Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Evidence-based medicine and reteplase: inductive arguments over deductive reasoning.

D Massel1

  • 1London Health Sciences Centre, London, Canada. dmassel@lhsc.on.ca

The Canadian Journal of Cardiology
|September 30, 1999
PubMed
Summary

Reteplase demonstrated equivalence to streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction treatment, as shown in the INJECT trial. However, the GUSTO III trial did not provide convincing evidence of reteplase equivalence to tissue plasminogen activator.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Patient reperfusion preferences in acute myocardial infarction: mortality versus stroke, benefits versus costs, high technology versus drugs.

The Canadian journal of cardiology·2005
Same author

Ejection fraction velocity ratio as an indicator of aortic stenosis severity.

Echocardiography (Mount Kisco, N.Y.)·2005
Same author

Precision and accuracy of the bedside examination in detecting an ejection fraction of less than 40% following acute myocardial infarction.

The Canadian journal of cardiology·2004
Same author

The number needed to harm: is it too optimistic?

The Canadian journal of cardiology·2004
Same author

The number remaining at risk: an adjunct to the number needed to treat.

The Canadian journal of cardiology·2002
Same author

Reducing bedrest following arterial puncture for coronary interventional procedures--impact on vascular complications: the BAC Trial.

The Journal of invasive cardiology·2001

Area of Science:

  • Cardiology
  • Pharmacology
  • Clinical Trials

Background:

  • Acute myocardial infarction (AMI) treatment often involves thrombolytic therapy.
  • Comparing the efficacy of different thrombolytic agents is crucial for optimizing patient outcomes.
  • The interpretation of equivalence trials requires specific methodological considerations.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To systematically compare two thrombolysis trials for AMI: INJECT (reteplase vs. streptokinase) and GUSTO III (reteplase vs. tissue plasminogen activator).
  • To evaluate the methodological distinctions and economic insights of these trials, particularly concerning claims of equivalence.
  • To assess the efficacy of reteplase against streptokinase and tissue plasminogen activator in AMI.

Main Methods:

  • Systematic approach for interpreting studies claiming therapeutic equivalence.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analysis of the International Joint Efficacy Comparison of Thrombolytics (INJECT) trial, a true equivalence trial.
  • Analysis of the Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) III trial, a failed superiority trial.

    • Main Results:

    • The INJECT trial successfully demonstrated that reteplase is at least as effective as streptokinase, satisfying the equivalence test.
    • The primary outcome event in the GUSTO III trial (30-day mortality) did not provide convincing evidence for reteplase equivalence to tissue plasminogen activator.
    • Post hoc analyses in GUSTO III suggested possible equivalence for certain outcome clusters, but these findings were not conclusive and the primary outcome favored tissue plasminogen activator.

    Conclusions:

    • Reteplase is shown to be equivalent to streptokinase for acute myocardial infarction based on the INJECT trial.
    • Evidence for reteplase equivalence to tissue plasminogen activator is not convincing from the GUSTO III trial.
    • Methodological differences in trial design significantly impact the interpretation of therapeutic equivalence claims for thrombolytic agents.