A randomized pragmatic care trial on endovascular acute stroke interventions (EASI): criticisms, responses, and ethics of integrating research and clinical care

Ethical Problems of Observational Studies and Big Data Compared to Randomized Trials

The temptation to use prospective observational studies (POS) instead of conducting difficult trials (RCTs) has always existed, but with the advent of powerful computers and large databases, it can become almost irresistible. We examine the potential consequences, were this to occur, by comparing two hypothetical studies of a new treatment: one RCT, and one POS. The POS inevitably submits more patients to inferior research methodology. In RCTs, patients are clearly informed of the research context, and 1:1 randomized allocation between experimental and validated treatment balances risks for each patient. In POS, for each patient, the risks of receiving inferior treatment are impossible to estimate. The research context and the uncertainty are down-played, and patients and clinicians are at risk of becoming passive research subjects in studies performed from an outsider's view, which potentially has extraneous objectives, and is conducted without their explicit, autonomous, and voluntary involvement and consent.

Mechanical Thrombectomy for Large Ischemic Stroke: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

There is growing evidence for endovascular thrombectomy (EVT) in patients with large ischemic core infarct and large vessel occlusion (LVO). The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of EVT vs medical management (MM) using a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases to obtain articles related to mechanical thrombectomy for large ischemic core from inception until February 10, 2023. The primary outcome was independent ambulation (modified Rankin Scale [mRS] 0-3). Effect sizes were computed as risk ratio (RR) with random-effect or fixed-effect models. The quality of articles was evaluated through the Cochrane risk assessment tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023396232).

RESULTS

A total of 5,395 articles were obtained through the search and articles that did not meet the inclusion criteria were excluded by review of the title, abstract, and full text. Finally, 3 RCTs and 10 cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. The RCT analysis showed that EVT improved the 90-day functional outcomes of patients with large ischemic core with high-quality evidence, including independent ambulation (mRS 0-3: RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.28-2.48, p < 0.001) and functional independence (mRS 0-2: RR 2.59, 95% CI 1.89-3.57, p < 0.001), but without significantly increasing the risk of symptomatic intracranial hemorrhage (sICH: RR 1.83, 95% CI 0.95-3.55, p = 0.07) or early mortality (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78-1.16, p = 0.61). Analysis of the cohort studies showed that EVT improved functional outcomes of patients without an increase in the incidence in sICH.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review and meta-analysis indicates that in patients with LVO stroke with a large ischemic core, EVT was associated with improved functional outcomes over MM without increasing sICH risk. The results of ongoing RCTs may provide further insight in this patient population.

Ethical Considerations in Surgical Decompression for Stroke

Stroke is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Neurosurgical decompression is often considered for the treatment of malignant infarcts and intraparenchymal hemorrhages, but this treatment can be frought with ethical dilemmas. In this article, the authors outline the primary principles of bioethics and their application to stroke care, provide an overview of key ethical issues and special situations in the neurosurgical management of stroke, and highlight methods to improve ethical decision-making for patients with stroke. Understanding these ethical principles is essential for stroke care teams to deliver appropriate, timely, and ethical care to patients with stroke.

Early Termination of Acute Stroke Randomized Controlled Trials Published Between 2013 and 2020: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Termination of a clinical trial before the maximum planned sample size is accrued can occur for multiple valid reasons but has implications for the interpretation of results. We undertook a systematic review of contemporary acute stroke trials to document the prevalence of and reasons for early termination.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE for randomized controlled trials of acute stroke therapies published between 2013 and 2020 in 9 major clinical journals. Manuscripts describing the primary results of phase 2 and phase 3 trials of acute stroke care were included. Data on study characteristics and adherence to CONSORT reporting guidelines were abstracted and summarized using descriptive statistics. Where feasible, we compared treatment effect sizes between trials terminated early and those not terminated early.

RESULTS

Of 96 randomized controlled trials, 39 (41%) were terminated early, 84 (88%) had a data and safety monitoring board, and 57 (59%) reported a prespecified statistical stopping rule. Among the 39 trials terminated early, 10 were discontinued for benefit, 10 due to logistical issues, 8 for futility, 6 because of newly available evidence, 1 for harm, and 4 for other or a combination of reasons. The median percentage of the maximum planned sample size accrued among trials terminated early was 63% (range, 8%-89%). Only 55% of trials (53 of 96) reported whether interim efficacy analyses were conducted, as recommended by the CONSORT guidelines. When 10 endovascular therapy trials were compared according to early termination status, the effect sizes of trials terminated early for benefit were only modestly larger than those not terminated early.

