Print

Print


David, I would, however, point out that stem cell transplant for breast cancer had been massively introduced in practice based on RRR=72% (using standardized data set matched according to the most important prognostic features) only to be shown not to work when proper RCTs were done at later time. While ago I surveyed this group re question “ When non-RCTs are not needed?”

See: http://personal.health.usf.edu/bdjulbeg/oncology/NON-RCT-practice-change.htm. Paul Glasziou had also a nice piece in BMJ (see the link)  Perhaps, we should re-do the survey?

Best

ben

 

 

From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Braunholtz
Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 7:54 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Critical Appraisal of RCTs Using "RAAMbo" acronym

 

On the substantive issue of how to treat such patients, I would maintain that in such high mortality acute conditions, given the promising results of the trial (& maybe previous cases), randomising further patients to 'control' treatment in an RCT would be unethical.  If you were such a patient (or their parent / partner) would you prefer the novel treatment or control, or be ambivalent ?  I wouldn't.  If the novel treatment really does reduce mortality by anything like 60% then this will be evident in a simple case series after a few dozen patients.  If the hoped for improvement in mortality is not so obvious after a few dozen patients, then perhaps a further RCT could be contemplated.  Somewhat similar thing happened with respect to patients with NVCJD aka mad cow disease - where it seems unfortunately the novel treatment (Quinacrine) eventually turned out not to be effective:

 

http://www.prion.ucl.ac.uk/clinic-services/research/drug-treatments/

 

David Braunholtz

 


From: Ruwan Parakramawansha <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Tuesday, 27 March 2012, 22:52
Subject: Critical Appraisal of RCTs Using "RAAMbo" acronym

 

Dear All,

 

I am a participant in the ongoing three day EBM workshop at Oxford. I would be grateful if I can have your opinion/evidence on a specific issue related to critical appraisal of RCTs.

 

Few years ago I came across the following RCT for the treatment of paraquat poisoning which is a killer and yet a condition where conducting a large RCT will be very difficult.

 

Copied as fair use.

 

 

Repeated pulse of methylprednisolone and cyclophosphamide with

continuous dexamethasone therapy for patients with severe

paraquat poisoning

Ja-Liang Lin, MD; Dan-Tzu Lin-Tan, RN; Kuan-Hsing Chen, MD; Wen-Hung Huang, MD

 

Objective: Paraquat is widely used in the world, and all treatments

for paraquat poisoning have been unsuccessful. Many

patients have died of paraquat poisoning in developing countries.

A novel anti-inflammation method was developed to treat severe

paraquat-poisoned patients with >50% to <90% predictive mortality:

initial pulse therapy with methylprednisolone (1 g/day for 3

days) and cyclophosphamide (15 mg/kg/day for 2 days), followed

by dexamethasone 20 mg/day until PaO2 was >11.5 kPa (80 mm

Hg) and repeated pulse therapy with methylprednisolone (1 g/day

for 3 days) and cyclophosphamide (15 mg/kg/day for 1 day),

which was repeated if PaO2 was <8.64 kPa (60 mm Hg).

 

Design: Randomized controlled trial.

Setting: Academic medical center in Taiwan.

Patients: Twenty-three paraquat-poisoned patients with

>50% and <90% predictive mortality assessed by plasma paraquat

levels were prospectively and randomly assigned to the

control and study groups at a proportion of 1:2.

Interventions: The control group received conventional therapy

and the study group received the novel repeated pulse treatment

with long-term steroid therapy.

Measurements and Main Results: We measured patient mortality

during the study period. There was not a different distribution

of basal variables between the two study groups. The mortality

rate (85.7%, six of seven) of the control group was higher

than that of the study group (31.3%, five of 16; p .0272).

Conclusions: The novel anti-inflammatory therapy reduces the

mortality rate for patients with severe paraquat poisoning. (Crit

Care Med 2006; 34:368–373)

 

At that time, given the constraints I felt that this is an acceptable study and started treating paraquat poisoning patients with the immunosuppressive treatment used in the RCT.

 

Few months later a letter written to the editor highlighted that the study is not adequately powered to detect such a difference in the out come.(Gunawardena G et al.  Randomized control trial of immunosuppression in paraquat poisoning. Crit Care Med. 2007;35(1):330-1.)

 

I also noted there is some overlap between the CONSORT checklist for researchers doing RCTs(attached) and RAAMbo check list.However sample size is mentioned in CONSORT list only.

 

I am wondering why such an important component of an RCT that can invalidate a trial results even when rest of "RAAMbo"validity criteria are fulfilled is not taken into consideration during the critical appraisal process of a RCT.

 

Greatly value your input as it will enrich my learning experience at the EBM course.

 

Ruwan Parakramawansha

Trainee in Clinical Pharmacology, Therapeutics and Toxicology

University Hospital Llandough