Monday, 18 June 2018

Vinay Prasad: Why is 40% of clinical practice wrong?








On May 18, Vinay Prasad offered a conference in Barcelona as part of the 5th "Right Care" Conference of the Clinical Management Section of the Catalan Society of Health Management (SCGS), where we had the opportunity to invite him to explain why he had created (with Adam Cifu and other collaborators) the list of 146 clinical practices that would have to be reversed and what are the criteria they had been used.

What is medical reversal?

According to Prasad, a medical reversal is the need to stop a clinical activity because a well-done study, usually a clinical trial with finalist indicators, shows that in fact, the desired results are not achieved, or that the adverse effects do not compensate the benefits. The speaker gave some very diverse examples, such as the Swan Ganz catheterization to monitor the hemodynamic balance of patients in shock, the hormonal treatment for post-menopausal women in order to reduce coronary or cerebral vascular risk and the placement of coronary stents in patients with stable angina to reduce the risk of infarction, increase survival or even to delay the effort angina. In all three examples, consistent clinical trials have shown that these were clinical activities that, in practice, did not meet the set objectives, and in addition had side effects, which were not unimportant.

How it have been chosen the 146 practices to be reversed?

After reviewing 2,044 articles published in the New England Journal of Medicine in the "Original Articles" section for 10 years (2001-2010), researchers found that there were 363 that dealt with evaluations of established clinical practices, of which 146, 40.2% (hence the title of the conference), should be reversed because the published results contradict the evidence known to date. The list includes practices related to medicines, diagnostic and surgical procedures, implantation or use of devices, cancer screenings, etc., which shows that the reversals affect the entire spectrum of medicine.

How do you explain that the phenomenon is so widespread?

The deep causes of the phenomenon are three, said Prasad: a) The human psychology itself that is always ready to act. Not doing anything doesn’t appeal; b) People are optimistic by nature, we always hope that what we believe in will go well; and c) The entire health system, especially the US, is designed to encourage clinical activity and not the value it provides. It seems that by acting everyone wins.

Reversal is widespread because it’s very common to adopt innovations without consistent previous studies and, at this point, the speaker presented some favourable circumstances, such as when the novelty is accompanied by a convincing psychopathological argument, with the addition of some study based on anecdotal cases, or the appearance of epidemiological studies that are not well adjusted, or retrospective research that is not very rigorous.

To favour the launch of a new product, it’s very common to notice clinical trials that would not pass any validation filter, with inappropriate patient selections, insufficiently supported dosages, local limitations that prevent later demonstrating that these studies are replicable or that indicators of surrogate outcomes (such as the size of a tumour or the perception of pain, but not finalists) are used or even by misrepresentations and unclear publications.

Some of the conclusions of Vinay Prasad

Reversing is not without difficulties: on the one hand, it often takes more than ten years to achieve it, but on the other, there is a lack of confidence in the system. Prasad explained the case of the change of criteria of preventive mammograms from 40 to 50 years in the US and the bitter reaction of many groups that experienced it as a cut of serious consequences for their life expectancy.

The other aspect highlighted by the speaker is that many of the things that are done, also the most prevailing, often have negligible and modest results, especially in the medium and long term. In fact, seen in perspective, and taking into account the history of medicine, it’s not bad, but we should remember that nothing in clinical practice should be exempt from being evaluated.

Finally, Vinay Prasad said that the history of medicine is written by people who only think of the successes and that on the other hand, the failed procedures are not part of the ever thirsty for great discoveries scientific narrative. In this sense, he said, we should have the humility to analyze the results that don’t turn out as expected so we can learn from them. Prasad, with an optimistic final message, affirmed that the future of medicine will only be understood if we advance progressively in reaching higher standards of evidence and effectiveness.

Proposed solutions

According to Vinay Prasad we must advance in three points:
  1. Elaborate clinical trials before introducing any novelty, the technological ones included. We must bear in mind that the belief in a technique, if it also has an economic incentive, is a very addictive drug. 
  2. Priority should be given to the evaluation, with consistent studies, of common practices not tested, especially the most expensive and the most frequent ones. This strategy could save large amounts of money to healthcare systems. 
  3. Evaluative studies should be designed and conducted by neutral agencies. We must eliminate the current model in which regulatory agencies are forced to approve products based on studies that didn’t have sufficient control of neutrality. 
"To contradict my proposals, many tell me that clinical trials are too expensive and too slow," says Prasad, "and this is true under the current circumstances." For example, in the US clinical trials cost an average of $25,000 per participant, but, given its importance, we notice that there are possibilities of conducting clinical trials directly from practice, such as the case of TASTE that has randomized 60% of patients with coronary angioplasty at a cost of $50 per patient”.

Link to the Vinay Prasad conference: "Why is 40% of clinical practice wrong?"



