Physician Approaches to Antithrombotic Therapies for Recently Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Whereas the beneficial effect of antiplatelet therapy for recurrent stroke prevention has been well established, uncertainties remain regarding the optimal antithrombotic regimen for recently symptomatic carotid stenosis. We sought to explore the approaches of stroke physicians to antithrombotic management of patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis. METHODS: We employed a qualitative descriptive methodology to explore the decision-making approaches and opinions of physicians regarding antithrombotic regimens for symptomatic carotid stenosis. We conducted semi-structured interviews with a purposive sample of 22 stroke physicians (11 neurologists, 3 geriatricians, 5 interventional-neuroradiologists, and 3 neurosurgeons) from 16 centers on four continents to discuss symptomatic carotid stenosis management. We then conducted thematic analysis on the transcripts. RESULTS: Important themes revealed from our analysis included limitations of existing clinical trial evidence, competing surgeon versus neurologist/internist preferences, and the choice of antiplatelet therapy while awaiting revascularization. There was a greater concern for adverse events while using multiple antiplatelet agents (e.g., dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT)) in patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy compared to carotid artery stenting. Regional variations included more frequent use of single antiplatelet agents among European participants. Areas of uncertainty included antithrombotic management if already on an antiplatelet agent, implications of nonstenotic features of carotid disease, the role of newer antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants, platelet aggregation testing, and timing of DAPT. CONCLUSION: Our qualitative findings can help physicians critically examine the rationale underlying their own antithrombotic approaches to symptomatic carotid stenosis. Future clinical trials may wish to accommodate identified variations in practice patterns and areas of uncertainty to better inform clinical practice.

The impact of feedback training on prediction of cancer clinical trial results.

INTRODUCTION: Funders must make difficult decisions about which squared treatments to prioritize for randomized trials. Earlier research suggests that experts have no ability to predict which treatments will vindicate their promise. We tested whether a brief training module could improve experts' trial predictions. METHODS: We randomized a sample of breast cancer and hematology-oncology experts to the presence or absence of a feedback training module where experts predicted outcomes for five recently completed randomized controlled trials and received feedback on accuracy. Experts then predicted primary outcome attainment for a sample of ongoing randomized controlled trials. Prediction skill was assessed by Brier scores, which measure the average deviation between their predictions and actual outcomes. Secondary outcomes were discrimination (ability to distinguish between positive and non-positive trials) and calibration (higher predictions reflecting higher probability of trials being positive). RESULTS: A total of 148 experts (46 for breast cancer, 54 for leukemia, and 48 for lymphoma) were randomized between May and December 2017 and included in the analysis (1217 forecasts for 25 trials). Feedback did not improve prediction skill (mean Brier score for control: 0.22, 95% confidence interval = 0.20-0.24 vs feedback arm: 0.21, 95% confidence interval = 0.20-0.23; p = 0.51). Control and feedback arms showed similar discrimination (area under the curve = 0.70 vs 0.73, p = 0.24) and calibration (calibration index = 0.01 vs 0.01, p = 0.81). However, experts in both arms offered predictions that were significantly more accurate than uninformative forecasts of 50% (Brier score = 0.25). DISCUSSION: A short training module did not improve predictions for cancer trial results. However, expert communities showed unexpected ability to anticipate positive trials.Pre-registration record: https://aspredicted.org/4ka6r.pdf.

Causal inference in the absence of positivity: The role of overlap weights.

How to analyze data when there is violation of the positivity assumption? Several possible solutions exist in the literature. In this paper, we consider propensity score (PS) methods that are commonly used in observational studies to assess causal treatment effects in the context where the positivity assumption is violated. We focus on and examine four specific alternative solutions to the inverse probability weighting (IPW) trimming and truncation: matching weight (MW), Shannon's entropy weight (EW), overlap weight (OW), and beta weight (BW) estimators. We first specify their target population, the population of patients for whom clinical equipoise, that is, where we have sufficient PS overlap. Then, we establish the nexus among the different corresponding weights (and estimators); this allows us to highlight the shared properties and theoretical implications of these estimators. Finally, we introduce their augmented estimators that take advantage of estimating both the propensity score and outcome regression models to enhance the treatment effect estimators in terms of bias and efficiency. We also elucidate the role of the OW estimator as the flagship of all these methods that target the overlap population. Our analytic results demonstrate that OW, MW, and EW are preferable to IPW and some cases of BW when there is a moderate or extreme (stochastic or structural) violation of the positivity assumption. We then evaluate, compare, and confirm the finite-sample performance of the aforementioned estimators via Monte Carlo simulations. Finally, we illustrate these methods using two real-world data examples marked by violations of the positivity assumption.

