Clinical Benefit of Low Molecular Weight Heparin for ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa Inhibitor

The efficacy of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) with low dose unfractionated heparin (UFH) during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with or without glycoprotein (Gp) IIb/IIIa inhibitor compared to UFH with or without Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitor has not been elucidated. Between October 2005 and July 2007, 2,535 patients with ST elevation acute myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing PCI in the Korean Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry (KAMIR) were assigned to either of two groups: a group with Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitor (n=476) or a group without Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitor (n=2,059). These groups were further subdivided according to the use of LMWH with low dose UFH (n=219) or UFH alone (n=257). The primary end points were cardiac death or myocardial infarction during the 30 days after the registration. The primary end point occurred in 4.1% (9/219) of patients managed with LMWH during PCI and Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitor and 10.8% (28/257) of patients managed with UFH and Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitor (odds ratio [OR], 0.290; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.132-0.634; P=0.006). Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) with major bleeding was observed in LMHW and UFH with Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitor (1/219 [0.5%] vs 1/257 [0.4%], P=1.00). For patients with STEMI managed with a primary PCI and Gp IIb/IIIa inhibitor, LMWH is more beneficial than UFH

Country specific cost comparisons from multinational clinical trials using empirical Bayesian shrinkage estimation: the Canadian ASSENT-3 economic analysis

The growing number of multinational clinical trials in which patient-level health care resource data are collected have raised the issue of which is the best approach for making inference for individual countries with respect to the between-treatment difference in mean cost. We describe and discuss the relative merits of three approaches. The first uses the random effects pooled estimate from all countries to estimate the difference for any particular country. The second approach estimates the difference using only the data from the specific country in question. Using empirical Bayes estimation a third approach estimates the country-specific difference using a variance-weighted linear sum of the estimates provided by the other two approaches. The approaches are illustrated and compared using the data from the ASSENT-3 trial. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.