Current Hypertension Reports

, Volume 3, Issue 4, pp 360–366 | Cite as

Lessons learned from prematurely terminated clinical trials

  • Domenic Sica
Article

Abstract

Controlled clinical trials in cardiovascular disease are the cornerstone for therapeutic advances in this field of medicine. Since the introduction of the concept of controlled clinical trials, there has been substantial progress in the design, conduct, and analysis of such studies. A growing awareness of ethical issues emerging from such trials has led to increased public and investigator scrutiny, and the routine requirement for interim data analysis. A benefit of such interim analysis is that either an entire clinical trial or a specific treatment limb can be stopped if the observed findings warrant premature termination. For example, highly positive findings, as were noted in the Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) study, led to its closure about 1 year early after 4.5 years of treatment. Alternatively, the doxazosin treatment limb of the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT) and the amlodipine treatment limb of the African-American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension (AASK) were stopped early because of negative findings. Finally, economic considerations can enter into the decision to close a study early as was the case in the Controlled ONset Verapamil INvestigation of Cardiovascular Endpoints (CONVINCE) trial. Most such decisions rely heavily on information obtained from independent data and safety monitoring boards. Such boards ensure patient safety by providing an unbiased ongoing review of data, which would otherwise be unavailable until a study’s completion. Early termination of a clinical trial can have important clinical implications and, in particular, can redirect patterns of clinical practice.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References and Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Muth K, Yu E, Alston B, Ellenberg JH: The closeout process for a clinical trial terminated early for lagging enrollment and inadequate follow-up. Control Clin Trials 2001, 22:49–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dixon DO, Lagakos SW: Should data and safety monitoring boards share confidential interim data? Control Clin Trials 2000, 21:1–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Yusuf S, Sleight P, Pogue J, et al.: Effects of an angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 2000, 342:145–153. Important presentation of data concerning the cardioprotective effects of the ACE inhibitor ramipril in patients without CHF or established renal failure.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Study Group: The beta-blocker heart attack trial. JAMA 1981, 246:2073–2074.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DeMets DL, Hardy R, Friedman LM, Lan KK: Statistical aspects of early termination in the beta-blocker heart attack trial. Control Clin Trials 1984, 5:362–372.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pressel SL, Davis BR, Wright JT, et al.: Operational aspects of terminating the doxazosin arm of the antihypertensive and lipid lowering treatment to prevent heart attack trial (ALLHAT). Control Clin Trials 2001, 22:29–41. Detailed description of the rather tedious yet very important aspects of closure of a study limb in a major clinical trial.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Estacio RO, Jeffers BW, Hiatt WR, et al.: The effect of nisoldipine as compared with enalapril in patients with non-insulin dependent diabetes and hypertension. N Engl J Med 1998, 338:645–652. These data heralded the attack on dihydropyridine CCBs as to the limited nature of their cardiovascular protection. Subsequent observations would suggest that the vigor of the original attack was unjustified by these data.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tatti P, Pahor M, Byington RP, et al.: Outcome results of the Fosinopril versus Amlodipine Cardiovascular Events randomised Trial (FACET) in patients with hypertension and NIDDM. Diabetes Care 1998, 21:597–600.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schrier RW, Estacio RO: Additional follow-up from the ABCD trial in patients with Type 2 diabetes and hypertension. N Engl J Med 2000, 343:1969.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hansson L, Hedner T, Lund-Johansen P, et al.: Randomised trial of effects of calcium antagonists compared with diuretics and beta-blockers on cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in hypertension: the Nordic Diltiazem (NORDIL) study. Lancet 2000, 356:359–365.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brown MJ, Palmer CR, Castaigne A, et al.: Morbidity and mortality in patients randomised to double-blind treatment with a long-acting calcium-channel blocker or diuretic in the International Nifedipine GITS study: Intervention as a Goal in Hypertension Treatment (INSIGHT). Lancet 2000, 356:366–372. Provides evidence in support of dihydropyridine CCBs decreasing cardiovascular event rates.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Neal B, MacMahon S, Chapman N: Blood Pressure Lowering Treatment Trialists’ Collaboration. Effects of ACE inhibitors, calcium antagonists, and other blood-pressure-lowering drugs: results of prospectively designed overviews of randomised trials. Lancet 2000, 356:1955–1964. Important overview of clinical trials showing the level of difference between ACE inhibitors and CCBs in altering end-event rates.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Black HR, Elliott WJ, Neaton JD, et al.: Rationale and design for the Controlled ONset Verapamil INvestigation of Cardiovascular Endpoints (CONVINCE) Trial. Control Clin Trials 1998, 19:370–390.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Black HR, Elliott WJ, Neaton JD, et al.: Baseline Characteristics and Early Blood Pressure Control in the CONVINCE Trial. Hypertension 2001, 37:12–18.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    The ALLHAT Officers and Coordinators for the ALLHAT Collaborative Research Group: Major cardiovascular events in hypertensive patients randomized to doxazosin vs chlorthalidone: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA 2000, 283:1967–1975. This article addresses the early termination of the doxazosin treatment limb of the ALLHAT study and highlights the issue of blood pressure control not necessarily predicting outcome. This is particularly relevant because of the long-standing use of doxazosin in the treatment of hypertension.