Clinical trials and tribulations.

Abstract

1. Pharmacologists should be involved in all stages of drug development. Often neglected is the final step, the clinical trials and other studies that determine clinical utility. The present article illustrates how pharmacoepidemiology can facilitate evaluation of the clinical potential of different drugs used to treat hypertension. 2. The evidence base for the drug treatment of hypertension is very strong. Large-scale outcome trials, largely based on diuretics, indicate that stroke events are prevented to the extent expected from blood pressure reduction, but there appears to be a shortfall in the prevention of coronary heart disease events. 3. On theoretical grounds, newer agents may be expected to have benefits in coronary heart disease prevention beyond blood pressure reduction. Recent trials with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and calcium channel blockers suggest no advantage over conventional drugs, but shortcomings in these studies mean that each is uninformative. 4. Observational studies based on pharmacoepidemiological principles offer an alternative approach to evaluating outcomes in treated hypertensives. 5. Evidence from the Glasgow Blood Pressure Clinic database suggest that there are outcome differences between antihypertensive agents. Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor treatment is associated with a mortality advantage, whereas calcium channel blocker therapy is associated with a poorer prognosis. Preliminary findings from a primary care database support these observations. 6. Long-term follow up of a well-documented high-risk clinical population may allow detection of outcome differences not apparent in relatively short-term clinical trials. 7. Appropriate interpretation of observational data necessitates an understanding of the strengths and limitations of observational data. Clinical pharmacologists have a critical role in design and evaluation of pharmacoepidemiology studies.