinical translation – to create a framework of research practice, high-quality samples and related clinical data to evaluate the validity and clinical utility of protein biomarkers; and workstream 3, the ELF to Uncover Cirrhosis as an Indication for Diagnosis and Action for Treatable Event (ELUCIDATE) randomised controlled trial (RCT) – an exemplar RCT of an established test, the ADVIA Centaur® Enhanced Liver Fibrosis (ELF) test (Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics Ltd, Camberley, UK) [consisting of a panel of three markers – (1) serum hyaluronic acid, (2) amino-terminal propeptide of type III procollagen and (3) tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1], for liver cirrhosis to determine its impact on diagnostic timing and the management of cirrhosis and the process of care and improving outcomes.

Results

The methodology workstream evaluated the quality of recommendations for using prostate-specific antigen to monitor patients, systematically reviewed RCTs of monitoring strategies and reviewed the monitoring biomarker literature and how monitoring can have an impact on outcomes. Simulation studies were conducted to evaluate monitoring and improve the merits of health care. The monitoring biomarker literature is modest and robust conclusions are infrequent. We recommend improvements in research practice. Patients strongly endorsed the need for robust and conclusive research in this area. The clinical translation workstream focused on analytical and clinical validity. Cohorts were established for renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and renal transplantation (RT), with samples and patient data from multiple centres, as a rapid-access resource to evaluate the validity of biomarkers. Candidate biomarkers for RCC and RT were identified from the literature and their quality was evaluated and selected biomarkers were prioritised. The duration of follow-up was a limitation but biomarkers were identified that may be taken forward for clinical utility. In the third workstream, the ELUCIDATE trial registered 1303 patients and randomised 878 patients out of a target of 1000. The trial started late and recruited slowly initially but ultimately recruited with good statistical power to answer the key questions. ELF monitoring altered the patient process of care and may show benefits from the early introduction of interventions with further follow-up. The ELUCIDATE trial was an ‘exemplar’ trial that has demonstrated the challenges of evaluating biomarker strategies in ‘end-to-end’ RCTs and will inform future study designs.

Conclusions

The limitations in the programme were principally that, during the collection and curation of the cohorts of patients with RCC and RT, the pace of discovery of new biomarkers in commercial and non-commercial research was slower than anticipated and so conclusive evaluations using the cohorts are few; however, access to the cohorts will be sustained for future new biomarkers. The ELUCIDATE trial was slow to start and recruit to, with a late surge of recruitment, and so final conclusions about the impact of the ELF test on long-term outcomes await further follow-up. The findings from the three workstreams were used to synthesise a strategy and framework for future biomarker evaluations incorporating innovations in study design, health economics and health informatics.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN74815110, UKCRN ID 9954 and UKCRN ID 11930.

Funding

This project was funded by the NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 6, No. 3. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Hydrogel versus Bare Platinum Coils in Patients with Large or Recurrent Aneurysms Prone to Recurrence after Endovascular Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Some patients are at high risk of aneurysm recurrence after endovascular treatment: patients with large aneurysms (Patients Prone to Recurrence After Endovascular Treatment PRET-1) or with aneurysms that have previously recurred after coiling (PRET-2). We aimed to establish whether the use of hydrogel coils improved efficacy outcomes compared with bare platinum coils.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PRET was an investigator-led, pragmatic, multicenter, parallel, randomized (1:1) trial. Randomized allocation was performed separately for patients in PRET-1 and PRET-2, by using a Web-based platform ensuring concealed allocation. The primary outcome was a composite of a residual/recurrent aneurysm, adjudicated by a blinded core laboratory, or retreatment, intracranial bleeding, or mass effect during the 18-month follow-up. Secondary outcomes included adverse events, mortality, and morbidity (mRS > 2). The hypothesis was that hydrogel would decrease the primary outcome from 50% to 30% at 18 months, necessitating 125 patients per group (500 for PRET-1 and PRET-2).

RESULTS

The trial was stopped once 250 patients in PRET-1 and 197 in PRET-2 had been recruited because of slow accrual. A poor primary outcome occurred in 44.4% (95% CI, 35.5%-53.2%) of those in PRET-1 allocated to platinum compared with 52.5% (95% CI, 43.4%-61.6%) of patients allocated to hydrogel (OR, 1.387; 95% CI, 0.838-2.295; P = .20) and in 49.0% (95% CI, 38.8%-59.1%) in PRET-2 allocated to platinum compared with 42.1% (95% CI, 32.0%-52.2%) allocated to hydrogel (OR, 0.959; 95% CI, 0.428-1.342; P = .34). Adverse events and morbidity were similar. There were 3.6% deaths (1.4% platinum, 5.9% hydrogel; P = .011).

CONCLUSIONS

Coiling of large and recurrent aneurysms is safe but often poorly effective according to angiographic results. Hydrogel coiling was not shown to be better than platinum.

