Dataset Information

P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy or dual antiplatelet therapy after coronary revascularisation: individual patient level meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the risks and benefits of P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy compared with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) and whether these associations are modified by patients' characteristics.

Design

Individual patient level meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

Data sources

Searches were conducted in Ovid Medline, Embase, and three websites (www.tctmd.com, www.escardio.org, www.acc.org/cardiosourceplus) from inception to 16 July 2020. The primary authors provided individual participant data.

Eligibility criteria

Randomised controlled trials comparing effects of oral P2Y₁₂ monotherapy and DAPT on centrally adjudicated endpoints after coronary revascularisation in patients without an indication for oral anticoagulation.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcome was a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, tested for non-inferiority against a margin of 1.15 for the hazard ratio. The key safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 or type 5 bleeding.

Results

The meta-analysis included data from six trials, including 24 096 patients. The primary outcome occurred in 283 (2.95%) patients with P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy and 315 (3.27%) with DAPT in the per protocol population (hazard ratio 0.93, 95% confidence interval 0.79 to 1.09; P=0.005 for non-inferiority; P=0.38 for superiority; τ²=0.00) and in 303 (2.94%) with P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy and 338 (3.36%) with DAPT in the intention to treat population (0.90, 0.77 to 1.05; P=0.18 for superiority; τ²=0.00). The treatment effect was consistent across all subgroups, except for sex (P for interaction=0.02), suggesting that P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy lowers the risk of the primary ischaemic endpoint in women (hazard ratio 0.64, 0.46 to 0.89) but not in men (1.00, 0.83 to 1.19). The risk of bleeding was lower with P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy than with DAPT (97 (0.89%) v 197 (1.83%); hazard ratio 0.49, 0.39 to 0.63; P<0.001; τ²=0.03), which was consistent across subgroups, except for type of P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (P for interaction=0.02), suggesting greater benefit when a newer P2Y₁₂ inhibitor rather than clopidogrel was part of the DAPT regimen.

Conclusions

P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy was associated with a similar risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, with evidence that this association may be modified by sex, and a lower bleeding risk compared with DAPT.

Registration

PROSPERO CRD42020176853.

