Premium
When referring physicians and researchers disagree on equipoise: the TOTAL trial experience
Author(s) -
Rodrigues H. C. M. L.,
Deprest J.,
Berg P. P. v. d.
Publication year - 2011
Publication title -
prenatal diagnosis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.956
H-Index - 97
eISSN - 1097-0223
pISSN - 0197-3851
DOI - 10.1002/pd.2756
Subject(s) - clinical equipoise , congenital diaphragmatic hernia , randomized controlled trial , medicine , intensive care medicine , scope (computer science) , pregnancy , surgery , fetus , computer science , biology , programming language , genetics
Objective In this article, we reflect on whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are adequate for the clinical evaluation of maternal–fetal surgery for congenital diaphragmatic hernia (CDH), focusing on the role of patients' preferences in the setting up of research protocols, on the requirement of equipoise and on the concept of therapeutic misconception (TM). Method We describe the conception and setting up of the tracheal occlusion (TO) to accelerate lung growth trial and analyze the ethical dilemmas faced by the research team during that time. Results Depending on the view adopted regarding the scope of equipoise, there are two ways of dealing with patient's preferences concerning fetoscopic endoluminal TO and expectant management during pregnancy for CDH. Conclusion The solution adopted for fetoscopic endoluminal tracheal occlusion (FETO) is justified by the extended period of time it has been available to patients before the start of the RCT. Strong patient and referring physician preferences do not entail a right to have FETO, since it is a procedure of yet unproven efficacy and safety. In the future, to avoid the dilemmas posed by the TM and in name of the right of future generations of patients to have access to treatment of proven safety and efficacy, researchers must be able to plan RCT in due time. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.