TACT 2013.
Study characteristics | ||
Methods |
Study design: randomised, double‐blind trial Intention‐to‐treat: yes Country: USA & Canada Setting: outpatient clinics |
|
Participants |
Number randomised: N = 1708 (EDTA n = 839; placebo n = 869) Exclusions post‐randomisation: none Losses to follow up: N = 22 (EDTA n = 13; placebo n = 9) Age (mean years (range)): EDTA 65 (58.8 to 71.6); placebo 65.5 (58.7 to 72.2) Gender (M n (%)): EDTA 687 (82%); placebo 83%) Inclusion criteria: history of myocardial infarction 6 weeks or more prior to enrolment; willing to participate Exclusion criteria: women of childbearing potential, serum creatinine level > 2.0 mg/dL, platelet count < 100,000/µL, abnormal liver function studies, blood pressure > 160/100 mmHg, intolerance to chelation or vitamin components, history of chelation treatment within 5 years, planned coronary or carotid revascularisation or history of revascularisation within last 6 months, history of cigarette smoking within 3 months, active heart failure or heart failure hospitalisation within 6 months, or inability to tolerate 500 mL infusions weekly |
|
Interventions | Participants were randomised to one of four groups:
For the purposes of this review, we combined groups 1 and 2 that were both receiving active EDTA chelation treatment. Treatment: standard multi component disodium EDTA chelation solution x 40 infusions Control: 500 mL of normal saline and 1.2% dextrose x 40 infusions During infusion phase, all participants received a daily low‐dose of vitamin B6 25 mg, zinc 25 mg, copper 2 mg, manganese 15 mg and chromium 50 µg to reduce depletion by chelation treatment. Duration of treatment: first 30 infusions occurred weekly and final 10 infusions could "occur between 2 weeks and up to 8 weeks apart". Follow‐up: total of 5 years, with quarterly telephone contact and annual clinic visits |
|
Outcomes |
|
|
Notes | ||
Risk of bias | ||
Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Randomisation was performed using permuted blocks stratified by clinical site. |
Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Secure web‐based randomisation was performed. |
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes | Low risk | This was a double‐blind study with the blinded active chelation solution prepared by a central pharmacy. Placebo infusions were shipped with identical packaging and 2 separate placebo syringes. |
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes | Low risk | A blinded independent clinical events committee at Brigham Women's Hospital adjudicated all nonprocedural components of the primary endpoint. |
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes | Low risk | There were 13 in the chelation group and 9 in the placebo group who were lost to follow‐up. Looking at the results, this may decrease confidence minimally. |
Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All stated outcomes were reported using between group analysis. |
Other bias | Low risk | No other sources of bias were identified. |