scholarly journals Genotype-Guided Antiplatelet Therapy Versus Standard Therapy for Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 9-23
Author(s):  
Borui Tang ◽  
Xin Wang ◽  
Xinrui Wang ◽  
Lihong Liu ◽  
Zhuo Ma
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Chinese Population ◽  
Standard Treatment ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Antiplatelet Treatment ◽  
Bleeding Events ◽  
Artery Disease

Objective: Previous studies on the efficacy and safety of genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been inconclusive. Aim: We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate if the genotype-guided antiplatelet strategy is superior to the standard therapy in patients with CAD or undergoing PCI. Method: PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases were searched up to October 1st, 2021. Studies reporting efficacy and safety outcomes in the genotype-guided treatment and standard treatment groups were included. The two groups were statistically compared. Result: Eleven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 11740 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with the standard treatment group, the genotype-guided group had significant lower risks of all efficacy outcomes, including major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (RR 0.60, 95%, CI 0.44-0.82, P=0.001), all-cause death (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.51-0.95, P=0.02), cardiovascular death (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.53-0.95, P=0.02), myocardial infarction (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.42-0.67, P<0.0001), stroke (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.41-0.98, P=0.04), stent thrombosis (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43-0.91, P=0.01) and targeted vessel revascularization (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67-0.92, P=0.003). There was no significant difference in any bleeding events between the two groups. As a result of the subgroup analyses, the genotype-guided treatment was more likely to reduce the incidence of MACEs in the subgroup where the proportion of patients with ACS was ≥ 90%, and subgroup of the Chinese population. Conclusion: Genotype-guided antiplatelet treatment could reduce the risk of MACEs without increasing the risk of bleeding events as compared with the standard treatment in patients with CAD or those undergoing PCI. In addition, Genotype-guided antiplatelet treatment might benefit Chinese population or patients with ACS.

ID: 24: BENEFITS AND RISKS OF WARFARIN WITH AND WITHOUT ASPIRIN IN PATIENTS WITH CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE OR CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT: A META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS

2016 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
pp. 934.2-934
Author(s):  
A Deshpande ◽  
K Patel ◽  
MB Rothberg ◽  
V Pasupuleti ◽  
G Alreja ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Oral Anticoagulants ◽  
Intracranial Bleeding ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Artery Disease

BackgroundPrevious studies have shown that secondary prophylaxis of non-embolic stroke remains challenging. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating warfarin with or without aspirin to prevent stroke have yielded mixed results. We conducted a meta-analysis of RCTs to evaluate the efficacy of warfarin (with and without aspirin) in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) or ischemic stroke/ transient ischemic attack (TIA).MethodsWe searched 6 electronic databases published from 1980–2014. RCTs reporting the benefits (reduced incidence of stroke) and risks (mortality, intracranial bleeds, major and minor bleeds) of warfarin (with and without aspirin) therapy were included. Trials were stratified by intensity of the therapeutic international normalized ratio (INR): low (INR<2), intermediate (INR 2–3) and high (INR>3). Risk ratios (RRs) were pooled using random-effects models.ResultsTwenty-five RCTs (30,939 patients) met our inclusion criteria. Intermediate intensity warfarin with aspirin compared with aspirin alone significantly reduced the risk of secondary strokes [RR 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.29–0.80], but increased the risk of major bleeding (RR 2.54, CI 1.70–3.79); there were no significant differences in mortality (RR 1.00, CI 0.80–1.25) and intracranial bleeding (RR 3.03, CI 0.48–19.20). Intermediate intensity warfarin without aspirin compared with aspirin alone, significantly increased major bleeding (RR 2.11, CI 1.45–3.06); there were no significant differences for stroke (RR 0.84, CI 0.66–1.08), mortality (RR1.21, CI 0.90–1.63) and intracranial bleeding (RR 1.87, CI 0.94–3.70).ConclusionsUse of intermediate intensity warfarin with aspirin reduced the risk of stroke at the price of increased bleeding. Most anticoagulation increased the risk of major bleeding with no effect on mortality. Studies with oral anticoagulants with aspirin for secondary prevention should be considered.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document