BMJ 2001;322:989-991 ( 21 April )

Education and debate

Interpreting the results of secondary end points and subgroup analyses in clinical trials: should we lock the crazy aunt in the attic?

Nick Freemantle, professor of clinical epidemiology and biostatistics. 

Department of Primary Care and General Practice, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT

N.Freemantle@bham.ac.uk

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Impressive results for secondary outcomes or subgroup analyses pose problems for those trying to value the benefits observed in clinical trials. In the prospective randomised amlodipine survival evaluation study, comparing amlodipine with placebo in patients with severe heart failure, a prospectively defined subgroup of patients with non-ischaemic heart failure showed a 46% reduction in the risk of death (95% confidence interval 21% to 63%).¹ This was achieved alongside a non-significant reduction in death from any cause or admission to hospital for major cardiovascular events (P=0.31), the prospectively defined primary outcome measure, and no observed benefits in the ischaemic group. The authors of the report commented: "Although this benefit was seen only in a subgroup of patients, it is likely that it reflects a true effect of amlodipine, since the randomisation procedure was stratified according to the cause of heart failure and a significant difference between the ischaemic and non-ischaemic strata . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

How well does the evidence on pioglitazone back up researchers' claims for a reduction in macrovascular events?

Nick Freemantle
BMJ 2005 331: 836-838. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Giugliano, R. P., White, J. A., Bode, C., Armstrong, P. W., Montalescot, G., Lewis, B. S., van `t Hof, A., Berdan, L. G., Lee, K. L., Strony, J. T., Hildemann, S., Veltri, E., Van de Werf, F., Braunwald, E., Harrington, R. A., Califf, R. M., Newby, L. K., the EARLY ACS Investigators, (2009). Early versus Delayed, Provisional Eptifibatide in Acute Coronary Syndromes. NEJM 360: 2176-2190 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Chan, S. L., Mo, F. K.F., Johnson, P. J., Hui, E. P., Ma, B. B.Y., Ho, W. M., Lam, K. C., Chan, A. T.C., Mok, T. S.K., Yeo, W. (2009). New Utility of an Old Marker: Serial {alpha}-Fetoprotein Measurement in Predicting Radiologic Response and Survival of Patients With Hepatocellular Carcinoma Undergoing Systemic Chemotherapy. JCO 27: 446-452 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Lagarde, M., Haines, A., Palmer, N. (2007). Conditional Cash Transfers for Improving Uptake of Health Interventions in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review. JAMA 298: 1900-1910 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Gebel, J. M. Jr. (2007). The CAPRIE-Like Subgroups of CHARISMA: A CAPRIEciously Biased Analysis of an unCHARISMAtic Truth. J Am Coll Cardiol 50: 1704-1704 [Full text]  
• Patsopoulos, N. A., Tatsioni, A., Ioannidis, J. P. A. (2007). Claims of Sex Differences: An Empirical Assessment in Genetic Associations. JAMA 298: 880-893 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Kasner, S. E., Lynn, M. J., Chimowitz, M. I., Frankel, M. R., Howlett-Smith, H., Hertzberg, V. S., Chaturvedi, S., Levine, S. R., Stern, B. J., Benesch, C. G., Jovin, T. G., Sila, C. A., Romano, J. G., for the Warfarin Aspirin Symptomatic Intracranial, (2006). Warfarin vs aspirin for symptomatic intracranial stenosis: Subgroup analyses from WASID.. Neurology 67: 1275-1278 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• (2006). Endpoints in asthma drug trials - what do they mean?. DTB 44: 21-24 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Withnall, R., Eastaugh, J., Freemantle, N. (2006). Do shock absorbing insoles in recruits undertaking high levels of physical activity reduce lower limb injury? A randomized controlled trial. JRSM 99: 32-37 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Freemantle, N. (2005). How well does the evidence on pioglitazone back up researchers' claims for a reduction in macrovascular events?. BMJ 331: 836-838 [Full text]  
• Achrafi, H. (2005). DECOPI (DEsobstruction COronaire en Post-Infarctus): a randomized multi-centre trial of occluded artery angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction: DECOPI or NOT DECOPI: more smoke on the horizon. Eur Heart J 26: 1566-1567 [Full text]  
• Freemantle, N., Calvert, M. (2004). Answering important questions reliably--GISSI Heart Failure, a factorially designed trial with composite (co)primary outcome measures. Eur J Heart Fail 6: 531-533 [Full text]  
• Powers, J. H., Ross, D. B., Lin, D., Soreth, J., Wunderink, R. G., Kollef, M., Rello, J. (2004). Linezolid and Vancomycin for Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus Nosocomial Pneumonia: The Subtleties of Subgroup Analyses. Chest 126: 314-316 [Full text]  
• Als-Nielsen, B., Chen, W., Gluud, C., Kjaergard, L. L. (2003). Association of Funding and Conclusions in Randomized Drug Trials: A Reflection of Treatment Effect or Adverse Events?. JAMA 290: 921-928 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Freemantle, N., Calvert, M., Wood, J., Eastaugh, J., Griffin, C. (2003). Composite Outcomes in Randomized Trials: Greater Precision But With Greater Uncertainty?. JAMA 289: 2554-2559 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Rathore, S. S., Wang, Y., Krumholz, H. M. (2002). Sex-Based Differences in the Effect of Digoxin for the Treatment of Heart Failure. NEJM 347: 1403-1411 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Freemantle, N., Wood, J., Morrison, J., Leyland, A., Grimshaw, J. (2001). Evaluating guidelines across primary care-secondary care interface. BMJ 323: 808-808 [Full text]  

Online poll

Find out more on doc2doc >>