Key result
Redundant Chinese STEMI trials linked to ~3300 extra MACEs among controls denied routine therapies.
Why the study?
Redundant clinical trials waste resources and unnecessarily put patients at risk for harm, prompting an assessment of redundant RCTs in mainland China or the USA among STEMI patients and the associated patient harm.
Does the conduct of redundant RCTs depriving STEMI patients of routine therapies result in extra major adverse cardiac events?
Cross-Sectional (n=45,024)
Does the conduct of redundant RCTs depriving STEMI patients of routine therapies result in extra major adverse cardiac events?
A large proportion of STEMI RCTs conducted in mainland China were redundant, leading to significant patient harm through the deprivation of established routine therapies.
Redundant STEMI trials withholding proven therapies caused excess harm; confirms need for stricter global oversight and registration to prevent future injury.
BACKGROUND: Redundant clinical trials waste resources and unnecessarily put patients at risk for harm. The objectives of the study were to assess redundant randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in mainland China or the USA among patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and estimate the harm to patients enrolled in redundant RCTs. METHODS: receptor inhibitors, statins, and anticoagulants. Redundant RCTs were defined as those initiated or continued recruiting new patients 1 year after the experimental intervention was established as routine therapy in clinical practice guidelines. Cumulative meta-analyses were conducted to confirm the efficacy of these routine therapies. The primary outcome was the number of extra major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) attributable to the deprivation of routine therapies among patients in the control groups of redundant RCTs-that is, the number of extra MACEs that could have been prevented had these patients received routine therapy. RESULTS: Nine hundred eighty-three eligible RCTs conducted in mainland China were identified, of which 775 (78.8%) were redundant. None of the five eligible RCTs conducted in the United States were redundant. All redundant RCTs have reiterated the benefits of routine therapies for patients with STEMI, while none were cited by the 2019 clinical practice guideline for the management of STEMI. The 18,819 patients in the control groups of redundant RCTs experienced 3305 (95% CI: 3169-3441) extra MACEs, including 1091 (1014-1165) deaths, 576 (519-633) recurrent myocardial infarctions, 31 (19-42) revascularizations, 39 (23-54) strokes, 744 (679-810) heart failures, and 823 (754-893) patients with recurrent or exacerbated angina pectoris. Cumulative meta-analyses confirmed the efficacy of the routine therapies among patients in mainland China and supported using practice guidelines to define redundant RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: Redundant RCTs conducted in mainland China have resulted in unnecessary MACEs among patients with STEMI. While the reasons behind redundant RCTs need to be further investigated, these results suggest potential research waste and violation of research ethics.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jia et al. (2023) conducted a cross-sectional in ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (n=45,024). Routine therapies (reperfusion, P2Y12 receptor inhibitors, statins, anticoagulants) vs. Placebo or no treatment was evaluated on Extra major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) attributable to the deprivation of routine therapies in control groups (95% CI 3169-3441).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: