Is it too early to recommend local treatment in oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer: a plea for equipoise.

Oligometastatic non-small cell lung cancer (OMD NSCLC) has been proposed to bridge the spectrum between non-metastatic and widely metastatic states and is perceived as an opportunity for potential cure if removed. Twelve clinical trials on local treatment have been reported, yet none are conclusive. These trials informed the development of a joint clinical practice guideline by the American & European Societies for Radiation Oncology, which endorses local treatment for OMD NSCLC. However, the heterogeneity between prognostic factors within these trials likely influenced outcomes and can only support guidance at this time. Caution against an uncritical acceptance of the guideline is discussed, as strong recommendations are offered based on expert opinion and inconclusive evidence. The guideline is also examined by a patient's caregiver, who emphasizes that uncertain evidence impedes shared decision making.

Review of Clinical Equipoise: Examples from Oncology Trials.

BACKGROUND: The current standards that govern clinical research have been shaped over the years through many historical, social, and political events. The third principle of the Belmont Report, Justice, guides the scientific community toward the equal distribution of benefits and risks in research involving human subjects. Clinical equipoise is the status of genuine uncertainty by the investigator about the superiority of one treatment arm over the other. The term clinical equipoise was proposed to provide an ethical ground to conduct randomized controlled clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to provide the reader with an overview of the emergence of the term equipoise and its utilization in randomized controlled trials. METHODS: In the current review article, the major oncology clinical trials and relevant patents were reviewed for the application/utilization of clinical equipoise. RESULTS: The concept of clinical equipoise has been challenged, and different alternatives were proposed. Yet, these alternatives received numerous critiques and failed to fully replace equipoise. In addition, several patents related to anticancer agents tested in the described studies were examined. No specific reference was made as part of the patent to the status of clinical equipoise. Alternatively, a description of the study arms was provided. CONCLUSION: There is a need for revisiting the concept of equipoise and its suggested alternatives for its ethical essence while addressing related challenges.

Ethical considerations on placebo-controlled vaccine trials in pregnant women / Consideraciones éticas sobre los ensayos de vacunas controlados con placebo en mujeres embarazadas / Considerações éticas sobre estudos de vacina controlada com placebo em gestantes

Abstract Placebo use in clinical trials, whenever a proven effective treatment exists, is one of the most debated topics in contemporary research ethics. This article addresses the ethical framework for placebo use in clinical trials assessing vaccine efficacy in pregnant women. Vaccine trial participants are healthy at the outset and some must be infected during the study to demonstrate the product's efficacy, meaning that placebo-treated participants are under risk of serious and irreversible harm. If effective vaccines exist, such risk precludes placebo use. This interdiction should be extended to any clinical trial of vaccine efficacy in pregnant women, because a demonstration of clinical efficacy in nonpregnant individuals and comparable immunogenic responses in pregnant women are predictors of efficacy in pregnancy as well. Moreover, product effectiveness in real-world use scenarios can be ascertained by observational studies conducted after its inclusion in vaccination campaigns.

Resumen El uso de placebo en ensayos clínicos es uno de los principales temas debatidos sobre la ética en investigación contemporánea cuando existe un tratamiento eficaz probado. Este artículo aborda la ética en el uso de placebo en ensayos clínicos sobre la eficacia de vacuna en mujeres embarazadas. Las participantes en los ensayos de vacunas estaban sanas al inicio del estudio, y algunas fueron vacunadas durante el estudio para demostrar la eficacia del producto. Las participantes tratadas con placebo corren el riesgo de sufrir daños graves e irreversibles. Si existen vacunas efectivas, este riesgo impide el uso de placebo. Este impedimento debe extenderse a cualquier ensayo clínico de eficacia de vacuna en embarazadas, pues la eficacia clínica demostrada en mujeres no embarazadas y las respuestas inmunogénicas comparables con las embarazadas son predictores de eficacia en el embarazo. Además, la efectividad del producto se constata en estudios observacionales realizados tras las campañas de vacunación.

