This Article Free upon publication Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map 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 HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Loscalzo, J. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Loscalzo, J. Related Collections Cardio-renal physiology/pathophysiology Epidemiology

(Circulation. 2005;112:3026-3029.)
© 2005 American Heart Association, Inc.

Editorial

Clinical Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine in an Era of Marginal Benefit, Bias, and Hyperbole

Joseph Loscalzo, MD, PhD

From the Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Mass.

Correspondence to Joseph Loscalzo, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Division, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St, Boston, MA 02115.

Key Words: Editorials • trials

An extract of the first 250 words of the full text is provided, because this article has no abstract.

Clinical trials in the modern medical era began in the mid-20th century with the first randomized, double-blind assessment of an antibiotic, streptomycin, for the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis.¹ Over the course of the next 50 years, the randomized, controlled trial became the "gold standard" for testing the efficacy of new therapies and is generally required for their approval by regulatory agencies worldwide. To be sure, many effective cardiovascular therapies have been identified and approved for use following this generally accepted approach. In this editorial, I will review the many factors that can and do adversely affect the performance and interpretation of contemporary clinical trials in cardiovascular medicine, hoping to shed light on what I view as a series of growing and only partly remediable challenges to effective clinical investigation.

Clinical trials in cardiovascular medicine set the standard for randomized, controlled trial design owing to the population prevalence of the major cardiovascular diseases, the event rates in these patient populations, and the practicably achievable sample sizes sufficient to minimize type II errors. In the early studies of fibrinolytic therapy for myocardial infarction (ISIS [International Study of Infarct Survival] and TIMI [Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction]), for example, the expected 5-week mortality rate for conventionally treated patients was 12% to 13% at the time^2,3 in Europe and the United States. Thus, with several thousand patients in each treatment arm, one could expect to detect confidently true reductions in absolute mortality of 3% to 4%, as was the case in these landmark trials.

Over . . . [Full Text of this Article]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Prasad, B. J. Gersh, M. E. Bertrand, A. M. Lincoff, J. W. Moses, E. M. Ohman, H. D. White, S. J. Pocock, B. T. McLaurin, D. A. Cox, et al. Prognostic significance of periprocedural versus spontaneously occurring myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes: an analysis from the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., July 28, 2009; 54(5): 477 - 486. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				H. Skali, M. A. Pfeffer, J. Lubsen, and S. D. Solomon Variable Impact of Combining Fatal and Nonfatal End Points in Heart Failure Trials Circulation, November 21, 2006; 114(21): 2298 - 2303. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. P. Glasser and G. Howard Clinical trial design issues: at least 10 things you should look for in clinical trials. J. Clin. Pharmacol., October 1, 2006; 46(10): 1106 - 1115. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]