Experience using pragmatic care trials to guide neurovascular practice under uncertainty

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.

Understanding the problems with recruitment in surgical randomized trials: A lesson from landmark trials on temporal lobe epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Surgical randomized trials are difficult to accomplish. One major problem is recruitment of a sufficient number of patients to address the clinical problem.

METHODS

We review the various ways patient recruitment in surgical RCTs can be promoted. We examine two landmark trials on the surgical treatment of temporal lobe epilepsy (TLE), one that was successful, and one which did not attain the target number of participants.

DISCUSSION

Both designs of the Canadian and American trials of surgery for TLE included a benefit to participants: the Canadian trial gave a chance to have immediate access to investigation and treatment, as compared to a 1 year delay (considered 'standard care' in that center), while the American trial offered free surgical management to both arms. Patients were recruited and treatments randomly allocated prior to knowing for certain whether they were surgical candidates or not. This design choice may have helped circumvent the 'equipoise problem'. The Canadian trial offered participation to drug-resistant patients that were already routinely referred to surgical centers, while the success of the American trial which limited recruitment to the early period of drug resistance was dependent on a change of practice of referring clinicians which did not materialize.

CONCLUSION

The surgical treatment of drug-resistant temporal lobe epilepsy has been validated using RCT methods. Ways to promote participation in surgical trials should be further investigated.

Recruitment in a pragmatic randomized trial on the management of unruptured intracranial aneurysms

OBJECTIVES

The Comprehensive Aneurysm Management (CAM) study is a pragmatic trial designed to manage UIA patients within a care research framework.

METHOD

CAM is an all-inclusive study. Management options are allocated according to an algorithm combining pre-randomization and clinical judgment. Eligible patients are offered 1:1 randomized allocation of intervention versus conservative management and 1:1 randomization allocation of surgical versus endovascular treatment. Ineligible patients are registered. The primary outcome is survival without dependency (mRS<3) at 10 years. All UIA patients at one center are reported.

RESULTS

Between February 2020 and July 2021, 403 UIA patients were recruited: 179 (44%) in one of the RCTs and 224 (56%) in one of the registries. Conservative management was recommended for 205/403 patients (51%); of 198 (49%) patients considered for curative treatment, 159 (80%) were randomly allocated conservative (n=81) or curative treatment (n=78). These patients were younger and had larger aneurysms than those in the observation registry (P = .004). In 39/198 patients (20%), conservative management was not considered reasonable (17 patients were recommended endovascular, 2 surgery, and 20 the RCT comparing endovascular with surgical treatment). In total, 70 patients were recruited in the RCT comparing surgery and endovascular treatment. After informed discussion at time of consent, 141/159 patients (89%) agreed with the randomly allocated management plan, while 11% crossed-over to the alternative management option.

CONCLUSION

CAM was successfully integrated into routine practice. Meaningful conclusions can be obtained if multiple centers actively participate in the trial.