+1 Recommend
1 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Effect and safety of antithrombotic therapies for secondary prevention after acute coronary syndrome: a network meta-analysis

      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.



          Dual antiplatelet therapy is a standard protocol for secondary prevention after acute coronary syndrome, but despite a variety of new dual antithrombotic strategies, there is a dearth of studies evaluating the effects and safety of some popular therapies. This study used a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of all available antithrombotic therapies.


          PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane library databases were searched for randomized controlled trials, published up to July 1, 2017, that evaluated the efficacy of antithrombotic therapy in acute coronary syndrome treatment. The primary endpoints were clinically significant bleeding and major bleeding and secondary endpoints were major cardiovascular events, all-cause deaths, cardiac deaths, and myocardial infarction.


          Compared with treatment with aspirin + new P2Y12 inhibitor, treatment with aspirin + new P2Y12 inhibitor converted to clopidogrel clinically reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events or significant bleeding (OR: 0.30, 95% credibility interval: 0.12–0.75). Both myocardial infarction risk (OR: 0.82, 95% credibility interval: 0.62–1.09) and major bleeding risk (OR: 0.18, 95% credibility interval: 0.01–1.68) were not significantly different between treatment regimens. There were no significant differences in major cardiovascular events, all-cause deaths, cardiac deaths, myocardial infarction, clinically significant bleeding, and major bleeding risk with rivaroxaban + new P2Y12 inhibitor therapy when compared with aspirin + new P2Y12 inhibitor. Compared with aspirin + clopidogrel, the conversion therapy further reduced the risk of myocardial infarction (OR: 1.81, 95%, credibility interval: 1.01–1.34) without an increased clinical risk of significant bleeding (OR: 0.41, 95%, credibility interval: 0.15–1.07). Treatment with aspirin + new P2Y12 inhibitors reduced all-cause deaths (OR: 0.91, 95% credibility interval: 0.84–0.98) and cardiac death risk (OR: 0.86, 95% credibility interval: 0.79–0.93).


          We concluded the following from our study: 1) an aspirin + new P2Y12 inhibitor/ clopidogrel conversion treatment strategy was not inferior to aspirin + new P2Y12 inhibitor; 2) compared with aspirin + clopidogrel, the conversion strategy may further reduce the risk of myocardial infarction without increasing the risk of bleeding; and 3) compared with aspirin + clopidogrel, treatment with aspirin + new P2Y12 inhibitors may result in reduced risk of death.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Rivaroxaban in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome.

          Acute coronary syndromes arise from coronary atherosclerosis with superimposed thrombosis. Since factor Xa plays a central role in thrombosis, the inhibition of factor Xa with low-dose rivaroxaban might improve cardiovascular outcomes in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome. In this double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, we randomly assigned 15,526 patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome to receive twice-daily doses of either 2.5 mg or 5 mg of rivaroxaban or placebo for a mean of 13 months and up to 31 months. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Rivaroxaban significantly reduced the primary efficacy end point, as compared with placebo, with respective rates of 8.9% and 10.7% (hazard ratio in the rivaroxaban group, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.74 to 0.96; P=0.008), with significant improvement for both the twice-daily 2.5-mg dose (9.1% vs. 10.7%, P=0.02) and the twice-daily 5-mg dose (8.8% vs. 10.7%, P=0.03). The twice-daily 2.5-mg dose of rivaroxaban reduced the rates of death from cardiovascular causes (2.7% vs. 4.1%, P=0.002) and from any cause (2.9% vs. 4.5%, P=0.002), a survival benefit that was not seen with the twice-daily 5-mg dose. As compared with placebo, rivaroxaban increased the rates of major bleeding not related to coronary-artery bypass grafting (2.1% vs. 0.6%, P<0.001) and intracranial hemorrhage (0.6% vs. 0.2%, P=0.009), without a significant increase in fatal bleeding (0.3% vs. 0.2%, P=0.66) or other adverse events. The twice-daily 2.5-mg dose resulted in fewer fatal bleeding events than the twice-daily 5-mg dose (0.1% vs. 0.4%, P=0.04). In patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome, rivaroxaban reduced the risk of the composite end point of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Rivaroxaban increased the risk of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage but not the risk of fatal bleeding. (Funded by Johnson & Johnson and Bayer Healthcare; ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00809965.).
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Indirect comparisons of competing interventions.

