I know you feel certain of this, but in that this trial may have a major influence on how all sorts of future trials will be run, can you be certain a Journal might not want to do something out of the ordinary and discuss it. If I were a top tier Journal I'd want to cover everything, not just the trial findings alone. Of course I'm probably wrong, perhaps the right way to do it is a totally separate article on the way this trial may have changed the way future trials are done.
My belief is that nothing in this trial has been done in an orthodox manner, why should the Journal be done that way.
Gary