Dual versus triple therapy in patients on oral anticoagulants and undergoing coronary stent implantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Bleeding risk in patients prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy and triple therapy after coronary interventions: the ADAPTT retrospective population-based cohort studies

Background

Bleeding among populations undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting and among conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome exposed to different dual antiplatelet therapy and triple therapy (i.e. dual antiplatelet therapy plus an anticoagulant) has not been previously quantified.

Objectives

The objectives were to estimate hazard ratios for bleeding for different antiplatelet and triple therapy regimens, estimate resources and the associated costs of treating bleeding events, and to extend existing economic models of the cost-effectiveness of dual antiplatelet therapy.

Design

The study was designed as three retrospective population-based cohort studies emulating target randomised controlled trials.

Setting

The study was set in primary and secondary care in England from 2010 to 2017.

Participants

Participants were patients aged ≥ 18 years undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (for acute coronary syndrome), or conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Data sources

Data were sourced from linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics.

Interventions

Coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome: aspirin (reference) compared with aspirin and clopidogrel. Percutaneous coronary intervention: aspirin and clopidogrel (reference) compared with aspirin and prasugrel (ST elevation myocardial infarction only) or aspirin and ticagrelor.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome: any bleeding events up to 12 months after the index event. Secondary outcomes: major or minor bleeding, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, mortality from bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, additional coronary intervention and major adverse cardiovascular events.

Results

The incidence of any bleeding was 5% among coronary artery bypass graft patients, 10% among conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients and 9% among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, compared with 18% among patients prescribed triple therapy. Among coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients, dual antiplatelet therapy, compared with aspirin, increased the hazards of any bleeding (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.69; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.57) and major adverse cardiovascular events (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 3.46; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.78). Among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.82), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.27). Among ST elevation myocardial infarction percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.12), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.51). Health-care costs in the first year did not differ between dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin monotherapy among either coronary artery bypass grafting patients (mean difference £94, 95% confidence interval -£155 to £763) or conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients (mean difference £610, 95% confidence interval -£626 to £1516), but among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients were higher for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor than for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, although for only patients on concurrent proton pump inhibitors (mean difference £1145, 95% confidence interval £269 to £2195).

Conclusions

This study suggests that more potent dual antiplatelet therapy may increase the risk of bleeding without reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events. These results should be carefully considered by clinicians and decision-makers alongside randomised controlled trial evidence when making recommendations about dual antiplatelet therapy.

Limitations

The estimates for bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events may be biased from unmeasured confounding and the exclusion of an eligible subgroup of patients who could not be assigned an intervention. Because of these limitations, a formal cost-effectiveness analysis could not be conducted.

Future work

Future work should explore the feasibility of using other UK data sets of routinely collected data, less susceptible to bias, to estimate the benefit and harm of antiplatelet interventions.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN76607611.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Meta-Analysis Comparing Potent Oral P2Y12 Inhibitors versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

BACKGROUND

In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), current guidelines recommend against combining potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors (i.e. ticagrelor or prasugrel) with oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy, but the evidence is limited.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the efficacy and safety of potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors with clopidogrel in patients receiving OAC therapy for AF after a recent PCI.

METHODS

Electronic databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting outcomes according to the P2Y12 inhibitor used. Major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding were the safety endpoints, while the efficacy outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors prasugrel and ticagrelor were compared with clopidogrel. A subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate the differences between patients treated with dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) versus triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT).

RESULTS

Four RCTs that included 10,057 patients were included in this analysis. Potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors were associated with a significant increase in major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding compared with clopidogrel (risk ratio [RR] 1.30, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.06-1.59, p = 0.01; number needed to harm 18, 95% CI 12-36). This finding was consistent regardless of the concomitant antithrombotic therapy (DAT vs. TAT; p = 0.69). The risk of MACE did not differ between potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors and clopidogrel (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.57-1.82).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients receiving OAC therapy for AF after a recent PCI, potent oral P2Y12 inhibitors increase the risk of clinically relevant bleeding compared with clopidogrel, with no evident benefit in terms of MACE reduction.

Comparison of antithrombotic strategies in patients with cryptogenic stroke and patent foramen ovale: an updated meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Patients with patent foramen ovale (PFO) and cryptogenic ischemic stroke (CS) are at risk for stroke recurrence. The optimal antithrombotic strategy in patients who undergo medical management is still debated.

METHODS

We systematically searched the literature for studies that reported on cerebrovascular event recurrences and/or death in patients with PFO treated with oral anticoagulation (OAC) or antiplatelet therapy (APT) for secondary prevention of CS. The efficacy endpoints were stroke recurrence and the composite of stroke, transient ischemic attack or all-cause death. Major bleedings represented the safety endpoint.

RESULTS

A total of 16 studies with 3953 patients (OAC = 1527, APT = 2426) were included. Weighted mean follow-up was 2.9 years. OAC was associated with a significant reduction in the risk of stroke compared with APT (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.44-0.95; ARR 2%, NNT 49), while no difference was found regarding the composite outcome (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.57-1.07) and the safety outcome (RR 1.57; 95% CI 0.85-2.90; p = 0.15).

CONCLUSIONS

OAC was more effective than APT in reducing the risk of stroke recurrence in patients with PFO and CS, without a significant increase in the risk of major bleedings. Our findings support the need for further randomized data focused on the comparison of antithrombotic strategies in this setting.

Antithrombotic treatment in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing coronary angioplasty: rational convincement and supporting evidence

BACKGROUND

The management of antithrombotic therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with an indication for long-term oral anticoagulant therapy (OAT) is still a matter of debate. We aim to evaluate the safety and the efficacy of dual therapy (DT) compared to triple therapy (TT) in this clinical setting.

METHODS

A study level meta-analysis and a review of randomized trials selected using PubMed, Embase, EBSCO, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, Web of Science, and abstract from major cardiology congresses. Six randomized trials with 12,156 patients evaluating the strategy of DT vs. TT in patients treated with PCI with indication for long-term OAT were included.

RESULTS

Patients treated with DT demonstrated a 45% relative reduction in the risk of TIMI major bleeding (1.71% vs. 2.99%; OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.41-0.71; P<0.0001) and TIMI minor bleeding compared to TT arm (4.67% vs 7.83%, OR 0.55 95% CI 0.39-0.78, P = 0.0007). All-cause mortality was similar in two arms (3.95% vs 3.77%, P = 0.92), as well as cardiovascular mortality (2.21% vs 2.19%, P = 0.97). DT was associated with a borderline increase of ST (1.02% vs 0.67%, P = 0.07). No significant differences were observed in occurrence of MI and stroke.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that DT is safer than TT with regard to occurrence of major bleeding. DT with a direct oral anticoagulant plus clopidogrel at discharge could be effective in most patients, maintaining aspirin in periprocedural phase and as longer "tailored" treatment for patients at higher ischemic risk.