Bipolar radiofrequency ablation of aneurysm remnants after coil embolization can improve endovascular treatment of experimental bifurcation aneurysms

OBJECTIVE Endovascular treatment of aneurysms may result in incomplete initial occlusion and aneurysm recurrence at angiographic follow-up studies. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and efficacy of bipolar radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of aneurysm remnants after coil embolization. METHODS Bipolar RFA was accomplished using the coil mass as 1 electrode, while the second electrode was a stent placed across the aneurysmal neck. After preliminary experiments and protocol approval from the Animal Care committee, wide-necked bifurcation aneurysms were constructed in 24 animals. Aneurysms were allocated to 1 of 3 groups: partial intraoperative coil embolization, followed by RFA (n = 12; treated group) or without RFA (n = 6; control group 1); or attempted complete endovascular coil embolization 2-4 weeks later (n = 6; control group 2). Angiographic results were compared at baseline, immediately after RFA, and at 12 weeks, using an ordinal scale. Pathological results and neointima formation at the neck were compared using a semiquantitative grading scale. RESULTS Bipolar RFA was able to reliably target the aneurysm neck when the coil mass and stent were used as electrodes. RFA improved angiographic results immediately after partial coiling (p = 0.0024). Two RFA-related complications occurred, involving transient occlusion of 1 carotid artery and 1 hemorrhage from an adventitial arterial blister. At 12 weeks, angiographic results were improved with RFA (median score of 0), when compared with controls (median score of 2; p = 0.0013). Neointimal closure of the aneurysm neck was better with RFA compared with controls (p = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS Bipolar RFA can improve results of embolization in experimental models by selectively ablating residual lesions after coil embolization.

Patients prone to recurrence after endovascular treatment: periprocedural results of the PRET randomized trial on large and recurrent aneurysms

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Some patients with large or recurrent aneurysms may be at increased risk of recurrence postcoiling. The Patients Prone to Recurrence after Endovascular Treatment (PRET) trial was designed to assess whether hydrogel coils were superior to platinum coils in these high-risk patients. This article reports periprocedural safety and operator-assessed angiographic results from the PRET trial.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PRET was a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized controlled trial. Patients had ≥10-mm aneurysms (PRET-1) or a major recurrence after coiling of an aneurysm of any size (PRET-2). Patients were randomly allocated to hydrogel or control arms (any platinum coil) by using concealed allocation with minimization. Assist devices could be used as clinically required. Aneurysms could be unruptured or recently ruptured. Analyses were on an intent-to-treat basis.

RESULTS

Four hundred forty-seven patients were recruited (250 PRET-1; 197 PRET-2). Aneurysms were recently ruptured in 29% of PRET-1 and 4% of PRET-2 patients. Aneurysms were ≥10 mm in all PRET-1 and in 50% of PRET-2 patients. They were wide-neck (≥4 mm) in 70% and in the posterior circulation in 24% of patients. Stents were used in 28% of patients (35% in PRET-2). Coiling was successful in 98%. Adverse events occurred in 28 patients with hydrogel and 23 with platinum coils. Mortality (n=2, unrelated to treatment) and morbidity (defined as mRS>2 at 1 month) occurred in 25 patients (5.6%; 12 hydrogel, 13 platinum), related to treatment in 10 (4 hydrogel; 6 platinum) (or 2.3% of 444 treated patients). No difference was seen between hydrogel and platinum for any of the indices used to assess safety up to at least 30 days after treatment. At 1 month, 95% of patients were home with a good outcome (mRS≤2 or unchanged). Operator-assessed angiographic outcomes were satisfactory (complete occlusion or residual neck) in 339 of 447 or 76.4% of patients, with no significant difference between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovascular treatment of large and recurrent aneurysms can be performed safely with platinum or hydrogel coils.

The natural history and treatment options for unruptured intracranial aneurysms

Recent advances in angiographic technique have raised our awareness of the presence of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (UIAs). However, the appropriate management for these lesions remains controversial. To optimize patient outcomes, the physician must weigh aneurysmal rupture risk associated with observation against the complication risks associated with intervention. In the case that treatment is chosen, the two available options are surgical clipping and endovascular coiling. Our paper summarizes the current body of literature in regards to the natural history of UIAs, the evolution of the lesion if it progresses uninterrupted, as well as the safety and efficacy of both treatment options. The risks and benefits of treatment and conservative management need to be evaluated on an individual basis and are greatly effected by both patient-specific and aneurysm-specific factors, which are presented in this paper. Ultimately, this body of data has led to multiple sets of treatment guidelines, which we have summated and presented in this paper.

Reflections on the TEAM trial: why clinical care and research should be reconciled

The current clinical and research environment is one that renders any true enquiry into the value of commonly performed surgical acts practically impossible. Drawing from the recent failure of Trial on Endovascular Aneurysm Management (TEAM), a trial on the endovascular management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms, I attempt to identify some principles that sustain the current ways of doing clinical research that have paradoxically become major obstacles to trials that aim to assess the potential benefit or harm due to interventions as currently practiced. Clinical research and practice must coalesce into "clinical care trials" if we are to provide patients with optimal, prudent care in the context of uncertainty. This may require a major change in the mentalities of clinicians, scientists, and patients alike, and the adoption of novel strategies for public agencies to support the integration of clinical research and care.

