Reacting to unanticipated results: A lesson in TACT

Multiple contributors


May 31, 2013

Editorial Collaboration

Medscape &

This feature requires the newest version of Flash. You can download it here.

Few trials have stirred our imagination and kept online forums as busy as the TACT trial. With this controversial study as a backdrop, Drs Bob Harrington and Daniel Mark address the complicated issue of how to interpret unexpected findings. Can we clinical trialists claim to be as open to trial results as we think we are? Or is there something inherent in our pathophysiologic-based system of beliefs that limits our perception of disease?

Learn more about the colorful background of TACT and why our reactions to the trial might be indicative of cracks in our approach to research.

Daniel Mark MD
Professor of Medicine
Vice Chief for Academic Affairs, Division of Cardiology
Duke University Medical Center
Director of Outcomes Research
Duke Clinical Research Institute
Durham, NC
Robert Harrington MD
Arthur L Bloomfield Professor of Medicine and Chair
Department of Medicine
Stanford University
Stanford, CA

Dr Mark was a principle investigator of the TACT trial.

For Dr Harrington's disclosures, click here

Lamas GA, Goertz C, Boineau R, et al. Effect of disodium EDTA chelation regimen on cardiovascular events in patients with previous myocardial infarction. JAMA 2013; 309:1241-1250. Abstract.


Comments on Medscape are moderated and should be professional in tone and on topic. You must declare any conflicts of interest related to your comments and responses. Please see our Commenting Guide for further information. We reserve the right to remove posts at our sole discretion.