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kjeldsen SF, Dahlof B, Devereux R, et al., for the LIFE study group: One year ofantihypertensive treatment in patients with LVH: the LIFE Study [abstract]. Am J Hypertens 1999, 12:142A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Sica DA: Impact of antihypertensive therapy on the ratepressure product: the role of chronotherapeutics. Eur Heart J 1999, 1(suppl B):B24-B33.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Davis BR, Cutler JA, Gordon DJ, et al.: Rationale and design for the Antihypertensive and Lipid Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). ALLHAT Research Group. Am J Hypertens 1996, 9:342–360.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    SHEP Cooperative Research Group: Prevention of stroke by antihypertensive drug treatment in older persons with isolated systolic hypertension: final results of the Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program (SHEP). JAMA 1991, 265:3255–3264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kostis JB, Davis BR, Cutler J, et al.: Prevention of heart failure by antihypertensive drug treatment in older patients with isolated systolic hypertension. JAMA 1997, 278:212–216.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sica DA, Pool JI: Alpha-adrenergic blocking drugs: evolving role in clinical medicine. J Clin Hypertens 2000, 2:138–142.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Young RA, Brogden RN: Doxazosin. A review of its pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic properties, and therapeutic efficacy in mild to moderate hypertension. Drugs 1988, 35:525–541.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Grimm RH Jr, Flack JM, Schoenberger JA, et al.: Alpha-blockade and thiazide treatment of hypertension. A double-blind randomized trial comparing doxazosin and hydrochlorothiazide. Am J Hypertens 1996, 9:445–454.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Andersen P, Seljeflot I, Herzog A, et al.: Effects of doxazosin and atenolol on atherothrombogenic risk profile in hypertensive middle-aged men. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1998, 31:677–683.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Daae LN, Westlie L: A 5-year comparison of doxazosin and atenolol in patients with mild-to-moderate hypertension: effects on blood pressure, serum lipids, and coronary heart disease risk. Blood Press 1998, 7:39–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Grimm RH Jr, Flack JM, Grandits JA, et al.: Long-term effects on plasma lipids of diet and drugs to treat hypertension. Treatment of Mild Hypertension Study (TOMHS) Research Group. JAMA 1996, 275:1549–1556.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zehetgruber M, Christ G, Gabriel H, et al.: Effect of antihypertensive treatment with doxazosin on insulin sensitivity and fibrinolytic parameters. Thromb Haemost 1998, 79:378–382.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gomi T, Ikeda T, Ikegami F: Beneficial effect of a-blocker on hemorheology in patients with essential hypertension. Am J Hypertens 1997, 10:886–892.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Raij L, Hayakawa H, Coffee K, et al.: Effect of doxazosin on endothelial dysfunction in ypercholesterolemic/antioxidant deficient rats. Am J Hypertens 1997, 10:1257–1262.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Seljeflot I, Arnersen H, Andersen P, et al.: Effects of doxazosin on circulating endothelin-1 and von Willebrand factor in hypertensive middle-aged men. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1999, 34:584–588.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Hu ZW, Shi XY, Hoffman BB: Doxazosin inhibits proliferation and migration of human vascular smooth muscle cells independent of a1-adrenergic receptor antagonism. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1998, 31:833–839.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Rosen SD, Lorenzoni R, Kaski JC, et al.: Effect of alpha1-adrenoceptor blockade on coronary vasodilatory reserve in cardiac syndrome X. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 1999, 34:554–560.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    The Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure. Ann Intern Med 1997, 157:2413–2446.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Guidelines Subcommittee: 1999 World Health Organization-International Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension. J Hypertens 1999, 17:151–183.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ramsay LE, Williams B, Johnston GD, et al.: British Hypertension Society guidelines for hypertension management 1999: summary. BMJ 1999, 319:630–635.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Feldman RD: The 1999 Canadian recommendations for the management of hypertension. Can J Cardiol 1999, 15(G):57G-64G.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Plouin P-F, Bobrie G, Amouyel P, et al.: Diagnostic et traitment de l’hypertension arterielle essentielle de l’adulte de 20 a 80 ans. ANAES/Service des References Medicales 1997; September: 241–277.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Temple R: Are surrogate markers adequate to assess cardiovascular drugs? JAMA 1999, 282:790–795. Beginning of what promises to be a longstanding debate as to the most appropriate surrogate marker for assessment of a cardiovascular medications’ true benefit.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Haffner SM, Lehto S, Ronnema T, et al.: Mortality from coronary heart disease in subjects with type 2 diabetes and in non diabetic subjects with and without prior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1998, 339:229–234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Yusuf S, Dagenais G, Pogue J, et al.: Vitamin E supplementation and cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 2000, 342:154–160.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Current Science Inc 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Domenic Sica
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of NephrologyMedical College of Virginia of Virginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations