 |
 |

Pexelizumab and the APEX AMI Trial
 |
 |
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
 |
 |
To the Editor: As authors of the Assessment of Pexelizumab in Acute Myocardial Infarction (APEX AMI) trial,1 and on behalf of the APEX AMI study group, we believe that the accompanying Editorial by Drs Eikelboom and ODonnell2 raises 3 issues deserving clarification. First, the Editorial questions the rationale for targeting one half of the original number of anticipated events. Prior to unblinding the results, we reported3 that the rationale was based in part on the prior systematic overview.4 When combined with the results from Pexelizumab for Reduction of Infarction and Mortality in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting surgery (PRIMO-CABG II) in a meta-analysis, there was an overall relative risk reduction of 24% (95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.93; log rank P = .009) in all-cause 30-day mortality.5 If that effect had been observed in APEX, it would have achieved statistical significance (P<.05).
Second, the authors suggest that the meta-analysis5 failed to include . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Paul W. Armstrong, MD
paul.armstrong@ualberta.ca University of Alberta Edmonton, Alberta
Christopher B. Granger, MD
Duke University Medical Center Durham, NC
RELATED LETTER
Pexelizumab and the APEX AMI Trial--Reply
and
JAMA. ;297():1881-1882.
FULL TEXT
RELATED ARTICLE
Pexelizumab for Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction in Patients Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Randomized Controlled Trial
JAMA. ;297():43-51.
FULL TEXT
|