From the National Institute of Health Research Cardiovascular Biomedical Research Unit, Department of Cardiology, Royal Brompton Hospital, London, United Kingdom (H.C.P., C.H., A.R.L., C.d.M.); Faculty of Medicine, National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College, London, United Kingdom (H.C.P., C.H., S.D.R., A.R.L., D.P.F., C.d.M.); Department of Outcomes Research, St. George's Vascular Institute, St George's University, London, United Kingdom (B.A.O.); Department of Cardiology, Ealing Hospital NHS Trust, Southall, London, United Kingdom (S.D.R.); and Monash Centre of Cardiovascular Research and Education in Therapeutics, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia (H.K.).
Hypertension. 2015 Feb;65(2):401-6. doi: 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.114.04640. Epub 2014 Nov 17.
Early phase studies of novel interventions for hypertension, such as renal sympathetic denervation, are sometimes single-armed (uncontrolled). We explored the wisdom of this by quantifying the blood pressure fall in the placebo arms of contemporary trials of hypertension. We searched Medline up to June 2014 and identified blinded, randomized trials of hypertension therapy in which the control arm received placebo medication or a sham (placebo) procedure. For nonresistant hypertension, we have identified all such trials of drugs licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration since 2000 (5 drugs). This US Food and Drug Administration-related restriction was not applied to resistant hypertension trials. This produced 7451 patients, who were allocated to a blinded control from 52 trials of nonresistant hypertension and 694 patients from 8 trials of resistant hypertension (3 drugs and 2 interventions). Systolic blood pressure fell by 5.92 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 5.14-6.71; P<0.0001) in the nonresistant cohort and by 8.76 mm Hg (95% confidence interval, 4.83-12.70; P<0.0001) in the resistant cohort. Using metaregression, the falls were larger in trials that did not use ambulatory blood pressure monitoring as an inclusion criterion (z=2.84; P=0.0045), in those with higher baseline blood pressures (z=-0.3; P=0.0001), and in those where the patients were prescribed a continuous background of antihypertensives (z=-2.72; P=0.0065). The nontrivial magnitude of these apparent blood pressure reductions with perfectly ineffective intervention (placebo) illustrates that efficacy explorations of novel therapies for hypertension, once safety is established, should be performed with a randomized, appropriately controlled, and blinded design.
对于新型高血压干预措施(如肾交感神经切除术)的早期研究,有时采用单臂(非对照)设计。我们通过量化当代高血压试验中安慰剂组的血压下降情况来探讨这种设计的合理性。我们检索了截至 2014 年 6 月的 Medline,并确定了接受安慰剂药物或假(安慰剂)治疗的高血压治疗的盲法、随机试验。对于非耐药性高血压,我们确定了自 2000 年以来获得美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)批准的所有此类药物试验(5 种药物)。这种与美国食品和药物管理局相关的限制不适用于耐药性高血压试验。这产生了 7451 名患者,他们被分配到 52 项非耐药性高血压试验的盲法对照组和 8 项耐药性高血压试验的 694 名患者(3 种药物和 2 种干预措施)。非耐药性队列的收缩压下降了 5.92mmHg(95%置信区间,5.14-6.71;P<0.0001),耐药性队列下降了 8.76mmHg(95%置信区间,4.83-12.70;P<0.0001)。使用荟萃回归,未将动态血压监测作为纳入标准的试验(z=2.84;P=0.0045)、基线血压较高的试验(z=-0.3;P=0.0001)和患者接受持续背景降压治疗的试验(z=-2.72;P=0.0065)中,血压下降幅度更大。对于新型高血压治疗方法的疗效探索,一旦安全性得到确认,就应该采用随机、适当对照和盲法设计,因为这些看似有效的干预措施(安慰剂)可带来可观的血压降低。