Background: Conflicting results were reported by randomized controlled trials (RCTs) exploring guided therapy (GT) with anti-P2Y12 drugs in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Meta-analyses of RCTs failed to clearly identify what GT strategy, if any, is effective, because they lumped together RCTs with heterogeneous designs, comparing either genotype-GT or platelet function test (PFT)-GT with unguided standard therapy. Some meta-analysis also included RCTs that did not actually explore GT, but tested the effects of switching patients with high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) to alternative therapies (HTPR-Therapy), rather than comparing GT with unguided standard therapy. We performed 3 distinct systematic reviews with meta-analyses, each exploring only RCTs with homogeneous design. Methods. MEDLINE, Embase and Central databases were searched for RCTs testing genotype-GT, PFT-GT or HTPR-Therapy in PCI-treated patients, through October 1st 2022. Two reviewers extracted the data. Risk ratios (RR) (95% confidence intervals) were calculated. Primary outcomes were major bleedings (MB) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Results: In 7 genotype-GT RCTs, RR were: MB, 1.06 (0.73?1.54; p=0.76); MACE, 0.64 (0.45?0.91; p=0.01), but significant risk reduction was observed only in RCTs performed in China (0.30, 0.16-0.54; p<0.0001) and not elsewhere (0.74, 0.46-1.18; p=0.21). In 6 PFT-GT RCTs, RR were: MB, 0.91 (0.64-1.28, p=0.58); MACE, 0.82 (0.5 ?1.19; p=0.30): 0.62 (0.42-0.93; p=0.02) in China, 1.08 (0.82-1.41; p=0.53) elsewhere. In 8 HTPR-Therapy RCTs, RR were: MB, 0.71 (0.41-1.23; p=0.22); MACE, 0.57 (0.44?0.75; p<0.0001): 0.56 (0.43-0.74, p<0.0001) in China, 0.58 (0.27-1.23, p=0.16) elsewhere. Conclusion: No GT strategy affected MB. Genotype-GT but not PFT-GT reduced MACE; subgroup analysis revealed that genotype-GT and PFT-GT reduced MACE in China, but not elsewhere. PFT-GT (which analyzed both patients with and without HTPR) performed poorly compared to HTPR-Therapy (which analyzed HTPR patients only), likely due to inaccurate identification of HTPR patients by PFTs. PROSPERO registration: CRD42022362739.
(1) Introduction: Cancer and atrial fibrillation (AF) are increasingly coexisting medical challenges. These two conditions share an increased thrombotic and bleeding risk. Although optimal regimens of the most suitable anti-thrombotic therapy are now affirmed in the general population, cancer patients are still particularly understudied on the matter; (2) Aims And Methodology: This metanalysis (11 studies (incl. 266,865 patients) aims at evaluating the ischemic-hemorrhagic risk profile of oncologic patients with AF treated with oral anticoagulants (vitamin K antagonists vs. direct oral anticoagulants); (3) Results: In the oncological population, DOACs confer a benefit in terms of the reduction in ischemic, hemorrhagic and venous thromboembolic events. However, ischemic prevention has a non-insignificant bleeding risk, lower than Warfarin but significant and higher than the non-oncological patients; (4) Conclusions: Anticoagulation with DOACs provides a higher safety profile with respect to VKAs in terms of stroke reduction and a relative bleeding reduction risk. Further studies are needed to better assess the optimal anticoagulation strategy in cancer patients with AF.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.