Practical psychiatry: On therapeutic equipoise - Principles of a balanced approach to psychiatric treatments.

OBJECTIVE: There are many burgeoning treatments, and a large range of therapeutic options for 21st century psychiatry. This paper briefly comments upon considerations for balancing treatment to suit the patient, their illness, and their milieu. CONCLUSIONS: Therapeutic equipoise, for psychiatric care, is an aspiration rather than a position easily achieved. In day-to-day clinical practice, there will be unexpected demands and barriers that cannot always be accommodated or surmounted. Psychiatrists can work collaboratively with patients, carers, and colleagues in conceptualising and care-planning to avoid extremes of therapeutic hubris and despair, and to adapt evidence-based care more effectively so that it is suited to the patient and their circumstances.

Methodological Standards for the Design, Implementation, and Analysis of Randomized Trials in Cardiac Surgery: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Cardiac surgery presents specific methodological challenges in the design, implementation, and analysis of randomized controlled trials. The purposes of this scientific statement are to review key standards in cardiac surgery randomized trial design and implementation, and to provide recommendations for conducting and interpreting cardiac surgery trials. Recommendations include a careful evaluation of the suitability of the research question for a clinical trial, assessment of clinical equipoise, feasibility of enrolling a representative patient cohort, impact of practice variations on the safety and efficacy of the study intervention, likelihood and impact of crossover, and duration of follow-up. Trial interventions and study end points should be predefined, and appropriate strategies must be used to ensure adequate deliverability of the trial interventions. Every effort must be made to ensure a high completeness of follow-up; trial design and analytic techniques must be tailored to the specific research question and trial setting.

Risk factors of thrombotic recurrence and major bleeding in patients with intermediate-risk for recurrence of venous thromboembolism.

Prolonged anticoagulation therapy is recommended for patients with intermediate-risk for recurrence of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The current study aimed to identify risk factors of VTE recurrence and major bleeding in intermediate-risk patients. The COMMAND VTE Registry is a multicenter registry enrolled consecutive 3027 patients with acute symptomatic VTE among 29 centers in Japan. The current study population consisted of 1703 patients with intermediate-risk for recurrence. The primary outcome measure was recurrent VTE during the entire follow-up period, and the secondary outcome measures were recurrent VTE and major bleeding during anticoagulation therapy. In the multivariable Cox regression model for recurrent VTE incorporating the status of anticoagulation therapy as a time-updated covariate, off-anticoagulation therapy was strongly associated with an increased risk for recurrent VTE (HR 9.42, 95% CI 5.97-14.86). During anticoagulation therapy, the independent risk factor for recurrent VTE was thrombophilia (HR 3.58, 95% CI 1.56-7.50), while the independent risk factors for major bleeding were age ≥ 75 years (HR 2.04, 95% CI 1.36-3.07), men (HR 1.52, 95% CI 1.02-2.27), history of major bleeding (HR 3.48, 95% CI 1.82-6.14) and thrombocytopenia (HR 3.73, 95% CI 2.04-6.37). Among VTE patients with intermediate-risk for recurrence, discontinuation of anticoagulation therapy was a very strong independent risk factor of recurrence during the entire follow-up period. The independent risk factors of recurrent VTE and those of major bleeding during anticoagulation therapy were different: thrombophilia for recurrent VTE, and advanced age, men, history of major bleeding, and thrombocytopenia for major bleeding. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Unique identifier: UMIN000021132. COMMAND VTE Registry: http://www.umin.ac.jp/ctr/index.htm .

Uses of equipoise in discussions of the ethics of randomized controlled trials of COVID-19 therapies.

