Elliott W J
Department of Preventive Medicine, Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois 60612, USA.
Am J Med. 1995 Sep;99(3):261-9. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(99)80158-2.
This nonrandomized, parallel-group, prospective clinical series in consecutive patients was conducted to determine if the method of analysis of biochemical data collected in long-term treatment trials can explain the controversy regarding the effects of thiazides on plasma glucose or cholesterol.
Fasting serum glucose, potassium, and cholesterol levels were determined before therapy, and yearly thereafter (4.0 +/- 0.1 years) in 634 consecutive patients treated for more than 1 year with antihypertensive monotherapy.
When the data were analyzed by the intention-to-treat paradigm (ignoring changes in therapy), glucose and cholesterol levels in the thiazide group were significantly higher (compared to baseline or to the other therapy group) only at year 1. When the data were analyzed by actual on-therapy experience (censoring patients when therapy is altered)--a more traditional way to examine side effects--these differences were significant for all 5 years studied. Even if as few as 8% of patients who changed therapies were included in an intention-to-treat analysis, these differences became nonsignificant.
These comparisons not only indicate why a dichotomy might exist between clinical practice (analyzed by actual on-therapy experience) and randomized trials (analyzed by intention-to-treat methods), regarding biochemical changes in glucose and cholesterol during thiazide therapy, but also that, for secondary hypotheses, analyzing data by both methods of assignment is important.
本项针对连续患者的非随机、平行组、前瞻性临床系列研究旨在确定长期治疗试验中收集的生化数据的分析方法是否能够解释有关噻嗪类药物对血糖或胆固醇影响的争议。
对634例接受抗高血压单药治疗超过1年的连续患者,在治疗前及此后每年(4.0±0.1年)测定空腹血清葡萄糖、钾和胆固醇水平。
当按照意向性治疗模式分析数据时(忽略治疗的改变),噻嗪类药物组的葡萄糖和胆固醇水平仅在第1年时显著高于(与基线或其他治疗组相比)。当按照实际治疗经历分析数据时(在治疗改变时剔除患者)——一种更传统的检查副作用的方法——在研究的所有5年中这些差异均具有显著性。即使在意向性治疗分析中纳入少至8%的改变治疗的患者,这些差异也变得不显著。
这些比较不仅表明了为何在噻嗪类药物治疗期间关于葡萄糖和胆固醇的生化变化,临床实践(按实际治疗经历分析)与随机试验(按意向性治疗方法分析)之间可能存在分歧,还表明对于次要假设,采用两种分配方法分析数据很重要。