Are randomized clinical trials the only truth? Not always

Issues in assessing products for the treatment of hemophilia - the intersection between efficacy, economics, and ethics

Following the obviation of the pathogen safety threats posed by previous generations of clotting factor concentrates for the treatment of hemophilia, the principal issue facing the patient community is timely access to adequate supplies of continuously improving therapies. The application of evidence-based medicine has enhanced the basis of hemophilia therapy, while resulting in some challenges to patient care. Increasingly, the criteria used for the approval and payment of treatment products by regulatory and reimbursement agencies, respectively, are becoming inflexible and unrealistic. This is occurring particularly in the requirements for demonstrating product efficacy. Concurrently, emerging evidence of the interpatient variability in the clinical response to therapy has led to the proposed personalization of therapeutic regimens. Possible impediments to optimal care include competitive tensions among suppliers who seek to gain label claims for reimbursement purposes, which result in clinical trial designs of, arguably, unethical design, carried out in poor countries. We synthesize these converging developments to suggest some changes to the current hemophilia treatment paradigm, which should make it more patient-centric and enable speedier access to new therapies.

Equipoise should be amended, not abandoned

BACKGROUND

Benjamin Freedman has argued in 1987 that before a controlled trial is started, there should be 'genuine uncertainty in the expert medical community about the preferred treatment'. Freedman's definition of the concept is widespread in clinical research, but has been controversial since its start. Over the past decade, the equipoise controversy has become increasingly complex.

PURPOSE

This article aims: (1) to identify and clarify the main points of contention in the equipoise controversy, and (2) to reconcile the opposing views by pointing at areas of overlap between proponents and opponents in the equipoise debate.

METHODS

We analyze the positions of the leading authors in the equipoise debate in the past decade.

RESULTS

There is substantial overlap between the opponents and proponents of equipoise. Both should be able to accept the following answers to points of contention in the debate: (1) the therapeutic obligation can remain the basis for equipoise as long as it is conceived as an obligation to provide participants with competent care, (2) equipoise is grounded in a competent care and an epistemological dilemma, (3) equipoise does not as a rule prohibit placebo-controlled trials when proven effective treatment exists, (4) patient equipoise and individual physician equipoise are irrelevant, and (5) having to stop a trial is not always equivalent to disturbing equipoise. Clarification of these points of contention leads to a sharpened definition of equipoise: 'a state of genuine agnosticism or conflict in the expert medical community about the net preferred medically established procedure for the condition under study'. This definition asks of physician-researchers and members of IRBs to meet two conditions: (1) to genuinely evaluate to what extent a proposed randomized clinical trial solves a state of agnosticism or a knowledge conflict in the expert medical community and (2) to respect the standard of competent care, meaning that they consider whether the regular clinical standard from an all-things considered perspective is also the preferred standard in the research context. Equipoise is a specification of two general ethical principles for clinical research: scientific validity and a favorable risk benefit ratio. As a specification equipoise adds substance to these principles since they do not explicitly ask for the two conditions. Equipoise is a prima facie obligation rather than a morally authoritative principle for determining the acceptability of clinical trials. It needs to be balanced against other norms for clinical research. Violation of equipoise is therefore not always unethical.

LIMITATIONS

This study is limited to the context of randomized clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

There is no decisive reason to give up on the equipoise requirement.

Enabling normal psychophysical development in children with hemophilia: the choice for prophylaxis

Hemophilia A and B, the congenital deficiencies of coagulation factors VIII and IX, are characterized by recurrent joint and muscle bleeding episodes and progressive musculoskeletal damage (hemophilic arthropathy). Primary prophylaxis – that is, the regular infusion of factor concentrates after the first hemarthrosis and/or before 2 years of age – is now recognized as the first-choice treatment for children with severe hemophilia. Preventing bleeding from an early age enables avoidance of the clinical impact of hemophilic arthropathy and the consequences regarding psychosocial development and quality of life for these children. Interestingly, recent data suggest a role for early prophylaxis in also preventing inhibitor development, the most serious complication of treatment in hemophilia. Secondary prophylaxis, initiated after 2 years of age or after two or more joint bleeds, aims to avoid (or delay) the progression of arthropathy. In addition, better outcomes and better quality of life have been reported with earlier treatment. This review summarizes the evidence, current clinical strategies and open issues regarding prophylxis in children with hemophilia.

