Reed Shelby D, McMurray John J V, Velazquez Eric J, Schulman Kevin A, Califf Robert M, Kober Lars, Maggioni Aldo P, Van de Werf Frans, White Harvey D, Diaz Rafael, Mareev Viatcheslav, Murin Jan
Center for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA.
Am Heart J. 2006 Sep;152(3):500-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2006.02.032.
The VALIANT trial compared the efficacy and safety of captopril, valsartan, and their combination in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction, heart failure, or both after acute myocardial infarction (MI). By examining this international trial population of high-risk patients, we sought to determine geographic variations in the use of 3 key treatments for MI.
We analyzed data from 14,512 high-risk patients with MI in the VALIANT trial from the 20 countries that had enrolled >100 patients. International variation in the proportion of patients receiving (1) reperfusion therapy (thrombolysis or primary percutaneous coronary intervention), (2) beta-blockers, or (3) aspirin at the time of MI was measured by using adjusted W scores. These scores correspond to the number of additional or fewer patients who received each of the therapies compared with the number expected, as estimated from multivariable regression models that account for patients' baseline characteristics.
There was marked variation between countries in the use of reperfusion therapy (equivalent to a difference of up to 36/100 potentially eligible patients) and beta-blockers (41/100), whereas there was much less variation in the use of aspirin (13/100).
Marked geographic variation persists in the use of standard evidence-based therapy advocated by international guidelines. Our findings have implications not only for care of patients but also for the conduct of international trials.
VALIANT试验比较了卡托普利、缬沙坦及其联合用药在急性心肌梗死(MI)后左心室收缩功能障碍、心力衰竭或两者兼有的患者中的疗效和安全性。通过研究这一国际高危患者群体,我们试图确定MI三种关键治疗方法使用上的地域差异。
我们分析了VALIANT试验中来自20个已招募超过100名患者的国家的14512例高危MI患者的数据。使用调整后的W分数来衡量在MI时接受(1)再灌注治疗(溶栓或直接经皮冠状动脉介入治疗)、(2)β受体阻滞剂或(3)阿司匹林的患者比例的国际差异。这些分数对应于与预期数量相比,接受每种治疗的额外或更少患者的数量,这是根据考虑患者基线特征的多变量回归模型估计得出的。
各国在再灌注治疗(相当于每100名潜在符合条件的患者中相差多达36例)和β受体阻滞剂(41/100)的使用上存在显著差异,而阿司匹林的使用差异则小得多(13/100)。
国际指南所倡导的标准循证治疗的使用仍存在显著的地域差异。我们的研究结果不仅对患者护理有影响,对国际试验的开展也有影响。