A trial on unruptured intracranial aneurysms (the TEAM trial): results, lessons from a failure and the necessity for clinical care trials

The trial on endovascular management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms (TEAM), a prospective randomized trial comparing coiling and conservative management, initiated in September 2006, was stopped in June 2009 because of poor recruitment (80 patients). Aspects of the trial design that may have contributed to this failure are reviewed in the hope of identifying better ways to successfully complete this special type of pragmatic trial which seeks to test two strategies that are in routine clinical use. Cultural, conceptual and bureaucratic hurdles and difficulties obstruct all trials. These obstacles are however particularly misplaced when the trial aims to identify what a good medical practice should be. A clean separation between research and practice, with diverging ethical and scientific requirements, has been enforced for decades, but it cannot work when care needs to be provided in the presence of pervasive uncertainty. Hence valid and robust scientific methods need to be legitimately re-integrated into clinical practice when reliable knowledge is in want. A special status should be reserved for what we would call 'clinical care trials', if we are to practice in a transparent and prospective fashion a medicine that leads to demonstrably better patient outcomes.

The design of the Canadian UnRuptured Endovascular versus Surgery (CURES) trial

BACKGROUND

Once a decision has been made to treat an intact aneurysm, the best treatment remains uncertain. Both surgical and endovascular management strategies are commonly performed for these lesions. Surgical clipping, for years the standard treatment, is gradually becoming supplanted by endovascular treatment. However, there is no randomized data available to compare the results of surgery versus endovascular treatment of unruptured aneurysms (UIAs).

METHODS

We report the design of the Canadian UnRuptured Endovascular versus Surgery (CURES) trial to compare angiographic and clinical outcomes following treatment of UIAs.

RESULTS

The Canadian pilot phase will serve two purposes: i) to determine feasibility of the pivotal international study, and ii) to determine the incidence of treatment failure, a composite primary end-point comprising the occurrence of either: failure to accomplish aneurysm obliteration with the initial treatment modality, a major saccular aneurysm remnant or recurrence, or intracranial hemorrhage following treatment at one year. The pivotal international study will address which strategy leads to the best overall clinical outcomes in terms of mortality, morbidity, and clinical efficacy. CURES is designed to be a pragmatic management trial with loose inclusion criteria. The pilot study plans to enroll 260 patients, a size sufficient (at 80% power and 0.05 significance) to detect a decrease in the incidence of treatment failure from 13% to 4%. The formulation of specific hypotheses for the pivotal phase awaits the preliminary CURES morbidity and mortality results.

CONCLUSIONS

The CURES trial intends to test surgical versus endovascular management strategies for the treatment of unruptured intracranial aneurysms.

Current update on the randomized controlled trials of intracranial aneurysms

Endovascular coiling has become the primary treatment modality for the treatment of intracranial ruptured aneurysms in many centers. A multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT), ISAT study, has demonstrated that endovascular coiling of ruptured intracranial aneurysms has benefits over surgical clipping in those patients suitable for either treatment. Because RCT comparing conservative management with surgical clipping and with endovascular coiling have not been performed to date for unruptured intracranial aneurysms, the best management for unruptured aneurysm remains unclear. A RCT is ongoing to answer the question whether active treatment can improve the outcome of patients with unruptured intracranial aneurysms as compared with observation.

[Treatment of grade 0 intracranial aneurysms: Retrospective study of 79 cases]

AIM

Without precise international recommendations, despite the advances of the ISUAA study, the superiority of microsurgery or endovascular treatment for unruptured intracranial aneurysm (UIA) over the natural history of this disease has not been proved. In this context, the authors evaluate their experience with the aim of assessing the results and risks of the different therapeutics and comparing them with the natural risk of this disease.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

From January 1993 to July 2000, 79 patients harboring 110 UIAs were treated. These patients were divided retrospectively into two groups. Group A included 45 operated patients. Group B included 37 patients treated with endovascular coiling. The therapeutic choice was not randomized and was approved by a multidisciplinary neurovascular staff.

RESULTS

The two populations were homogeneous in terms of age and sex. In group A, 12 patients presented early complications (26.6 %), with one death. In group B, 15.6 % of the patients presented an ischemic complication. After 1 year of follow-up, morbidity was 11.4 % in group A and 4.8 % for group B. Angiography found a partial recanalization in 12.5 % of the operated patients and in 33 % of the patients treated with endovascular coiling.

DISCUSSION

Many factors are involved in the therapeutic decision: UIA location and size and individual risks. Progress in both surgery and interventional neuroradiology has led to good results conforming with the data reported in the literature but does not demonstrate the superiority of one technique over another.