Letter to the Editor concerning article “Design of
0002-8703/$ - see front matter
the Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT)”
The article by Lamas et al 1 is surprising on several
levels. The TACT has been criticized as being “unethical,
dangerous, pointless and wasteful.” 2 Yet, Lamas et al
inform us that it went ahead with “reduced sample size”
and that “TACT has finished enrolment.” 1 From my
perspective, the most puzzling part of the article of Lamas
et al is the following sentence: “EDTA chelation of divalent
and trivalent ions has been postulated to produce a
favorable effect on atherosclerotic plaque, questionably
leading to improvement in endothelial function, reduc-
tions in symptoms, and major vascular events.” To support
this statement, Lamas et al cite my review 3 that shows an
“almost total lack of convincing evidence” and concludes
that “given the potential of chelation therapy to cause
severe adverse effects, this treatment should now be
considered obsolete.” 3
Am Heart J 2012;164:e23.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2012.07.009
Edzard Ernst
Complementary Medicine, Salmon Pool Lane
Exeter, EX2 4SG, United Kingdom
E-mail: Edzard.Ernst@pms.ac.uk
References
1. Lamas GA, Goertz C, Boineau R, et al. Design to the Trial to Assess
Chelation Therapy (TACT). Am Heart J 2012;163(1):7-12.
2. Atwood KC, Woeckner E, Baratz RS, et al. Why the NIH trial to assess
chelation therapy (TACT) should be abandoned. Medscape J Med
2008;10(5):115.
3. Ernst E. Chelation therapy for coronary heart disease: an overview of
all clinical investigations. Am Heart J 2000;140:139-41.