Reacting to unanticipated results: A lesson in TACT

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.

• TACT published: Controversial study under scrutiny in JAMA

• Chelation therapy in TACT: Daring to challenge dogma (and suspend disbelief)

• LA Confidential: FREEDOM, TACT, UMPIRE, and Dr Valentin Fuster's picks from AHA 2012

• TACT: Surprising, puzzling benefit from chelation therapy after MI

• TACT study of chelation therapy again in spotlight

• Enrollment resumes for CHD chelation-therapy trial

• Enrollment stopped in NIH-funded trial studying chelation therapy for treatment of CAD

Cite this: Reacting to unanticipated results: A lesson in TACT - Medscape - May 31, 2013.