Abstract
Introduction Cumulative meta-analysis of intravenous streptokinase for myocardial infarction has been used as a text-book example to show how the megatrials GISSI and ISIS-II were redundant and wasteful. We decided to reanalyse the dataset with Trial Sequential Analysis to account for statistical heterogeneity and the risk of bias of the historical trials to reassess whether GISSI and ISIS-II were justified or redundant.
Methods We extracted data from overviews published in 1982 and 1985 and trial reports on mortality outcomes. For the five largest trials conducted before GISSI and ISIS-II, we also extracted information on the used comparator, randomisation, blinding, dropout proportions, and the use of intention-to-treat analyses. We did random-effects cumulative meta-analyses with Trial Sequential Analysis considering diversity.
Results The largest trials conducted before GISSI and ISIS-II had serious methodological differences and high risks of bias making a cumulative meta-analysis invalid by today’s standards of evidence synthesis. The Trial Sequential Analysis showed that the monitoring boundary for a mortality benefit of streptokinase was reached during the ISAM trial. However, both GISSI and ISIS-II were launched before the ISAM trial was published. Focusing only on the cumulative assessment, the megatrials were potentially futile. Sensitivity analyses corroborated these results.
Conclusion Our Trial Sequential Analysis of the historical dataset of streptokinase for myocardial infarction found that conclusive evidence favouring streptokinase was established after the megatrials were launched. However, considering the methodological differences and risks of bias, such cumulative meta-analysis seems invalid. Accordingly, the megatrials were not wasteful.
Competing Interest Statement
KB and CG are employed at the Copenhagen Trial Unit where the Trial Sequential Analysis methodology was conceived, and the Trial Sequential Analysis software developed.
Funding Statement
Copenhagen Trial Unit for providing salaries to the authors.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The trial data used for the cumulative analysis is available from the cited publications. We share the complete Trial Sequential Analysis files alongside the publication.