BACKGROUND: Early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the urgent need to discover effective therapies for COVID-19 prompted questions about the ethical problem of randomization along with its widely accepted solution: equipoise. In this scoping review, uses of equipoise in discussions of randomized controlled trials (RCT) of COVID-19 therapies are evaluated to answer three questions. First, how has equipoise been applied to COVID-19 research? Second, has equipoise been employed accurately? And third, do concerns about equipoise pose a barrier to the ethical conduct of COVID-19 RCTs? METHODS: Google Scholar and Pubmed were searched for articles containing substantial discussion about equipoise and COVID-19 RCTs. 347 article titles were screened, 91 full text articles were assessed, and 48 articles were included. Uses of equipoise were analyzed and abstracted into seven categories. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Approximately two-thirds of articles (33/48 articles) used equipoise in a way that is consistent with the concept. They invoked equipoise to support (1) RCTs of specific therapies, (2) RCTs in general, and (3) the early termination of RCTs after achieving the primary outcome. Approximately one-third of articles (15/48 articles) used equipoise in a manner that is inconsistent with the concept. These articles argued that physician preference, widespread use of unproven therapies, patient preference, or expectation of therapeutic benefit may undermine equipoise and render RCTs unethical. In each case, the purported ethical problem can be resolved by correcting the use of equipoise. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlight the continued relevance of equipoise as it supports the conduct of well-conceived RCTs and provides moral guidance to physicians and researchers as they search for effective therapies for COVID-19.

An international multicenter study of protocols for liver transplantation during a pandemic: A case for quadripartite equipoise.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The outbreak of COVID-19 has vastly increased the operational burden on healthcare systems worldwide. For patients with end-stage liver failure, liver transplantation is the only option. However, the strain on intensive care facilities caused by the pandemic is a major concern. There is an urgent need for ethical frameworks to balance the need for liver transplantation against the availability of national resources. METHODS: We performed an international multicenter study of transplant centers to understand the evolution of policies for transplant prioritization in response to the pandemic in March 2020. To describe the ethical tension arising in this setting, we propose a novel ethical framework, the quadripartite equipoise (QE) score, that is applicable to liver transplantation in the context of limited national resources. RESULTS: Seventeen large- and medium-sized liver transplant centers from 12 countries across 4 continents participated. Ten centers opted to limit transplant activity in response to the pandemic, favoring a "sickest-first" approach. Conversely, some larger centers opted to continue routine transplant activity in order to balance waiting list mortality. To model these and other ethical tensions, we computed a QE score using 4 factors - recipient outcome, donor/graft safety, waiting list mortality and healthcare resources - for 7 countries. The fluctuation of the QE score over time accurately reflects the dynamic changes in the ethical tensions surrounding transplant activity in a pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: This four-dimensional model of quadripartite equipoise addresses the ethical tensions in the current pandemic. It serves as a universally applicable framework to guide regulation of transplant activity in response to the increasing burden on healthcare systems. LAY SUMMARY: There is an urgent need for ethical frameworks to balance the need for liver transplantation against the availability of national resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. We describe a four-dimensional model of quadripartite equipoise that models these ethical tensions and can guide the regulation of transplant activity in response to the increasing burden on healthcare systems.

Challenges Conveying Clinical Equipoise and Exploring Patient Treatment Preferences in an Oncology Trial Comparing Active Monitoring with Radiotherapy (ROAM/EORTC 1308).

INTRODUCTION: Providing balanced information that emphasizes clinical equipoise (i.e., uncertainty regarding the relative merits of trial interventions) and exploring patient treatment preferences can improve informed consent and trial recruitment. Within a trial comparing adjuvant radiotherapy versus active monitoring following surgical resection for an atypical meningioma (ROAM/EORTC-1308), we explored patterns in communication and reasons why health practitioners may find it challenging to convey equipoise and explore treatment preferences. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Qualitative study embedded within ROAM/EORTC-1308. Data were collected on 40 patients and 18 practitioners from 13 U.K. sites, including audio recordings of 39 patients' trial consultations, 23 patient interviews, and 18 practitioner interviews. Qualitative analysis drew on argumentation theory. RESULTS: Practitioners acknowledged the importance of the research question that the trial aimed to answer. However, they often demonstrated a lack of equipoise in consultations, particularly with eligible patients who practitioners believed to be susceptible to side effects (e.g., cognitive impairment) or inconvenienced by radiotherapy. Practitioners elicited but rarely explored patient treatment preferences, especially if a patient expressed an initial preference for active monitoring. Concerns about coercing patients, loss of practitioner agency, and time constraints influenced communication in ways that were loaded against trial participation. CONCLUSIONS: We identified several challenges that practitioners face in conveying equipoise and exploring patient treatment preferences in oncology, and particularly neuro-oncology, trials with distinct management pathways. The findings informed communication about ROAM/EORTC-1308 and will be relevant to enhancing trial communication in future oncology trials. Qualitative studies embedded within trials can address difficulties with communication, thus improving informed consent and recruitment. ROAM/EORTC-1308 RCT: ISRCTN71502099. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncology trials can be challenging to recruit to, especially those that compare treatment versus monitoring. Conveying clinical equipoise and exploring patient treatment preferences can enhance recruitment and patient understanding. This study focused on the challenges that practitioners encounter in trying to use such communication strategies and how practitioners may inadvertently impede patient recruitment and informed decision making. This article provides recommendations to support practitioners in balancing the content and presentation of trial management pathways. The results can inform training to optimize communication, especially for neuro-oncology trials and trials comparing markedly different management pathways.