SUBMITTER: Valgimigli M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8207247 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceData on P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after short-duration dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention are limited.ObjectiveTo determine whether P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT is noninferior to 12 months of DAPT in patients undergoing PCI.Design, setting, and participantsThe SMART-CHOICE trial was an open-label, noninferiority, randomized study that was conducted in 33 hospitals in Korea and included 2993 patients undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents. Enrollment began March 18, 2014, and follow-up was completed July 19, 2018.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to receive aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor for 3 months and thereafter P2Y12 inhibitor alone (n = 1495) or DAPT for 12 months (n = 1498).Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) at 12 months after the index procedure. Secondary end points included the components of the primary end point and bleeding defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 to 5. The noninferiority margin was 1.8%.ResultsAmong 2993 patients who were randomized (mean age, 64 years; 795 women [26.6%]), 2912 (97.3%) completed the trial. Adherence to the study protocol was 79.3% of the P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy group and 95.2% of the DAPT group. At 12 months, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events occurred in 42 patients in the P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy group and in 36 patients in the DAPT group (2.9% vs 2.5%; difference, 0.4% [1-sided 95% CI, -∞% to 1.3%]; P = .007 for noninferiority). There were no significant differences in all-cause death (21 [1.4%] vs 18 [1.2%]; hazard ratio [HR], 1.18; 95% CI, 0.63-2.21; P = .61), myocardial infarction (11 [0.8%] vs 17 [1.2%]; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.31-1.40; P = .28), or stroke (11 [0.8%] vs 5 [0.3%]; HR, 2.23; 95% CI, 0.78-6.43; P = .14) between the 2 groups. The rate of bleeding was significantly lower in the P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy group than in the DAPT group (2.0% vs 3.4%; HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.36-0.92; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after 3 months of DAPT compared with prolonged DAPT resulted in noninferior rates of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. Because of limitations in the study population and adherence, further research is needed in other populations.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02079194.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: Patients undergoing coronary revascularization often require inotropic support that has been associated with an increased risk for death and morbidity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of levosimendan versus control on survival after coronary revascularization. METHODS: A systemic review and meta-analysis of the literature was carried out on published randomized controlled clinical trials that investigated the efficacy of levosimendan compared to other therapy in patients having coronary revascularisaion. The databases searched were Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Registry of Clinical Trials and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials. Studies that compared levosimendan to any other therapy for coronary revascularisation in adult humans and reported at least one outcome of interest were considered for inclusion. Both percutaneous coronary intervention and cardiac surgery were included. Data extraction was performed independently by two reviewers using predefined criteria. Relevant outcomes included mortality, cardiac index, cardiac enzymes, length of stay and post-procedural atrial fibrillation. RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 729 patients from 17 studies. Levosimendan was associated with a mortality reduction after coronary revascularization, (19/386 in the levosimendan group vs 39/343 in the control arm) odds ratio (OR) 0.40 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 0.76, P for overall effect 0.005, P for heterogeneity = 0.33, I2 = 12% with a total of 729 patients. Levosimendan also had a favourable effect on cardiac index (standardised mean difference 1.63, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.83, P for overall effect < 0.00001), length of intensive care stay (random effects model, mean difference - 26.18 hours 95% CI 46.20 to 6.16, P for heterogeneity < 0.00001, I2 = 95%, P for overall effect P = 0.01), reductions in the rate of atrial fibrillation (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.82, P for effect = 0.004, P for heterogeneity 0.84, I2 = 0% for 465 patients) and troponin I levels group (mean difference -1.59, 95% CI 1.78 to 1.40, P for overall effect < 0.00001, P for heterogeneity < 0.00001, I2 = 95%). Limitations of this analysis are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Levosimendan is associated with a significant improvement in mortality after coronary revascularization. There are also improvements in several secondary endpoints. A suitably powered randomised controlled trial is required to confirm these findings and to address the unresolved questions about the timing and dosing of levosimendan.

Project description:Patients with diabetes are at increased risk of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and their mortality and morbidity outcomes are significantly worse following ACS events, independent of other comorbidities. This systematic review sought to establish the optimum management strategy with focus on P2Y12 blockade in patients with diabetes with ACS.MEDLINE (1946 to present) and EMBASE (1974 to present) databases, abstracts from major cardiology conferences and previously published systematic reviews were searched to June 2014. Relevant randomised control trials with clinical outcomes for P2Y12 inhibitors in adult patients with diabetes with ACS were scrutinised independently by 2 authors with applicable data was extracted for primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke; enabling calculation of relative risks with 95% CI with subsequent direct and indirect comparison.Four studies studied clopidogrel in patients with diabetes, with two (3122 patients) having primary outcome data showing superiority of clopidogrel against placebo with RR0.84 (95% CI 0.72-0.99). Irrespective of management strategy, the newer agents prasugrel (2 studies) and ticagrelor (1 study) had a lower primary event rate compared with clopidogrel; RR 0.80 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.97) and RR 0.89 (95% CI 0.77 to 1.02), respectively. When ticagrelor was indirectly compared with prasugrel, there was a trend to an improved primary outcome with prasugrel (RR 1.11 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.31)) particularly in those managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (RR 1.23 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.59)). Prasugrel demonstrated a statistical superiority with prevention of further MI with RR 1.48 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.97). This was not at the expense of increased major thrombolysis in MI (TIMI) bleeding rates RR 0.94 (95% CI 0.59 to 1.51).This meta-analysis shows the addition of a P2Y12 inhibitor is superior to placebo, with a trend favouring the use of prasugrel in patients with diabetes with ACS, particularly those undergoing PCI.