Skip Navigation

European Heart Journal 1996 17(Supplement E):28-34; doi:10.1093/eurheartj/17.suppl_E.28
Copyright © 1996 by the European Society of Cardiology.
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Hampton, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Hampton, J. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© 1996 1996 The European Society of Cardiology

Mega-trials and equivalence trials: Experience from the INJECT study

J. R. Hampton

Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University Hospital Nottingham, United Kingdom

Correspondence: J. R. Hampton, DM, MA, DPhil, FRCP, FFPM, FESC, Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, University Hospital. Nottingham NG7 2UH, U.K.

As treatments for acute myocardial infarction have grown in number and effectiveness, the post-infarction mortality rate has fallen, and new therapies can provide only a small additional advantage in extending survival. To prove such an advantage of a new drug over its predecessors in the same drug class requires a trial of at least 20 000 patients. Proving ‘equivalence’ rather than superiority requires only 6000 patients.

The INJECT trial was designed with the modest goal of determining whether the novel agent reteplase (recombinant plasminogen activator) has an effect on mortality equivalent to that of streptokinase. Between August 1993 and September 1994, 6010 patients were randomized to receive either reteplase (n=3004) or streptokinase (n=3006). Both treatment groups had similar rates of bleeding events, extension or recurrence of myocardial infarction, and in-hospital stroke followed by 6 months of disability. Reteplase recipients had a lower incidence of cardiac events in hospital and fewer allergic reactions. Although the number of diagnosed haemorrhagic strokes was higher in reteplase recipients, more patients receiving streptokinase had strokes of uncertain aetiology. At 35 days, the mortality rate associated with reteplase use was approximately 0·5% lower than that associated with strep tokinase administration, and the upper limit of the 90% confidence interval for the difference between these rates was a superiority of streptokinase of 073%. Because the INJECT trial provided a probability of 0·95 that the mortality rate associated with reteplase use would be either lower than that with streptokinase administration or at most 0 worse, reteplase and streptokinase were proved equivalent according to the trial definition and limits.

Key Words: Acute myocardial infarction • reteplase • streptokinase • equivalence • mortality • INJECT trial


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.