Study design factors influencing patients' willingness to participate in clinical research: a randomised vignette-based study.

BACKGROUND: High patient participation in clinical research reduces selection bias and ensures the generalizability of study findings. We explored study-related factors that may influence patients' willingness to participate in research. METHODS: We submitted by mail two vignettes that described clinical research studies - a drug trial and a diagnostic study - to patients recently discharged from hospital and assessed their willingness to participate. We used a factorial design to randomly allocate three study attributes per vignette: in the drug trial, presumed superiority of new drug versus equipoise, public versus industry funding, and random versus non-random treatment allocation; in the diagnostic study, common versus rare disease, genetic versus protein analysis, and automatic reporting of results versus reporting on request. RESULTS: Of 2600 patients contacted, 1140 (44%) participated. Globally, willingness to participate in a drug trial was lower than in a diagnostic study (44.8% vs. 76.2%; P < 0.001). In the drug trial, participation was significantly higher when the new drug was presented as presumably better than the old (vs. equipoise) and when the study was funded by public sources (vs. industry), but was not affected by the allocation method. None of the factors tested in the diagnostic study was associated with participation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients were more likely to participate in a hypothetical observational diagnostic study than in a hypothetical drug trial. Participation in the trial was lower when clinical equipoise was expressed and when the trial was funded by industry. These results suggest that some features of study design can influence participation.

Measuring clinical uncertainty and equipoise by applying the agreement study methodology to patient management decisions.

BACKGROUND: Clinical uncertainty and equipoise are vague notions that play important roles in contemporary problems of medical care and research, including the design and conduct of pragmatic trials. Our goal was to show how the reliability study methods normally used to assess diagnostic tests can be applied to particular management decisions to measure the degree of uncertainty and equipoise regarding the use of rival management options. METHODS: We first use thrombectomy in acute stroke as an illustrative example of the method we propose. We then review, item by item, how the various design elements of diagnostic reliability studies can be modified in order to measure clinical uncertainty. RESULTS: The thrombectomy example shows sufficient disagreement and uncertainty to warrant the conduct of additional randomized trials. The general method we propose is that a sufficient number of diverse individual cases sharing a similar clinical problem and covering a wide spectrum of clinical presentations be assembled into a portfolio that is submitted to a variety of clinicians who routinely manage patients with the clinical problem. DISCUSSION: Clinicians are asked to independently choose one of the predefined management options, which are selected from those that would be compared within a randomized trial that would address the clinical dilemma. Intra-rater agreement can be assessed at a later time with a second evaluation. Various professional judgments concerning individual patients can then be compared and analyzed using kappa statistics or similar methods. Interpretation of results can be facilitated by providing examples or by translating the results into clinically meaningful summary sentences. CONCLUSIONS: Measuring the uncertainty regarding management options for clinical problems may reveal substantial disagreement, provide an empirical foundation for the notion of equipoise, and inform or facilitate the design/conduct of clinical trials to address the clinical dilemma.

Interpretation of within-group change in randomised trials.

In medicine, it is common to observe improvement after intervention, at least partly because patients present for care in extremis and would have improved without intervention. Controlling for this counterfactual explanation for improvement is the principle reason to conduct a trial in which patients are randomised to treatment or a control group. Accordingly, it is not reasonable to infer that both interventions are effective when the groups show similar improvements in outcome.

Comparison of alternative approaches to trim subjects in the tails of the propensity score distribution.