Resumo O uso de placebo em ensaios clínicos, quando um tratamento comprovadamente eficaz existe, é um dos principais tópicos debatidos na ética em pesquisa contemporânea. Este artigo aborda o quadro ético para o uso de placebo em ensaios clínicos que avaliam a eficácia de vacina em gestantes. Participantes em ensaios de vacina são saudáveis no início e alguns devem ser inoculados durante o estudo para demonstrar a eficácia do produto. Ou seja, participantes tratados com placebo estão sob risco de danos graves e irreversíveis. Se existirem vacinas eficazes, esse risco impede o uso de placebo. Essa interdição deve ser estendida a qualquer ensaio clínico de eficácia de vacina em gestantes, pois a demonstração de eficácia clínica em não gestantes e as respostas imunogênicas comparáveis em gestantes também são preditoras de eficácia na gravidez. Ademais, a eficácia do produto em cenários reais de uso pode ser verificada por estudos observacionais realizados após sua inclusão em campanhas de vacinação.

The PReliMinAry (Pain Relief in Major Amputation) Survey.

OBJECTIVES: Major Lower Limb Amputation (MLLA) is associated with significant peri- and post-operative pain and has been identified as a research priority by patient and healthcare groups. The PReliMinAry survey was designed to evaluate existing MLLA analgesia strategies; identifying areas of equipoise and informing future research. METHODS: A targeted multi-national, multi-disciplinary survey was conducted via SurveyMonkey® (October 5, 2020-November 3, 2020) and advertised via social media and society email lists. The 10-questions explored 'pain-team' services, pre-operative neuroleptic medication, pre-incision peripheral nerve blocks and catheters, surgically placed nerve catheters, post-operative adjunctive regimens, future research engagement and equipoise. RESULTS: Seventy-six responses were received from 60 hospitals worldwide. Twelve hospitals(20%) had a dedicated MLLA pain team, 7(12%) had none. Most pain teams (n = 52; 87%) assessed pain with a 0-10 numerical rating scale. Over half of respondents "never" preloaded patients with oral neuroleptic agents(n= 42/76; 55%). Forty-seven hospitals(78%) utilized patient controlled opioid analgesia. Most hospitals are able to provide pre-incision loco-regional peripheral nerve blocks, nerve catheters and surgical nerve catheters (95%, 77%, and 90% respectively), but use was variable. Ultrasound(US) guided peripheral nerve catheters were "infrequently" or "never" used in 57% of hospitals, whilst 23% "infrequently" or "never" utilize surgically placed nerve catheters. CONCLUSIONS: The survey revealed a preference towards 'single-shot' nerve blocks and surgical catheters. A difference between the use of US guided nerve catheters and those surgically placed likely reflects the difference of literature evaluating these techniques. Most respondents felt there was equipoise surrounding future trials evaluating nerve blocks/catheters, but less so for surgical catheters.

The TOTAL trial dilemma: A survey among professionals on equipoise regarding fetal therapy for severe congenital diaphragmatic hernia.

OBJECTIVE: Running randomized clinical trials (RCT) in fetal therapy is challenging. This is no different for fetoscopic endoluminal tracheal occlusion (FETO) for severe left-sided Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia (CDH). We assessed the knowledge, attitude and practice (KAP) of maternal-fetal medicine specialists toward the antenatal management of CDH, and the randomized controlled clinical (RCT) "Tracheal Occlusion To Accelerate Lung growth-trial." METHODS: A cross-sectional KAP-survey was conducted among 311 registrants of the 18th World Congress in Fetal Medicine. RESULTS: The overall knowledge of CDH and FETO was high. Remarkably only 45% considers prenatal prediction of neonatal outcome reliable. Despite, in their clinical practice they perform severity assessment (80%) and refer families for FETO either within the context of an RCT (43%) or on patient request (32%). Seventy percent perceives not offering FETO on patient demand seems as if no treatment is provided to a fetus with predicted poor outcome. Only 20% of respondents considers denying access to FETO on patient demand not as a psychological burden. CONCLUSION: Often the views of individual respondents contradicted with their clinical practice. It seems that, for severe CDH, clinicians face personal and practical dilemmas that undermine equipoise. To us, this indicates the tension between the clinical and scientific obligations physicians experience.

