Equally good approaches for most patients
Point-counterpoint
As previously reported, allegations about EXCEL in news reports and the sometimes fiery public debate led the trialists to release a long and wide-ranging public communique that forcefully disputes the charges. Among them, that they were either remiss or willfully deceptive in not reporting an analysis based on the Third Universal Definition of MI.
In response, Dr. Taggart provided a toughly worded statement that disputes the EXCEL leadership’s missive nearly point by point. It variously describes the assertions as “simplistic,” seemingly “illogical,” “disingenuous,” and “factually completely incorrect,” among other terms.
The document provides Dr. Taggart’s perspective on how MI was defined and interpreted while he was an active member of the EXCEL trial’s leadership, and alleged shortfalls in how outcomes were interpreted and reported.
In it, Taggart also wonders whether or not EXCEL leadership had possibly been aware of a tilt favoring CABG in the analysis based on Third Universal Definition of MI but “decided to suppress it,” and also whether the trial’s sponsor, Abbott Vascular, had influenced the trial’s conduct.
Despite the EXCEL leadership’s communique, “my profound concerns remain the same and, in my opinion, the very long rebuttal response by the EXCEL investigators does not adequately respond to the core issues,” Dr. Taggart writes.
He withdrew his name as an author on the trial’s 5-year outcomes publication, Dr. Taggart says, because “I believed, and still do, that the final interpretation of the actual data in the [New England Journal of Medicine] manuscript did not appropriately reflect its clinical reality, and especially with regards to mortality, and would therefore have potential to do real harm to patients.”
Dr. Taggart has disclosed no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.