Article Text

Inconclusive messages from equivalence trials in thrombolysis
  1. V BERTELE,
  2. V TORRI,
  3. S GARATTINI
  1. “Mario Negri” Institute, Milan
  2. and Consozzio “Mario Negri Sud”
  3. S Mazia Imbaro, Italy
  4. email: garattini@irfmn.mnegri.it

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Glossary

COMPASS,
Comparison trial of saruplase and streptokinase
GISSI,
Gruppo Italiano per lo studio della sopravvivenza nell’infarto
GUSTO,
Global use of strategies to open occluded coronary arteries
INJECT,
International joint efficacy comparison of thrombolytics
ISIS,
International study of infarct survival

Editor,—Since the mid-80s a series of large scale randomised clinical trials has progressively proved the effectiveness of thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction but, despite prodigious efforts, the superiority of intensive strategies based on tissue-type plasminogen activator (tPA) over the standard regimen with streptokinase has not been proved.1The certainty of the benefit has fuelled the search for new thrombolytic agents for a guaranteed market; however, the uncertainty of further benefits from new drugs has suggested testing their equivalence rather than superiority in impracticable trials. This approach has given poor results as demonstrated if one assesses the additional benefits (deaths avoided) and risks (excess of strokes) produced by single steps in the search for better or equivalent thrombolytic agents. We compared indirectly the efficacy and safety of tPA, reteplase, and saruplase by combining …

View Full Text