Bile duct clearance and cholecystectomy for choledocholithiasis: Definitive single-stage laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography versus staged procedures.

BACKGROUND: Clinical equipoise exists regarding optimal sequencing in the definitive management of choledocholithiasis. Our current study compares sequential biliary ductal clearance and cholecystectomy at an interval to simultaneous laparoendoscopic management on index admission in a pragmatic retrospective manner. METHODS: Records were reviewed for all patients admitted between January 2015 and December 2018 to a Swedish and an Irish university hospital. Both hospitals differ in their practice patterns for definitive management of choledocholithiasis. At the Swedish hospital, patients with choledocholithiasis underwent laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative rendezvous endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) at index admission (one stage). In contrast, interval day-case laparoscopic cholecystectomy followed index admission ERCP (two stages) at the Irish hospital. Clinical characteristics, postprocedural complications, and inpatient duration were compared between cohorts. RESULTS: Three hundred fifty-seven patients underwent treatment for choledocholithiasis during the study period, of whom 222 (62.2%) underwent a one-stage procedure in Sweden, while 135 (37.8%) underwent treatment in two stages in Ireland. Patients in both cohorts were closely matched in terms of age, sex, and preoperative serum total bilirubin. Patients in the one-stage group exhibited a greater inflammatory reaction on index admission (peak C-reactive protein, 136 ± 137 vs. 95 ± 102 mg/L; p = 0.024), had higher incidence of comorbidities (age-adjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index, ≥3; 37.8% vs. 20.0%; p = 0.003), and overall were less fit for surgery (American Society of Anesthesiologists, ≥3; 11.7% vs. 3.7%; p < 0.001). Despite this, a significantly shorter mean time to definitive treatment, that is, cholecystectomy (3.1 ± 2.5 vs. 40.3 ± 127 days, p = 0.017), without excess morbidity, was seen in the one-stage compared with the two-stage cohort. Patients in the one-stage cohort experienced shorter mean postprocedure length of stay (3.0 ± 4.7 vs. 5.0 ± 4.6 days, p < 0.001) and total length of hospital stay (6.5 ± 4.6 vs. 9.0 ± 7.3 days, p = 0.002). The only significant difference in postoperative complications between the cohorts was urinary retention, with a higher incidence in the one-stage cohort (19% vs. 1%, p = 0.004). CONCLUSION: Where appropriate expertise and logistics exist within developing models of acute care surgery worldwide, consideration should be given to index-admission laparoscopic cholecystectomy with intraoperative ERCP for the treatment of choledocholithiasis. Our data suggest that this strategy significantly shortens the time to definitive treatment and decreases total hospital stay without any excess in adverse outcomes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic/Care Management Level IV.

Restarting Orthopaedic Care in a Pandemic: Ethical Framework and Case Examples.

The question about how to resume typical orthopaedic care during a pandemic, such as coronavirus disease 2019, should be framed not only as a logistic or safety question but also as an ethical question. The current published guidelines from surgical societies do not explicitly address ethical dilemmas, such as why public health ethics requires a cessation of nonemergency surgery or how to fairly allocate limited resources for delayed surgical care. We propose ethical guidance for the resumption of care on the basis of public health ethics with a focus on clinical equipoise, triage tiers, and flexibility. We then provide orthopaedic surgery examples to guide physicians in the ethical resumption of care.

