How to Resolve an Ethical Dilemma Concerning Randomized Clinical Trials

An apparent ethical dilemma arises when physicians consider enrolling their patients in randomized clinical trials. Suppose that a randomized clinical trial comparing two treatments is in progress, and a physician has an opinion about which treatment is better. The physician has a duty to promote the patient's best medical interests and therefore seems to be obliged to advise the patient to receive the treatment that the physician prefers. This duty creates a barrier to the enrollment of patients in randomized clinical trials.1-10 Two strategies are often used to resolve the dilemma in favor of enrolling patients in clinical trials

Colchicine for pericarditis: Hype or hope?

Colchicine has been effectively used in the treatment of several inflammatory conditions, such as gouty attacks, serositis related to familial Mediterranean fever, Behcet syndrome, and more recently also in acute and recurrent pericarditis. Growing evidence has shown that the drug may be useful to treat an acute attack and may be a way to cope with the prevention of pericarditis in acute and recurrent cases and after cardiac surgery. Nevertheless, clinicians are often sceptical about the efficacy of the drug, and concerns have risen on possible side effects and tolerability. In this review, we analyse current evidence to support the use of the drug, as well as possible harms and risks related to drug interactions, reaching the conclusion that colchicine is safe and useful in recurrent pericarditis, if specific precautions are followed, although less evidence supports its use for the treatment of acute pericarditis, where colchicine remains optional and there is a need for further multicentre confirmatory studies. This paper also reviews specific dosing and precautions for the clinical use

Pericardite acuta idiopatica recidivante: terapia reumatologica, autoanticorpi e long term outcome = Recurrent acute idiopathic pericarditis: rheumatologic therapy, autoantibodies and long term outcome

Objective: To evaluate therapy and rheumatologic aspects of recurrent acute idiopathic pericarditis (RAIP). Methods: We studied 46 patients. We used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) at high dosage. We did not start corticosteroid: if already started, we planned a very slow tapering; 37 patients (80.4%) were treated with colchicines. We also assessed the frequency of ANA, anti-SSA and Rheumatoid factor. Results: With our protocol recurrences dropped from 0.46 to 0.03 attacks/ patient/month (p1/80, in 7 (15.2%) >1/160. Rheumatoid factor was positive in 7 (15.2%) and anti-SSA in 4 (8.7%). During the follow-up 4 (8.7%) new diagnosis of Sjogren and 1 (2.2%) of Rheumatoid Arthritis were made. Conclusion: NSAIDs at high dosage, slow tapering of corticosteroid and colchicine are very effective in RAIP. The improvement is more dramatic in colchicine treated patients, but also other patients can achieve good control of the disease. The finding of ANA, anti-SSA and the new rheumatological diagnoses support the involvement of autoimmunity

Recurrent acute idiopathic pericarditis: rheumatologic therapy, autoantibodies and long term outcome

Objective: To evaluate therapy and rheumatologic aspects of recurrent acute idiopathic pericarditis (RAIP). Methods: We studied 46 patients. We used non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) at high dosage. We did not start corticosteroid: if already started, we planned a very slow tapering; 37 patients (80.4%) were treated with colchicines. We also assessed the frequency of ANA, anti-SSA and Rheumatoid factor. Results:With our protocol recurrences dropped from 0.46 to 0.03 attacks/patient/month (p1/80, in 7 (15.2%) >1/160. Rheumatoid factor was positive in 7 (15.2%) and anti-SSA in 4 (8.7%). During the follow-up 4 (8.7%) new diagnosis of Sjogren and 1 (2.2%) of Rheumatoid Arthritis were made. Conclusion: NSAIDs at high dosage, slow tapering of corticosteroid and colchicine are very effective in RAIP. The improvement is more dramatic in colchicine treated patients, but also other patients can achieve good control of the disease. The finding of ANA, anti-SSA and the new rheumatological diagnoses support the involvement of autoimmunity

COlchicine for the Prevention of the Post-pericardiotomy Syndrome (COPPS): A multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

Aims No drug has been proven efficacious to prevent the post-pericardiotomy syndrome (PPS), but colchicine seems safe and effective for the treatment and prevention of pericarditis. The aim of the COlchicine for the Prevention of the Post-pericardiotomy Syndrome (COPPS) trial is to test the efficacy and safety of colchicine for the primary prevention of the PPS. Methods and results The COPPS study is a multicentre, double-blind, randomized trial. On the third post-operative day, 360 patients (mean age 65.7 +/- 12.3 years, 66% males), 180 in each treatment arm, were randomized to receive placebo or colchicine (1.0 mg twice daily for the first day followed by a maintenance dose of 0.5 mg twice daily for 1 month in patients >= 70 kg, and halved doses for patients < 70 kg or intolerant to the highest dose). The primary efficacy endpoint was the incidence of PPS at 12 months. Secondary endpoint was the combined rate of disease-related hospitalization, cardiac tamponade, constrictive pericarditis, and relapses. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between the study groups. Colchicine significantly reduced the incidence of the PPS at 12 months compared with placebo (respectively, 8.9 vs. 21.1%; P = 0.002; number needed to treat = 8). Colchicine also reduced the secondary endpoint (respectively, 0.6 vs. 5.0%; P = 0.024). The rate of side effects (mainly related to gastrointestinal intolerance) was similar in the colchicine and placebo groups (respectively, 8.9 vs. 5.0%; P = 0.212). Conclusion Colchicine is safe and efficacious in the prevention of the PPS and its related complications and may halve the risk of developing the syndrome following cardiac surgery

The Patient Deficit Model Overturned: a qualitative study of patients' perceptions of invitation to participate in a randomized controlled trial comparing selective bladder preservation against surgery in muscle invasive bladder cancer (SPARE, CRUK/07/011)

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that poor recruitment into clinical trials rests on a patient ‘deficit’ model – an inability to comprehend trial processes. Poor communication has also been cited as a possible barrier to recruitment. A qualitative patient interview study was included within the feasibility stage of a phase III non-inferiority Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT) (SPARE, CRUK/07/011) in muscle invasive bladder cancer. The aim was to illuminate problems in the context of randomization. METHODS: The qualitative study used a ‘Framework Analysis’ that included ‘constant comparison’ in which semi-structured interviews are transcribed, analyzed, compared and contrasted both between and within transcripts. Three researchers coded and interpreted data. RESULTS: Twenty-four patients agreed to enter the interview study; 10 decliners of randomization and 14 accepters, of whom 2 subsequently declined their allocated treatment. The main theme applying to the majority of the sample was confusion and ambiguity. There was little indication that confusion directly impacted on decisions to enter the SPARE trial. However, confusion did appear to impact on ethical considerations surrounding ‘informed consent’, as well as cause a sense of alienation between patients and health personnel. Sub-optimal communication in many guises accounted for the confusion, together with the logistical elements of a trial that involved treatment options delivered in a number of geographical locations. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight the difficulty of providing balanced and clear trial information within the UK health system, despite best intentions. Involvement of multiple professionals can impact on communication processes with patients who are considering participation in RCTs. Our results led us to question the ‘deficit’ model of patient behavior. It is suggested that health professionals might consider facilitating a context in which patients feel fully included in the trial enterprise and potentially consider alternatives to randomization where complex interventions are being tested. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN6112646