Could institutional clinical trials exist in Europe? EUTERP Pilot Study Group. European Trial of Estrogen/progestin Replacement treatment in Post-menopause

Article Commentary: Independent Clinical Trials: A Commentary

The so-called norms of good clinical practice have been incorporated into the Italian regulatory legislation governing clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, but there are no legislative provisions governing independent clinical trials: ie those not sponsored by the industry. The pharmaceutical industry has recently increased considerably its commitment to sponsored trials by establishing a series of economic relationships with individual researchers and hospital or university institutions. It has also set up and strengthened a series of bodies and service companies with the aim of making the clinical trials “machine” more efficient. Such developments have aroused alarm in the medical literature because of the risk that they may have negative effects on the freedom of research and research results. At the same time, there is also the risk that independent clinical trials will be greatly penalized by having to compete with sponsored trials in terms of patient enrollment, and because they are currently having to face a series of difficulties connected with the lack or scarcity of economic resources provided by the State or non-profit organizations, with problems relating to patient insurance and to the availability of the necessary drugs. However, the objective of independent trials is to improve the medical art by answering specific diagnostic and therapeutic questions, whereas that of industry-sponsored trials is to generate money, directly or indirectly, by means of the registration of new drugs. It is therefore now necessary to ensure better surveillance of the influence of pharmaceutical companies over the trials they sponsor (as a minimum by ensuring the transparency of a series of potential conflicts of interest between them and clinical researchers) and, simultaneously, protect independent trials from coming to an inglorious end by means of specific support initiatives such as those proposed in this article.

Low-dose aspirin and vitamin E in people at cardiovascular risk: a randomised trial in general practice. Collaborative Group of the Primary Prevention Project

BACKGROUND

In addition to the treatment of specific cardiovascular risk factors, intervention which interferes with the general mechanisms of atherosclerosis could further reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events. We aimed to investigate in general practice the efficacy of antiplatelets and antioxidants in primary prevention of cardiovascular events in people with one or more major cardiovascular risk factors.

METHODS

We did a randomised controlled open 2x2 factorial trial to investigate low-dose aspirin (100 mg/day) and vitamin E (300 mg/day) in the prevention of cardiovascular events, in people with one or more of the following: hypertension, hypercholesterolaemia, diabetes, obesity, family history of premature myocardial infarction, or individuals who were elderly.

FINDINGS

4495 people (2583 female, mean age 64.4 years) were included in the trial. After a mean follow-up of 3.6 years the trial was prematurely stopped on ethical grounds when newly available evidence from other trials on the benefit of aspirin in primary prevention was strictly consistent with the results of the second planned interim analysis. Aspirin lowered the frequency of all the endpoints, being significant for cardiovascular death (from 1.4 to 0.8%; relative risk 0.56 [95% CI 0.31-0.99]) and total cardiovascular events (from 8.2 to 6.3%; 0.77 [0.62-0.95]). Severe bleedings were more frequent in the aspirin group than the no-aspirin group (1.1% vs 0.3%; p<0.0008). Vitamin E showed no effect on any prespecified endpoint. Analyses were by intention-to-treat.

INTERPRETATION

In women and men at risk of having a cardiovascular event because of the presence of at least one major risk factor, low-dose aspirin given in addition to treatment of specific risk factors contributes an additional preventive effect, with an acceptable safety profile. The results on vitamin E's cardiovascular primary preventive efficacy are not conclusive per se, although our results are consistent with the negative results of other large published trials on secondary prevention.

Postmenopause hormone treatment in women with NIDDM or impaired glucose tolerance: the MEDIA randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the biological safety of four hormone replacement treatment (HRT) combinations in women with non insulin dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM) or impaired glucose tolerance (IGT).

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to analyze the variation of fibrinogen, factor VII, PAI1, and TG blood levels in women (n=99), with NIDDM or IGT, receiving a 3-month course of either oral oestradiol (1 or 2 mg) combined with Chlormadinone Acetate 5 mg, or transdermal oestradiol 50 microg/24 h in association with Norethisterone Acetate (11.2 or 22.4 mg), or placebo. Follow-up lasted 3 months.

RESULTS

Ninety nine patients, mean age 56 years (SD 5), mean diabetes duration 7 years (S.D. 7), mean glycated hemoglobin (7.3%) were enrolled. There was no significant difference between the groups for any of the primary hemostasis criteria (n=77). Triglycerides (TG) variation significantly differed between groups, P=0.01, from -21% in the large patch group, to +22% in the placebo group (n=82). Treatment administration routes did not significantly differ for any of the criteria. There was a significant difference in the total cholesterol variation between groups, from +8.7% in the placebo group to -10.8% in the oral 1 mg group (P=0.001).

CONCLUSION

The treatments had no highly deleterious effect in these patients with NIDDM or with IGT. Long-term trials can be performed with such patients, and an hormone treatment can be prescribed to relieve symptoms. Since these patients had a well-controlled NIDDM, results might be different in less well-controlled diabetes. The data do not support the hypothesis of an impaired oestrogen effect in patients with NIDDM.