Prevention of severe infectious complications after colorectal surgery using oral non-absorbable antimicrobial prophylaxis: results of a multicenter randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Surgical site infections (SSIs) are common complications after colorectal surgery. Oral non-absorbable antibiotic prophylaxis (OAP) can be administered preoperatively to reduce the risk of SSIs. Its efficacy without simultaneous mechanical cleaning is unknown. METHODS: The Precaution trial was a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial conducted in six Dutch hospitals. Adult patients who underwent elective colorectal surgery were randomized to receive either a three-day course of preoperative OAP with tobramycin and colistin or placebo. The primary composite endpoint was the incidence of deep SSI or mortality within 30 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints included both infectious and non-infectious complications at 30 days and six months after surgery. RESULTS: The study was prematurely ended due to the loss of clinical equipoise. At that time, 39 patients had been randomized to active OAP and 39 to placebo, which reflected 8.1% of the initially pursued sample size. Nine (11.5%) patients developed the primary outcome, of whom four had been randomized to OAP (4/39; 10.3%) and five to placebo (5/39; 12.8%). This corresponds to a risk ratio in the intention-to-treat analysis of 0.80 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23-2.78). In the per-protocol analysis, the relative risk was 0.64 (95% CI 0.12-3.46). CONCLUSIONS: Observational data emerging during the study provided new evidence for the effectiveness of OAP that changed both the clinical and medical ethical landscape for infection prevention in colorectal surgery. We therefore consider it unethical to continue randomizing patients to placebo. We recommend the implementation of OAP in clinical practice and continuing monitoring of infection rates and antibiotic susceptibilities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PreCaution trial is registered in the Netherlands Trial Register under NL5932 (previously: NTR6113) as well as in the EudraCT register under 2015-005736-17.

Clinical trials and the COVID-19 pandemic.

"...but why think? Why not try the experiment?..." John Hunter (1728-1793), in a letter to Edward Jenner. August 2nd, 1775. When Galen of Pergamum (2nd c. A.D.), physician, philosopher and experimentalist, sought to ascertain the therapeutic properties of Theriac, an antidote of repute against poisons, he resorted to an experiment. Theriac or Theriaca was a compound drug, containing in some versions used in antiquity numerous components; Galen's own composition included over 70 ingredients! One of its uses was as an antidote against snakebites, a frequent peril for the Roman armies marching on in sandals. Galen spent most of his life in Rome and was elevated to Imperial Physician at the court of Marcus Aurelius, who apparently took daily doses of Theriac, which among other components included opium. Describing the experiment to his friend Pison, Galen wrote, "as I could not possibly conduct a trial on humans, I experimented on roosters" For his experiment, Galen, studied two groups of roosters, but he doesn't tell us how many animals he included in each category. Both groups were exposed to poisonous snakebites. All roosters who were fed with theriac prior to exposure to viper bites survived, whereas in the second group that had not received prophylactic Theriac, all roosters died. Not only is Galen's methodology remarkable, preceding the modern randomised trial by eighteen centuries, but more importantly, it is notable for his ethical stance at a time when sensitivities about human rights, prevalent in our times, were largely absent in societies of widespread slavery. For example, Mithridates VI (132-63 BC), the King of Pontus who is credited with the first use of Theriac, tested its efficacy on criminals and slaves. For his experiment Galen used the random allocation of treatment, today's prospective randomised clinical trial, implemented in the evaluation of novel therapies, widely used internationally, particularly in cancer research! This experimental method used for ascertaining the efficacy of new drugs became established after the second half of the 20th century and is now firmly entrenched as a research tool. On the other hand, the retrieval of information from observational studies or non-randomised series is considered scientifically inferior and is often dismissed or ignored as irrelevant or anecdotal. Such is the compulsion for the randomised study that in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, respected physicians and scientists appeared in the media hesitant to recommend the use of protective facial masks, as there was no evidence of benefit for their use from prospective randomised studies in the general population! Logic had no place in the argument! COVID-19, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 new corona virus, brought to the fore the randomised trial, as well as, the ethical dilemmas that surround the allocation of treatment at random, in the face of a devastating pandemic. Anthony Fauci, distinguished infectious diseases expert and an adviser to the President of the USA, at a recent briefing from the Situation Room of the White House, endorsed categorically and unreservedly the randomised trial for the evaluation of drugs potentially effective against SARS-CoV-2, in patients afflicted with COVID-19. A few days later on April 8th, 2020, Professor Sotiris Tsiodras, scientific advisor to the Greek Government for COVID-19 and an expert on infectious diseases, when asked by a journalist about chloroquine, he responded, "Antony Fauci is correct. Nevertheless, we give the drug to everyone, that is, not half of the patients will receive it, and the other half will not". If we accept that the randomised trial represents the unique, impregnable method of evaluating new treatments-several clinicians dispute this dogma. -the question arises how will treatments be allocated to patients? According to the Declaration of Helsinki participation of a subject in a clinical trial requires their explicit written consent. Will, a potentially hypoxic patient rapidly deteriorating, be able to understand what is being asked of them, and will that patient be in a position to provide consent? And if that patient refuses to be randomised, what are the options? Is it his/her right to request the active treatment that a fellow patient is receiving in the next bed? Although the Declaration of Helsinki allows the option of no treatment or even placebo, where no known treatment is available for a certain condition, such as COVID-19, it also emphasizes that "while the primary purpose of medical research is to generate new knowledge, this goal can never take precedence over the rights and interests of individual research subjects". Consider now the physicians and nurses on the first line of the battle against the pandemic; to the enormous pressures and risks that they experience daily, they may have to endure the added psychological burden of the randomised trial, knowing that half of their patients are receiving the promising drug, whilst the other half are denied the chance of potential benefit. When during the Medical Research Council's randomized trial of streptomycin, one senior physician contracted tuberculosis, the Medical Research Council obtained supplies for him outside the trial. In this brief instance of medical history, the equipoise, the scientific imperative, all arguments and other justifications for providing treatment at random, were thrown out of the window in favour of the human factor! Why is randomization necessary? Because-it is presumed-the process of randomising subjects, protects the study from the selective inclusion of patients with favourable characteristics, thus inadvertently allowing or facilitating a falsely favourable result for the drug or treatment under investigation. However, the process of randomising patients does not necessarily result in the randomisation of the characteristics of their disease. Exactly because of this, at the end of a randomised study, even if the prognostic variables are evenly represented and balanced in the strata, further confirmation of the result is sought with a statistical multifactorial analysis. Such multifactorial analyses can also be applied to a non-randomised group of patients engaged in the trial of a new drug. Since the middle of the 20th century a generation of physicians have been trained to dismiss, or are incapable of evaluating the validity of a treatment beyond the established etiquette of the randomised study. This, some have argued, constitutes intellectual indolence, it is not scientific robustness. Pandits foresee that the world will be different after the end of this pandemic. Perhaps human ingenuity will seek new investigative methods that will render the randomised clinical trial obsolete, both, on methodological and ethical grounds. Until then and even if we have to accept the scientific supremacy of the randomised study in the evaluation of novel therapies, the ethical considerations in the unprecedented circumstances of a relentless pandemic demand a more humane approach, befitting the beneficent precepts of the Hippocratic tradition.

