IN THIS ISSUE OF JAMA, 2 ARTICLES FROM THE CLINICAL Trial of Reviparin and Metabolic Modulation in Acute Myocardial Infarction Treatment Evaluation (CREATE) greatly enhance the knowledge base for the treatment of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Yet, as with all good clinical trials, this study raises new questions and perspectives that deserve further consideration. The factorial design of the CREATE trial proves 2 points: (1) low-molecular-weight heparin reduces mortality and ischemic events in STEMI and (2) the age-old argument about glucose, insulin, and potassium (GIK) therapy can be put to rest—this treatment does not work in STEMI. The CREATE trial is powerful and definitive on both counts. However, the conduct and results of the trial stimulate thoughts about several questions. Do the Principles of Pragmatic Clinical Trials Still Hold in This Era of “Personalized Medicine”? Despite ongoing efforts to develop more targeted approaches to therapeutics using biomarkers and genomics, the majority of therapies for complex diseases act through mechanisms that are not specifically targeted. Accordingly, a trial of adequate size to show modest but important effects on true clinical outcomes must remain the standard for the evidence on which therapies are based. In fact, it is easy to postulate many mechanistic reasons why either of the therapies tested in CREATE would or would not “work,” but the definitive proof requires an accounting of the risks and benefits using the “big 4” measures: length of life, quality of life, discrete negative events, and costs. The CREATE investigators used a technique that is all too often avoided: a factorial design. In essence, this approach allows 2 questions to be simultaneously answered for little more than the effort of 1. The most common reason for eschewing factorial designs is the fear that in a regulatory setting the adverse effects of one drug (or device) will be attributed to the other being tested. The timidity of sponsors and investigators to embrace factorial designs must be overcome if researchers are to answer the multitude of critical questions about old and new therapies, especially the interactions among them. Given the increasing evidence that the drug and device research and development system is not producing the evidence that is needed to guide practice, regulators would be well served to encourage factorialdesign studies. Even more important, the CREATE trial eliminated useless, redundant approaches to clinical trial management, permitting a clear answer to 2 important questions for the global community of patients with myocardial infarction. Data forms were brief, redundant monitoring visits were not done, and adverse event reporting was limited to critical issues. By making the trial less burdensome on the investigators, the CREATE investigators encouraged and accomplished broad participation without need for external funding. Today’s overly complex “regulatory trials” tend to lead to dataintensive studies with inadequate numbers of patients and end points that do not measure length or quality of life. More trials like CREATE are needed, with fewer of these “regulatory” trials. What Does This Trial Show About GIK Infusion? This “generic” therapy has survived decades of clinical practice without a definitive test of its safety and effectiveness. The conceptual basis for its use is sound, and its rationale has been delineated in a variety of publications cited by the CREATE investigators. Unfortunately, regardless of its scientific rationale and the positive results of small studies, this definitive trial, combined with a previous overview that showed only a modest potential benefit, answers the question beyond reasonable doubt: there is no benefit of GIK therapy. Societal resources would be better spent on evaluating other approaches in clinical trials and using other therapies in practice. What Does This Trial Show About Reviparin? Antithrombotic therapy has become a mainstay of treatment of acute coronary syndromes (ACS), but the accrual of definitive evidence has been hampered by the fact that unfractionated heparin (UFH) became standard before the era of definitive clinical outcome trials. Thus, the CREATE investigators are technically correct in their attack on UFH in the discussion section of their article. However, directly com-