Objective: Little guidance exists on the conduct of randomised clinical trials (RCT) that seek to randomise patients away from standard of care. We sought to test the technique of network meta-analysis (NMA) to ascertain best available evidence for the purposes of informing the ethical evaluation of RCTs under these circumstances. We used the example of RCTs for patients with symptomatic, moderate to severe carotid stenosis that seek to compare surgical intervention plus medical therapy (standard of care) versus medical therapy (less than standard of care).
Study design and setting: Network meta-analysis of RCTs of adults with symptomatic carotid artery stenosis of 50%-99% who were treated with carotid endarterectomy (CEA), carotid artery stenting (CAS), or medical therapy (MT). The primary outcome was any stroke or death until end of follow-up, and secondary outcome was 30-day risk of ipsilateral stroke/death.
Results: We analysed eight studies, with 7187 subjects with symptomatic moderate/severe stenosis (50%-99%). CEA was more efficacious than MT (HR = 0.82, 95% credible intervals [95% CrI] = 0.73-0.92) and CAS (HR 0.73, 95% CrI = 0.62-0.85) for the prevention of any stroke/death. At 30 days, the odds of experiencing an ipsilateral stroke/death were significantly lower in the CEA group compared to both MT (OR = 0.58, 95% CrI = 0.47-0.72) and CAS (OR = 0.68, 95% CrI = 0.55-0.83).
Conclusion: Our results support the feasibility of using NMA to assess best available evidence to inform the ethical evaluation of RCTs seeking to randomise patients away from standard of care. Our results suggest that a strong argument is required to ethically justify the conduct of RCTs that seek to randomise patients away from standard of care in the setting of symptomatic moderate to severe carotid stenosis.
Keywords: randomisation; standard of care; stroke; trial.
© 2023 The Authors. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.