Endovascular Intervention Versus Surgery in Ruptured Intracranial Aneurysms in Equipoise: A Systematic Review.

Background and Purpose- The benefits of endovascular intervention over surgery in the treatment of ruptured aneurysms of anterior circulation remains uncertain. Recently, published studies did not find superiority of endovascular intervention, challenging earlier evidence from a clinical trial. The earlier evidence also had a higher than average proportion of patients in good clinical status, leading to uncertainty about external validity of earlier trials. Methods- We performed a systematic review of studies after 2005 under a protocol published in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Primary outcomes were posttreatment rebleeding and adverse events (procedural complications). Secondary outcomes were dependency at 3 to 6 and 12 months, delayed cerebral ischemia, and seizures. Results- Rebleeding was more frequent after endovascular intervention (Peto OR, 2.18 [95% CI, 1.29-3.70]; 3104 participants; 15 studies; I2=0%, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation: very low certainty of evidence). Fewer adverse events were reported with the endovascular intervention (RR, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.53-0.95]; 1661 participants; 11 studies; I2=14%, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation: low certainty of evidence). Three to six months dependency (RR, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.73-0.93]; 4081 participants; 18 studies; I2=15%, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation: low certainty of evidence) and 12-month dependency (RR, 0.76 [95% CI, 0.66-0.86]; 1981 participants; 10 studies; I2=0%, Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation: low certainty of evidence) were lower after endovascular intervention. Conclusions- This study found consistent results between recent studies and the earlier evidence, in that endovascular intervention results in lower chance of dependency compared with surgery for repair of ruptured anterior circulation aneurysms. A lower proportion of patients in good clinical status in this review supports the application of the earlier evidence. Registration- URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO. Unique identifier: CRD42018090396.

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.