CONCLUSIONS

The high prevalence of early termination in combination with the wide variety of reasons underscores the necessity of meticulous trial planning and adherence to methodological and reporting guidelines for early termination. Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/; Unique identifier: CRD42019128727.

Ethical care requires pragmatic care research to guide medical practice under uncertainty

BACKGROUND

The current research-care separation was introduced to protect patients from explanatory studies designed to gain knowledge for future patients. Care trials are all-inclusive pragmatic trials integrated into medical practice, with no extra tests, risks, or cost, and have been designed to guide practice under uncertainty in the best medical interest of the patient.

PROPOSED REVISION

Patients need a distinction between validated care, previously verified to provide better outcomes, and promising but unvalidated care, which may include unnecessary or even harmful interventions. While validated care can be practiced normally, unvalidated care should only be offered within declared pragmatic care research, designed to protect patients from harm. The validated/unvalidated care distinction is normative, necessary to the ethics of medical practice. Care trials, which mark the distinction and allow the tentative use of promising interventions necessarily involve patients, and thus the design and conduct of pragmatic care research must respect the overarching rule of care ethics "to always act in the best medical interest of the patient." Yet, unvalidated interventions offered in contexts of medical uncertainty cannot be prescribed or practiced as if they were validated care. The medical interests of current patients are best protected when unvalidated practices are restricted to a care trial protocol, with 1:1 random allocation (or "hemi-prescription") versus previously validated care, to optimize potential benefits and minimize risks for each patient.

CONCLUSION

Pragmatic trials can regulate medical practice by providing (i) a transparent demarcation between unvalidated and validated care; (ii) norms of medical conduct when using tests and interventions of yet unknown benefits in practice; and eventually (iii) a verdict regarding optimal care.

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.

Pragmatic Clinical Trials in Osteoporosis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

In this review, we present the application of pragmatic clinical trials for evaluating interventions in osteoporosis, and we discuss methodological considerations for designing and conducting a pragmatic clinical trial compared with a classical randomized clinical trial.

RECENT FINDINGS

Pragmatic clinical trials are a popular study design testing effectiveness of health interventions and are intended to address the limitations associated with traditional explanatory randomized clinical trials testing efficacy of interventions. To date, only few pragmatic clinical trials have been conducted in osteoporosis. Pragmatic clinical trials are conducted under routine clinical practice setting and are intended to inform policy makers and clinical decisions. Osteoporosis is a chronic disease well-suited to this particular study design given the existence of a clear and specific natural endpoint, namely fracture occurrence, and the availability of several treatments to prevent fractures.

The 2018 ter Brugge Lecture: Problems with the Introduction of Innovations in Neurovascular Care

Most endovascular innovations have been introduced into clinical care by showing good outcomes in small enthusiastic case series of selected patients. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have rarely been performed, except for acute ischemic stroke, but even then most trial designs were too explanatory to inform clinical decisions. In this article, we review 2 × 2 tables and forest plots that summarize RCT results to examine methodological issues in the design and interpretation of clinical studies. Research results can apply in practice when RCTs are all-inclusive, pragmatic trials. Common problems include the following: (i) using restrictive eligibility criteria in explanatory trials, instead of including the diversity of patients in need of care, which hampers future generalizability of results; (ii) ignoring an entire line of the 2 × 2 table and excluding patients who do not meet the proposed criteria of a diagnostic test in its evaluation (perfusion studies) which renders clinical inferences misleading; (iii) ignoring an entire column of the 2 × 2 table and comparing different patients treated using the same treatment instead of different treatments in the same patients (the "wrong axis" comparisons of prognostic studies and clinical experience) which leads to unjustified treatment decisions and actions; or (iv) combining all aforementioned problems (case series and epidemiological studies). The most efficient and reliable way to improve patient outcomes, after as well as long before research results are available, is to change the way we practice: to use care trials to guide care in the presence of uncertainty.

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.