Jordi Varela
Editor

Monday, 11 June 2018

Radiologists and incidental imaging findings








A group of radiologists from several American university hospitals (Massachusetts General, Cleveland, Brigham and Women's, etc.) started a debate in the Journal of the American College of Radiology about the eventuality that radiologists would stop reporting the incidental imaging findings lacking clinical significance. "The traditional role of the radiologist," they say, "is to warn of everything they see, leaving the interpretation of the findings’ relevance to the referring physician”. However, we now open the opportunity to go further, and not just intervene by saying, for example, that an observed abnormality is benign, but also taking the decision not to report the milder ones, given the possibility that our opinion generates confusion and ends up causing excessive medical actions".

Regarding level I renal cysts of the Bosnian classification

The radiologists who authored the article used the findings of renal cysts, which are very frequent with a prevalence of 36% in patients over 80 years of age, in order not to inform of renal cysts of level I of the Bosnian classification in their reports, in accordance with the following criteria: a) the cyst is not the reason for the examination, b) doesn’t generate local problems, c) has no malignant potential, and d) is not likely to generate a polycystic kidney disease.

Monday, 4 June 2018

Coronary Bypass and Hemodynamics: the amount matters








In the article "Comparing hospital performance within and across countries: an illustrative study of coronary artery bypass graft surgery in England and Spain", signed by a Spanish-English team in which Sandra García Armesto (IACS) and Enrique Bernal (REDISSEC) participated, it was concluded that the Spanish hospitals of the study operated in general with a smaller number of cases than the English (it was coronary bypass). Therefore, it is suggested that the number of cases intervened should be a tracer that could explain why mortality from this process is twice as high in Spain as in England.

European Collaboration for Healthcare Optimization (ECHO) is a European network of administrative databases for the analysis of clinical practice variations. In the following article: "Hospital Surgical Volumes and Mortality after Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Using International Comparisons to Determine Safe Threshold", carried out by almost the same authors as the previous one, based on data from the ECHO project, confirms that for interventions of coronary bypass there is a clear relationship between volume and mortality and concludes that the minimum limit of interventions of a cardiac surgery team, if you want to safeguard the safety of patients, should be 415 per year. In the following graph (from the previous article) it is observed how the Spanish hospitals that participated in the study (dark spots), generally underwent fewer coronary bypasses (many did not reach 200) and showed greater mortalities.

Wednesday, 30 May 2018

In the rescue of health leaders and health guides

Salvador Casado





In the area of public health, where I have been working for a long time, we have suffered a profound crisis of leadership. Although all positions of responsibility are well filled and more and more management positions are being designed, paradoxically it is rare to find managers or professionals who lead teams towards specific objectives or missions that open new paths.

The usual path is the protocol, not to get out of the established, to avoid changes and innovation and not to leave the office or the consultation to skip hazards.

This attitude in management staff is being imitated by ordinary professionals who follow their instructions. The overload of care and institutional neglect cause family doctors to barely leave their offices to implement some community activities, nurses and social workers the same and in hospitals everything is considered within the service interacting as little as possible with primary care services or other agents.

Monday, 28 May 2018

Overdiagnosis in depression: there are doors better left closed

Andrés Fontalba




A young Cecilia, aged 13, in Sofia Coppola's brilliant film based on the homonymous novel, "The suicide virgins" advised:

-Obviously doctor, you were never a 13-year-old girl.

It’s obvious that depression in children and adolescents is an important cause of disability and generates great suffering for the person and his or her environment, requiring specific management adapted to the needs of that peculiar age. Based on the severity of this pathology, the availability of effective screening tools in the detection of depression, and a treatment that improves prognosis, the United States Preventive Task Force in 2009 recommended the screening for depression in all adolescents in a medical and integrated with mental health services setting, despite not having any previous trials that would justify this intervention.

Monday, 21 May 2018

The English surgeon, talking about Henry Marsh








Not too long ago, after having read his book "Surgery, the ultimate placebo", I wrote about Ian Harris, an Australian traumatologist. I remember that Harris defends the rigor in the surgical indications after having observed that more than half of the surgery that is practiced does not have enough support of consistent scientific evidence. Now I have finished the book "Do no harm", by Henry Marsh, an English neurosurgeon at the lintel of retirement, and I am inevitably immersed in the comparison between the two texts: first, Harris's, is written by someone who loves surgery and believes that too often is practiced with little rigor, while the second, Marsh’s, is a biography of great literary level, elaborated from the notes that the surgeon has been taking throughout his career, not in vain has he received several recognitions. Marsh, like Harris, is passionate about his work, but his literary contribution comes not from scientific exaltation but from the knowledge he has accumulated from his own mistakes. The veteran English neurosurgeon has not published any revealing research nor has he led any innovative discovery. His honesty and his hands are his strength.

Monday, 14 May 2018

Self-management: Buurtzorg Identity








Frederic Laloux in "Reinventing organizations" describes the teal-evolutionary companies as those based on the personal growth of their employees and chooses Buurtzorg Netherland as an organization to which we should be paying attention to if we are among those who believe that the time to do things differently has arrived.

What is Buurtzorg Netherland?

Buurtzorg Netherland is a non-profit company, which was founded in 2007 in the Netherlands, when a group of community nurses rethought their work and came to believe that, instead of only going to homes and exercising the functions of their profession, they should advance to becoming the patients’ referee and take charge of attending to their global needs.