Skip to main content
Log in

Cardiovascular drug trials: how to examine interaction, and why so

  • special article
  • Published:
Netherlands Heart Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background: In practice the benefit of cardiovascular medicines is less consistent than it is in clinical trials. This is due to multiple uncontrolled factors that co-determine the efficacy of the new treatment. In statistical terms, they interact with the new treatment. Interaction effects are rarely assessed in cardiovascular trials.

Objective: To review (1) important factors that may interact with the treatment efficacy, (2) how to examine such factors, and (3) why so.

Results: Important factors include (a) possible risk factors such as specific patient characteristics, and concomitant medications, and (b) study-specific aspects such as heterogeneities of investigators, health centres, and individual patients including patient compliance. Such factors can be assessed by comparing subgroups. A common but incorrect approach is the comparison of the significances of difference between treatment modalities in either subgroup. Instead, a direct comparison of effect sizes relative to the standard errors is adequate. As an alternative, regression modelling is adequate and convenient. Results of interaction assessments are post-hoc and, therefore, of an exploratory and unconfirmed nature. So, why should they be performed? In cardiovascular research the effects of patient characteristics and drug-drug interactions on drug efficacies are numerous. It is valuable to account at least post-hoc for such mechanisms. Second, current cardiovascular trials involve heterogeneous health centres, investigators, and patient groups. Accounting for these heterogeneities can be helpful to better predict individual responses in future patients.

Conclusion: Cardiovascular trials enrolling patient groups at risk for heterogeneity should include at least a post-hoc assessment for interaction. Correct and incorrect methods for that purpose are described. Interaction assessments are helpful to better predict the efficacy/safety of new cardiovascular medicines in the future treatment of subgroups of patients. (Neth Heart J 2007;15:61-6.)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Riegelman RK. Studying a study and testing a test. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, 2005.

  • De Craen AJM, Westendorp RGJ. The use of age as a variable in clinical research. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 2005;149:2958-63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jukema AJ, Zwinderman AH, et al. for the REGRESS Study Group. Effects of lipid lowering by pravastatin on progression and regression of coronary artery disease in symptomatic men with normal to moderately elevated serum cholesterol levels. The Regression Growth Evaluation Statin Study (REGRESS). Circulation 1995;91:2528-40.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zwinderman AH. Regression analysis for more precision in the data analysis. In: Statistics applied to clinical trials, 3rd edition. Cleophas TJ, Zwinderman AH, Cleophas AF (eds). Springer Dordrecht Netherlands, 2006, pp 141-50.

  • Svetkey LP, Simons- Morton D, Vollmer WM, et al. Effects of dietary patterns on blood pressure: subgroup analysis of the Dietary Approaches to Stop-Hypertension (DASH) randomized clinical trial. Arch Int Med 1999;159:258-93.

  • Shlipak MG, Simon JA, Vittinghoff E, et al. Estrogen and progestin, lipoprotein (a), and the risk of recurrent coronary heart disease events after menopause. JAMA 2000;283:1845-52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrett-Connor E. Looking for the pony in the Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) data. Circulation 2002;105:902-3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chalmers I, Altman DG. Systematic reviews. Br Med J Books, Bristol UK, 1996.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to T. J. Cleophas.

Additional information

European Interuniversity College of Pharmaceutical Medicine, for the EC Socrates Project, Claude Bernard University, Lyon, France and Department of Internal Medicine, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, Dordrecht, the Netherlands

European Interuniversity College of Pharmaceutical Medicine, for the EC Socrates Project, Claude Bernard University, Lyon, France and Department of Biostatistics, Academic Medical Centre, Amsterdam, Netherlands

European Interuniversity College of Pharmaceutical Medicine, for the EC Socrates Project, Claude Bernard University, Lyon, France

Correspondence to: T.J Cleophas Department of Medicine, Albert Schweitzer Hospital, PO Box 444, 3300 AK Dordrecht, the Netherlands

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Cleophas, T.J., Zwinderman, A.H., van Ouwerkerk, B. et al. Cardiovascular drug trials: how to examine interaction, and why so. NHJL 15, 61–66 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03085956

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03085956

Navigation