The risk and cost-effective individual patient management: The challenge of a new generation of clinical trials

The percentage reduction of risk demonstrated in several recent trials is quite remarkable. For example 1 out of 5, and even as many as 1 out of 3, fatal cardiovascular events can be prevented by some treatments. Further efforts aimed at producing a substantially greater percentage reduction of risk than demonstrated so far with thrombolytic agents in acute MI, aspirin in patients discharged from the hospital with a diagnosis of unstable angina, or statins in the secondary and primary prevention of ischemic heart disease would be quite difficult to achieve and would require greater patient compliance and more powerful drugs, possibly with greater side effects and costs. The growing size of trials with very broad inclusion criteria may seem logical to ''trialists,'' who reason that the broader the inclusion criteria, the easier it is to recruit very large numbers of patients in a short space of time and the more widely applicable the results of the study. The pharmaceutical industry also prefers broad inclusion criteria, which imply wider indications for use of their products. However, very large trials with broad inclusion criteria raise two grounds for concern for practicing physicians and for the economics of health care. The first is the fact that the larger the number of patients that have to be included in a trial in order to prove a statistically significant benefit, the greater the uncertainty about the reasons why the beneficial effects of the treatment cannot be detected in a smaller trial. Secondly, this method of assessment is rapidly increasing the number of treatments that produce a statistically significant improvement in prognosis within the same broad group of patients. A large percentage reduction in mortality that reaches statistical significance only in very large trials suggests either a relatively low rate of preventable deaths in all individuals in the group or considerable heterogeneity in the patients enrolled, only a few of whom benefit from the treatment. This alternative is of considerable practical importance, first because a large heterogeneity of patients implies a ''dilution effect'' of those susceptible to the benefits of treatment by those who are not susceptible and are treated unnecessarily; and second, because uniformly low rates of potentially preventable death raise such issues as prolongation of life expectancy, surrogate endpoints, and the effects of treatment on the quality of life. Only a new generation of clinical trials that include only homogenous groups of potential responders can produce both results more readily applicable to personalized patient care in clinical practice (which is a desirable target for the practicing physician) and a large reduction in the number of events per patient treated (which is a desirable target for the economies of health care).