            To survey the frequency of use of indirect comparisons in systematic reviews and evaluate the methods used in their analysis and interpretation. Also to identify alternative statistical approaches for the analysis of indirect comparisons, to assess the properties of different statistical methods used for performing indirect comparisons and to compare direct and indirect estimates of the same effects within reviews. Electronic databases. The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) was searched for systematic reviews involving meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that reported both direct and indirect comparisons, or indirect comparisons alone. A systematic review of MEDLINE and other databases was carried out to identify published methods for analysing indirect comparisons. Study designs were created using data from the International Stroke Trial. Random samples of patients receiving aspirin, heparin or placebo in 16 centres were used to create meta-analyses, with half of the trials comparing aspirin and placebo and half heparin and placebo. Methods for indirect comparisons were used to estimate the contrast between aspirin and heparin. The whole process was repeated 1000 times and the results were compared with direct comparisons and also theoretical results. Further detailed case studies comparing the results from both direct and indirect comparisons of the same effects were undertaken. Of the reviews identified through DARE, 31/327 (9.5%) included indirect comparisons. A further five reviews including indirect comparisons were identified through electronic searching. Few reviews carried out a formal analysis and some based analysis on the naive addition of data from the treatment arms of interest. Few methodological papers were identified. Some valid approaches for aggregate data that could be applied using standard software were found: the adjusted indirect comparison, meta-regression and, for binary data only, multiple logistic regression (fixed effect models only). Simulation studies showed that the naive method is liable to bias and also produces over-precise answers. Several methods provide correct answers if strong but unverifiable assumptions are fulfilled. Four times as many similarly sized trials are needed for the indirect approach to have the same power as directly randomised comparisons. Detailed case studies comparing direct and indirect comparisons of the same effect show considerable statistical discrepancies, but the direction of such discrepancy is unpredictable. Direct evidence from good-quality RCTs should be used wherever possible. Without this evidence, it may be necessary to look for indirect comparisons from RCTs. However, the results may be susceptible to bias. When making indirect comparisons within a systematic review, an adjusted indirect comparison method should ideally be used employing the random effects model. If both direct and indirect comparisons are possible within a review, it is recommended that these be done separately before considering whether to pool data. There is a need to evaluate methods for the analysis of indirect comparisons for continuous data and for empirical research into how different methods of indirect comparison perform in cases where there is a large treatment effect. Further study is needed into when it is appropriate to look at indirect comparisons and when to combine both direct and indirect comparisons. Research into how evidence from indirect comparisons compares to that from non-randomised studies may also be warranted. Investigations using individual patient data from a meta-analysis of several RCTs using different protocols and an evaluation of the impact of choosing different binary effect measures for the inverse variance method would also be useful.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Effect of CYP2C19 and ABCB1 single nucleotide polymorphisms on outcomes of treatment with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel for acute coronary syndromes: a genetic substudy of the PLATO trial.

              In the PLATO trial of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel for treatment of acute coronary syndromes, ticagrelor reduced the composite outcome of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, but increased events of major bleeding related to non-coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). CYP2C19 and ABCB1 genotypes are known to influence the effects of clopidogrel. In this substudy, we investigated the effects of these genotypes on outcomes between and within treatment groups. DNA samples obtained from patients in the PLATO trial were genotyped for CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles (*2, *3, *4, *5, *6, *7, and *8), the CYP2C19 gain-of-function allele *17, and the ABCB1 single nucleotide polymorphism 3435C→T. For the CYP2C19 genotype, patients were stratified by the presence or absence of any loss-of-function allele, and for the ABCB1 genotype, patients were stratified by predicted gene expression (high, intermediate, or low). The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke after up to 12 months' treatment with ticagrelor or clopidogrel. 10 285 patients provided samples for genetic analysis. The primary outcome occurred less often with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel, irrespective of CYP2C19 genotype: 8·6% versus 11·2% (hazard ratio 0·77, 95% CI 0·60-0·99, p=0·0380) in patients with any loss-of-function allele; and 8·8% versus 10·0% (0·86, 0·74-1·01, p=0·0608) in those without any loss-of-function allele (interaction p=0·46). For the ABCB1 genotype, event rates for the primary outcome were also consistently lower in the ticagrelor than in the clopidogrel group for all genotype groups (interaction p=0·39; 8·8%vs 11·9%; 0·71, 0·55-0·92 for the high-expression genotype). In the clopidogrel group, the event rate at 30 days was higher in patients with than in those without any loss-of-function CYP2C19 alleles (5·7%vs 3·8%, p=0·028), leading to earlier separation of event rates between treatment groups in patients with loss-of-function alleles. Patients on clopidogrel who had any gain-of-function CYP2C19 allele had a higher frequency of major bleeding (11·9%) than did those without any gain-of-function or loss-of-function alleles (9·5%; p=0·022), but interaction between treatment and genotype groups was not significant for any type of major bleeding. Ticagrelor is a more efficacious treatment for acute coronary syndromes than is clopidogrel, irrespective of CYP2C19 and ABCB1 polymorphisms. Use of ticagrelor instead of clopidogrel eliminates the need for presently recommended genetic testing before dual antiplatelet treatment. AstraZeneca. Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

                Author and article information

                Drug Des Devel Ther
                Drug Des Devel Ther
                Drug Design, Development and Therapy
                Drug Design, Development and Therapy
                Dove Medical Press
                25 October 2018
                : 12
                : 3583-3594
                [1 ]Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China, wucna65@ 123456163.com
                [2 ]Department of Cardiology, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Liuzhou, China
                Author notes
                Correspondence: Weifeng Wu, Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, 6 Shuangyong Road, Nanning 530021, China, Tel +86 771 533 1171, Fax +86 771 535 9801, Email wucna65@ 123456163.com
                © 2018 Mo et al. This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited

                The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution – Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/). By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed.

                Original Research


                Comment on this article