Differential effects of anti-hypertensive treatment on the retinal microcirculation: an Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT) sub- study

Changes in the retinal microcirculation are associated with hypertension and predict cardiovascular mortality. There are few data describing the impact of antihypertensive therapy on retinal vascular changes. This substudy of the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial compared the effects of an amlodipine-based regimen (373 patients) with an atenolol-based regimen (347 patients) on retinal microvascular measurements made from fundus photographs. The retinal photographs were taken at a stage in the trial when treatments were stable and blood pressure was well controlled. Amlodipine-based treatment was associated with a smaller arteriolar length:diameter ratio than atenolol-based treatment (13.32 [10.75 to 16.04] versus 14.12 [11.27 to 17.81], median [interquartile range]; P<0.01). The association remained significant after adjustment for age, sex, cholesterol, systolic and diastolic blood pressures, body mass index, smoking, and statin treatment. This effect appeared to be largely attributable to shorter retinal arteriolar segment lengths in the amlodipine-treated group and is best explained by the vasodilator effects of amlodipine causing the visible emergence of branching side vessels. Photographic assessment of the retinal vascular network may be a useful approach to evaluating microvascular structural responses in clinical trials of antihypertensive therapy.

Cohort study of trials submitted to ethics committee identified discrepant reporting of outcomes in publications

OBJECTIVES To identify factors associated with discrepant outcome reporting in randomized drug trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Cohort study of protocols submitted to a Swiss ethics committee 1988-1998: 227 protocols and amendments were compared with 333 matching articles published during 1990-2008. Discrepant reporting was defined as addition, omission, or reclassification of outcomes. RESULTS Overall, 870 of 2,966 unique outcomes were reported discrepantly (29.3%). Among protocol-defined primary outcomes, 6.9% were not reported (19 of 274), whereas 10.4% of reported outcomes (30 of 288) were not defined in the protocol. Corresponding percentages for secondary outcomes were 19.0% (284 of 1,495) and 14.1% (334 of 2,375). Discrepant reporting was more likely if P values were <0.05 compared with P ≥ 0.05 [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.38; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.07, 1.78], more likely for efficacy compared with harm outcomes (aOR: 2.99; 95% CI: 2.08, 4.30) and more likely for composite than for single outcomes (aOR: 1.48; 95% CI: 1.00, 2.20). Cardiology (aOR: 2.34; 95% CI: 1.44, 3.79) and infectious diseases (aOR: 1.77; 95% CI: 1.01, 3.13) had more discrepancies compared with all specialties combined. CONCLUSION Discrepant reporting was associated with statistical significance of results, type of outcome, and specialty area. Trial protocols should be made freely available, and the publications should describe and justify any changes made to protocol-defined outcomes.