This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Request Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gurfinkel, E. Articles by Mautner, B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gurfinkel, E. Articles by Mautner, B. Related Collections Secondary prevention Behavioral/psychosocial - stroke Pathophysiology Acute coronary syndromes Acute myocardial infarction

(Circulation. 2000;101:e95.)
© 2000 American Heart Association, Inc.

Circulation Electronic Pages

Chlamydia pneumoniae in Coronary Artery Disease

Enrique Gurfinkel, MD, PhD; Gerardo Bozovich, MD; Branco Mautner, MD

Coronary Care Unit, Favaloro Foundation, Buenos Aires, Argentina

	Introduction

 
To the Editor:

In a recent issue of Circulation, Anderson et al¹ reported the 6-month results of the ACADEMIC trial. In this interesting study, the authors intended to answer the question whether Chlamydia pneumoniae plays a critical role in coronary artery disease, in order to justify antibiotic therapy.

Beyond the final results of this work, the methodological approach used deserves comment. First, the investigators based the sample size and the clinical event rates estimates on prior data from a small study that used the same compound.² For this purpose, the authors did not include unstable or subacute cases, but stable coronary patients. Similarly, the British study selected postmyocardial infarction patients in the quiescent phase, thus making the present study statistically underpowered, as stated in the editorial comment by Dr Grayston.³

Second, the authors analyzed some particular and common markers of inflammation, because infection increases its plasmatic levels. These markers decreased at 6 months but interestingly not at 3 months. It is hard to explain why these markers were practically neutral at 90 days, when 39 patients experienced new clinical infections over the 3-month treatment period. Furthermore, the authors compared their study with our ROXIS trial, stating that we randomized patients with a poor characterization. At the present time, the only study conducted in uniformly unstable patients is ROXIS, in which we clearly defined the entry criteria to select a standard population with acute coronary events, as shown in the original article.⁴ In the final report of the study,⁵ we showed . . . [Full Text of this Article]