Subherwal Sumeet, Patel Manesh R, Chiswell Karen, Tidemann-Miller Beth A, Jones W Schuyler, Conte Michael S, White Christopher J, Bhatt Deepak L, Laird John R, Hiatt William R, Tasneem Asba, Califf Robert M
From the Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University, Durham, NC (S.S., M.R.P., K.C., B.A.T.-M., W.S.J., A.T., R.M.C.); North Carolina State University, Raleigh (B.A.T.-M.); University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco (M.S.C.); Ochsner Heart & Vascular Institute, New Orleans, LA (C.J.W.); Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA (D.L.B.); University of California, Davis, Sacramento (J.R.L.); and University of Colorado School of Medicine and CPC Clinical Research, Aurora (W.R.H.).
Circulation. 2014 Nov 11;130(20):1812-9. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.011021. Epub 2014 Sep 19.
Tremendous advances have occurred in therapies for peripheral vascular disease (PVD); until recently, however, it has not been possible to examine the entire clinical trial portfolio of studies for the treatment of PVD (both arterial and venous disease).
We examined interventional trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from October 2007 through September 2010 (n=40,970) and identified 676 (1.7%) PVD trials (n=493 arterial only, n=170 venous only, n=13 both arterial and venous). Most arterial studies investigated lower-extremity peripheral artery disease and acute stroke (35% and 24%, respectively), whereas most venous studies examined deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolus prevention (42%) or venous ulceration (25%). A placebo-controlled trial design was used in 27% of the PVD trials, and 4% of the PVD trials excluded patients >65 years of age. Enrollment in at least 1 US site decreased from 51% of trials in 2007 to 41% in 2010. Compared with noncardiology disciplines, PVD trials were more likely to be double-blinded, to investigate the use of devices and procedures, and to have industry sponsorship and assumed funding source, and they were less likely to investigate drug and behavioral therapies. Geographic access to PVD clinical trials within the United States is limited to primarily large metropolitan areas.
PVD studies represent a small group of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, despite the high prevalence of vascular disease in the general population. This low number, compounded by the decreasing number of PVD trials in the United States, is concerning and may limit the ability to inform current clinical practice of patients with PVD.
外周血管疾病(PVD)的治疗取得了巨大进展;然而,直到最近,仍无法审查治疗PVD(包括动脉和静脉疾病)的整个临床试验组合。
我们审查了2007年10月至2010年9月在ClinicalTrials.gov注册的介入性试验(n = 40,970),并确定了676项(1.7%)PVD试验(n = 493项仅涉及动脉疾病,n = 170项仅涉及静脉疾病,n = 13项同时涉及动脉和静脉疾病)。大多数动脉研究调查的是下肢外周动脉疾病和急性中风(分别为35%和24%),而大多数静脉研究则是检查深静脉血栓形成/肺栓塞预防(42%)或静脉溃疡(25%)。27%的PVD试验采用了安慰剂对照试验设计,4%的PVD试验排除了年龄大于65岁的患者。在美国至少一个地点进行入组的试验比例从2007年的51%降至2010年的41%。与非心脏病学科相比,PVD试验更有可能采用双盲法、研究设备和手术的使用情况、获得行业赞助并假定有资金来源,而研究药物和行为疗法的可能性较小。在美国,PVD临床试验的地理可及性主要限于大城市地区。
尽管血管疾病在普通人群中患病率很高,但PVD研究在ClinicalTrials.gov注册的试验中占比很小。这一低数量,再加上美国PVD试验数量的减少,令人担忧,可能会限制为PVD患者的当前临床实践提供信息的能力。