Primary prophylaxis in children with haemophilia

Starting from the clinical observations that moderate haemophiliacs experienced only few bleeding episodes and rarely developed significant joint deterioration (haemophilic arthropathy), and the pioneer experience in Sweden, prophylaxis (i.e. the regular and long-term administration of clotting factor concentrate in order to prevent bleeding) has been practiced for more than forty years in severe haemophilia and is currently recommended as the first choice of treatment by the World Health Organisation and World Federation of Hemophilia and by many national medical/scientific organizations. Observational studies clearly established the superiority of prophylaxis over on-demand treatment in reducing the risk of arthropathy, also showing that starting prophylaxis earlier in life and after very few joint bleeds was associated with better joint outcomes, and led to the current definitions of primary (started before the age of 2 yrs and after no more than one joint bleed) and secondary prophylaxis. More recently, evidences from randomized trials, which were previously lacking in this setting, were also provided. This review summarizes available data from which current clinical practice of primary (and early secondary) prophylaxis in children with severe haemophilia was drawn. Open issues concerning optimal regimens and barriers to the implementation of prophylaxis are also discussed.

Has time come for a re-assessment of spa therapy? The NAIADE survey in Italy

Goal of this study was to investigate whether appropriately applied spa therapy in several indications could be associated with a subsequent fall in the need for costly health services and missed working days due to sick-leave. The Naiade project was a multicenter observational, longitudinal, questionnaire-based study comparing an "entry" inquiry addressed to patients before an entry thermal cycle, and a "return" inquiry after 1 year. Routine statistical methods were used for comparisons. The study was carried out in 297 of the 340 certified Italian spa centers. Inquiries were managed by the spa doctor(s), with the collaboration of family doctors, and when necessary, hospitals, other health services, labour offices and employers. After exclusion of regular customers and of patients with acute disease phases or severe health conditions, 39,943 patients divided into eight diseases subgroups (rheumatic, respiratory, dermatologic, gynaecologic, otorhynologic, urinary, vascular and gastroenteric) underwent entry inquiry and appropriate spa treatment. Patients who returned for treatment after 1 year ("index year") were 23,680 (59.2%) and received return inquiry. Outcomes considered were: frequency and duration of hospitalisation periods; missed working days; regular use of disease-specific drugs; and resort to "non-spa" rehabilitation therapies. The data collected at return inquiry were compared with those of entry inquiry. All the considered outcomes appeared to be significantly reduced in the index year in seven of the eight disease subgroups in comparison with the previous year. In conclusion, disease-appropriate spa treatments were followed by a reduction in the need of subsequent health interventions in most disease subgroups. The health promoting value of spa treatments should therefore undergo more rigorous assessment with randomised controlled studies.

RCTs and observational studies to determine the effect of prophylaxis in severe haemophilia

It has been suggested that more RCTs should be conducted in the evaluation of haemophilia treatment, including prophylaxis. To draw valid conclusions from experimental or observational studies, internal validity should be ensured. In particular, similarity of prognosis between treatment groups compared in a particular study is needed. Because the use of prophylaxis in observational studies is nonrandomized by definition, special efforts should be made to achieve comparability of prognosis, that is, to avoid 'confounding by indication'; in RCTs this is ensured by randomized allocation of treatment. However, the high costs of an RCT results in a limitation of both patient numbers and length of follow up. Observational studies tend to be more generalizable and cheaper, as they may include a wider spectrum of morbidities, use treatment protocols in agreement with routine care, and use available data. Therefore, observational studies can be much larger and of longer duration than RCTs; and are the preferred design for the evaluation of long term treatment effects. Several valid observational studies comparing prophylaxis and on demand treatment have reported both a short term reduction of 75-90% in bleeding frequency, and significant improvement in arthropathy, quality of life, and socioeconomic parameters after more than 20 years of prophylactic treatment. RCTs provide the most powerful tool for the evaluation of short term effects of any treatment, but are infeasible for the evaluation of long term effects. The definitive assessment of the long-term benefits of prophylaxis requires observational studies that should be performed according to rigorous standards.

Prevention and treatment of musculoskeletal disease in the haemophilia population: role of prophylaxis and synovectomy

Prophylaxis is defined as primary (started before the onset of joint damage) or secondary (started after the onset of joint damage). The aim of primary prophylaxis is to prevent recurrent bleeding into joints and the development of chronic arthropathy in later life. When started early, and at most after two joint bleeds, the result is predictably excellent if there is compliance with the primary prophylaxis regimen. In order to decrease the need for central venous access devices to assure reliable venous access, a number of centres start primary prophylaxis with once weekly infusions with dose-escalation based on frequency of joint bleeding. A major unanswered question is whether primary prophylaxis can be safely discontinued in adolescents/young adults and if so, when. A promising predictor for the milder bleeding phenotype in persons with severe haemophilia is a later onset of joint bleeding. Once joint damage has occurred as a result of recurrent bleeding, secondary prophylaxis can only retard, but not prevent, ongoing joint damage. Other strategies to decrease recurrent bleeding from target joints include surgical synovectomy (ideally performed using an arthroscopic technique), radionuclide synovectomy and chemical synovectomy. These interventions have very good outcomes when performed by an experienced team. Given the very high cost of factor concentrates required for programmes of prophylaxis prospective studies that document benefits to the child and family, e.g. quality of life are to be encouraged.