Stopping the Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study Early for Efficacy

  • Janet Wittes
  • Jean-Pierre Boissel
  • Curt D. Furberg
  • Desmond G. Julian
  • Henri Kulbertus
  • Stuart Pocock


The Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study (RALES) was a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial designed to test the hypothesis that addition of daily spironolactone to standard therapy would reduce the risk of all-cause mortality in patients with severe heart failure as a result of systolic left ventricular dysfunction. The Data Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) for RALES reviewed data on safety and efficacy throughout the trial using pre-specified statistical stopping boundaries for efficacy. To ensure that the data were complete, the DSMB requested successive “mortality sweeps.” At the time of these sweeps, all RALES investigators determined the vital status of participants at their clinics. Therefore, the data that the DSMB saw included a much higher percentage of the deaths than would have been observed without these sweeps. At the DSMB’s fifth meeting, the data showed 351 deaths in the placebo group and 269 in the spironolactone group for an estimated hazard ratio of 0.78 (p = 0.00018). The board recommended early termination of the trial because the observed Z-value of 3.75 exceeded the pre-specified critical value of 2.79 and the data on mortality showed consistency among subgroups and across time. The sweeps had identified 31 deaths that likely would not have been reported by the time of the meeting. Subsequent data collection identified an additional 46 deaths that had occurred by the time the study ended. Even when the endpoint of a randomized clinical trial is mortality, routine methods of data collection and reporting are unlikely to identify all events in a timely manner. The experience from RALES provides an example of the importance of active follow-up of patients to ensure that a DSMB is observing a high proportion of the events that have actually occurred.


Severe Heart Failure Systolic Left Ventricular Dysfunction Calendar Time Case Study Approach Chronic Congestive Heart Failure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Julian DG, Cowan JC, McLenachan JM. 1998. Cardiology, 7th Edition. WB Saunders, London.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Criteria Committee of the New York Heart Association: Diseases of the Heart and Blood Vessels (Nomenclature and Criteria for Diagnosis). 1964. Little, Brown, Boston.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gradman AH, Deedwania PC. 1994. Predictors of mortality in patients with heart failure. Cardiol Clin 12:25–35.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cohn JN, Archibald DG, Ziesche S, Franciosa JA, Harston WE, Tristani FE, Dunkman WB, Jacobs W, Francis GS, Flohr KH, et al. 1986. Effect of vasodilator therapy on mortality in chronic congestive heart failure. Results of a Veterans Administration Cooperative Study. N Engl J Med. 314:1547–1552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    The CONSENSUS Trial Study Group. 1987. Effects of enalapril on mortality in severe congestive heart failure. Results of the Cooperative North Scandinavian Enalapril Survival Study (CONSENSUS). N Engl J Med. 316:1429–1435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    The RALES Investigators. 1996. Effectiveness of spironolactone added to an angiotensinconverting enzyme inhibitor and a loop diuretic for severe chronic congestive heart failure (the Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study [RALES]). Am J Cardiol 78:902–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pitt B, Zannad F, Remme WJ, Cody R, Castaigne A, Perez A, Palensky J, Wittes J for The Randomized Aldactone Evaluation Study Investigators. 1999. The effect of spironolactone on morbidity and mortality in patients with severe heart failure. N Engl J Med. 341:709–717.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    O’Brien P, Fleming T. 1979. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics 35:549–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lan K, DeMets D. 1983. Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials. Biometrika 14:1927–1931.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wittes J, Palensky J, Asner D, Julian D, Boissel J, Furberg C, Kulbertus H, Pocock S, Roniker B. 2001. Experience collecting interim data on mortality: an example from the RALES study. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 2:59–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet Wittes
    • 1
  • Jean-Pierre Boissel
    • 2
  • Curt D. Furberg
    • 3
  • Desmond G. Julian
    • 4
  • Henri Kulbertus
    • 5
  • Stuart Pocock
    • 6
  1. 1.Statistics CollaborativeWashington, D.C.
  2. 2.Clinical Pharmacology DepartmentClaude Bernard UniversityFrance
  3. 3.Department of Public Health SciencesWake Forest University School of MedicineWinston-SalemUSA
  4. 4.University of Newcastle-upon-TyneLondonEngland
  5. 5.Cardiology DepartmentCentre Hospitalier UniversitaireLiegeBelgium
  6. 6.Medical Statistics UnitLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK

Personalised recommendations