PURPOSE: In nonexperimental comparative effectiveness research, restricting analysis to subjects with better overlap of covariate distributions, hence greater treatment equipoise, helps balance the groups compared and can improve validity. Three alternative approaches, derived from different perspectives, implement restriction by trimming observations in the tails of the propensity score (PS). Across approaches, we compared the relationships between the overlap in treatment-specific PS distributions and the size of the balanced study population after trimming. METHODS: The three trimming approaches considered were absolute trimming to the range 0.1

Social value, clinical equipoise, and research in a public health emergency.

The 2016 CIOMS International ethical guidelines for health-related research involving humans states that 'health-related research should form an integral part of disaster response' and that, 'widespread emergency use [of unproven interventions] with inadequate data collection about patient outcomes must therefore be avoided' (Guideline 20). This position is defended against two lines of criticism that emerged during the 2014 Ebola outbreak. One holds that desperately ill patients have a moral right to try unvalidated medical interventions (UMIs) and that it is therefore unethical to restrict access to UMIs to the clinical trial context. The second holds that clinical trials in contexts of high-mortality diseases are morally suspect because equipoise does not exist between a standard of care that offers little prospect of clinical benefit and a UMI that might offer some clinical advantage.

Research versus practice: The dilemmas of research ethics in the era of learning health-care systems.

In this article we attempt to answer the question of how the ethical and conceptual framework (ECF) for a learning health-care system (LHS) affects some of the main controversies in research ethics by addressing five key problems of research ethics: (a) What is the difference between practice and research? (b) What is the relationship between research ethics and clinical ethics? (c) What is the ethical relevance of the principle of clinical equipoise? (d) Does participation in research require a higher standard of informed consent than the practice of medicine? and (e) What ethical principle should take precedence in medicine? These questions allow us to construct two opposite idealized positions on the distinction between research and practice: the integration model and the segregation model of research and practice. We then compare the ECF for an LHS with these two idealized positions. We argue that the ECF for a LHS does not, in fact, solve these problems, but that it is a third, separate position in the relationship between research ethics and clinical ethics. Moreover, we suggest that the ECF for a LHS raises new ethical problems that require additional ethical analysis and justification. Our article contributes to the discussion on the relationship between research ethics and clinical ethics, revealing that although a learning health-care system may significantly change the landscape of health care, some ethical dilemmas still require resolving on both theoretical and policy-making levels.

Modified Equipoise Clasp: An Esthetic Option for Removable Dental Prostheses.

The objective of this clinical report is to describe a fabrication technique for a modified Equipoise clasp-retained removable dental prosthesis as an alternative esthetic clasp option when abutment teeth are visible during smiling or speaking. The use of surveyed crowns on abutment teeth with mesial reciprocating grooves, milled lingual ledges, and distobuccal undercuts facilitates the use of a modified Equipoise clasp, providing a viable treatment option in esthetically demanding cases.

Overcoming difficulties with equipoise to enable recruitment to a randomised controlled trial of partial ablation vs radical prostatectomy for unilateral localised prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: To describe how clinicians conceptualised equipoise in the PART (Partial prostate Ablation vs Radical prosTatectomy in intermediate-risk unilateral clinically localised prostate cancer) feasibility study and how this affected recruitment. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: PART included a QuinteT Recruitment Intervention (QRI) to optimise recruitment. Phase I aimed to understand recruitment, and included: scrutinising recruitment data, interviewing the trial management group and recruiters (n = 13), and audio-recording recruitment consultations (n = 64). Data were analysed using qualitative content and thematic analysis methods. In Phase II, strategies to improve recruitment were developed and delivered. RESULTS: Initially many recruiters found it difficult to maintain a position of equipoise and held preconceptions about which treatment was best for particular patients. They did not feel comfortable about approaching all eligible patients, and when the study was discussed, biases were conveyed through the use of terminology, poorly balanced information, and direct treatment recommendations. Individual and group feedback led to presentations to patients becoming clearer and enabled recruiters to reconsider their sense of equipoise. Although the precise impact of the QRI alone cannot be determined, recruitment increased (from a mean [range] of 1.4 [0-4] to 4.5 [0-12] patients/month) and the feasibility study reached its recruitment target. CONCLUSION: Although clinicians find it challenging to recruit patients to a trial comparing different contemporary treatments for prostate cancer, training and support can enable recruiters to become more comfortable with conveying equipoise and providing clearer information to patients.