Improved survival in critically ill patients: are large RCTs more useful than personalized medicine? No
- 1.9k Downloads
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are considered the best evidence on which to base change in practice. We all agree that only RCTs can account for unmeasurable factors that may influence the response to a therapeutic intervention. Yet, so many large RCTs have been negative in critically ill patients. Whatever we test does not seem to make a difference to outcomes: the pulmonary artery catheter [1, 2], intracranial pressure monitoring , optimal blood pressure levels in septic shock , central venous oxygen saturation monitoring , blood transfusions, and so the list goes on. We were so proud to have finally developed a drug for sepsis, drotrecogin alfa (activated) , but this was such an unexpected and surprising event that another study was performed, which negated the results  and the drug was taken off the market. Admittedly, some RCTs have identified interventions that caused harm, and this is of course very important: the best example is the large study of tidal volume in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) . But, are there any studies that have shown improved outcomes in critically ill patients? In fact, the very few that showed a survival benefit concerned interventions that prevented harm rather than providing benefit: for example, the use of muscle relaxants  and prone positioning  probably provide benefit in ARDS by limiting barotrauma.
There are several reasons why RCTs are more likely to show harm than benefit, the most important being that our patient populations are very heterogeneous. A good example to illustrate this phenomenon is that of a hypothetical RCT comparing empiric penicillin with placebo in patients with sepsis . Penicillin would be expected to be beneficial in only a very small subset of the patients who have sepsis due to a minority of Gram-positive organisms, and it is more than likely that this effect would be missed in a very large RCT. On the other hand, in the same population, penicillin administration will cause allergic reactions in some patients and these will be easily identified. According to the results of such an RCT, we would abandon penicillin on the basis of no identified clinical benefit and an obvious harmful effect in some patients. And we would be proud that our RCT had identified this toxicity. Fortunately, we are well aware of the importance of antibiotic susceptibility, and such an RCT, in an unselected patient population, would never be performed. This demonstrates the importance of personalized medicine: we need to identify which patients can potentially benefit from the intervention being tested, rather than testing blindly in all.
The multiple negative studies on sepsis drugs provide another example of the need for a more individualized approach. In the past, such studies considered sepsis as being just a pro-inflammatory state, but there is mounting evidence that immunosuppression can also occur, even relatively early . Trials of anti-inflammatory/immunosuppressive agents will likely give negative results if they are tested in patients who are already immunosuppressed, and immunostimulating drugs may well be harmful in patients who have a pro-inflammatory state. We need to characterize the patients’ immune status prior to study inclusion to select the most appropriate group of patients for each type of intervention .
Similarly, the use of corticosteroids in septic shock is still a hotly debated issue, but the ADjunctive coRticosteroid trEatment iN criticAlly ilL Patients with Septic Shock (ADRENAL) study that will include 3800 “critically ill” patients is unlikely to provide the definitive answer without some specific selection of patients based on biomarkers. In children with septic shock, Wong et al.  showed that specific patterns of gene expression could identify which patients were most likely to benefit from hydrocortisone administration.
Some of the problems that can be encountered when performing randomized controlled trials in critically ill patients
The only common feature of all critically ill patients is that they are “critically ill” and therefore need to be hospitalized in an ICU. This population of patients is highly heterogeneous, with various types and degrees of organ dysfunction, and it is very unlikely that they will respond similarly to different types of intervention. Rather than considering these patients as identical (as is commonly the case in RCTs), we should try to identify particular features of subgroups of individuals most likely to benefit from specific interventions, e.g., drugs influencing the coagulation system must target patients with coagulopathy, and the administration of gamma-globulins should be guided by blood immunoglobulin levels, etc.
Clinical trials should be based on sound pathophysiologic elements and enroll patients on the basis of specific individual characteristics or biomarkers that identify them as being most likely to respond to the intervention in question. This is the only way to make real progress in this field.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
The author has no conflicts of interest to declare regarding this manuscript.
- 1.Harvey S, Harrison DA, Singer M, Ashcroft J, Jones CM, Elbourne D, Brampton W, Williams D, Young D et al (2005) Assessment of the clinical effectiveness of pulmonary artery catheters in management of patients in intensive care (PAC-Man): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 366:472–477CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 16.Hebert PC, Wells G, Blajchman MA, Marshall J, Martin C, Pagliarello G, Tweeddale M, Schweitzer I, Yetisir E (1999) A multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial of transfusion requirements in critical care. Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care Investigators, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. N Engl J Med 340:409–417CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar