Outcomes with P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after PCI according to bleeding risk: A Bayesian meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is a promising novel strategy to reduce bleeding complications compared to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In order to personalise treatment with DAPT based on patients' bleeding risk, we compared outcomes after PCI between P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy and DAPT according to bleeding risk. METHODS: A search for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after a short period of DAPT to standard DAPT after PCI was performed. Outcome differences between treatment groups regarding major bleedings, major adverse cardiac and cerebral events (MACCE) and net adverse clinical events (NACE) were assessed with hazard ratios (HRs) and corresponding credible intervals (CrI) according a Bayesian random effects model in patients with and without high bleeding risk (HBR). RESULTS: Five RCTs including 30,084 patients were selected. P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy compared to DAPT reduced major bleedings in the total population (HR: 0.65, 95 % CrI: 0.44 to 0.92). The HRs of the HBR and non-HBR subgroups showed a similar reduction of bleedings for monotherapy (HBR: HR 0.66, 95 % CrI: 0.25 to 1.74; non-HBR: HR 0.63, 95 % CrI: 0.36 to 1.09). No notable differences between treatments on MACCE and NACE were observed in either sub-group or in the total population. CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of bleeding risk, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy is the favourable choice after PCI regarding major bleedings and does not increase ischemic events compared to DAPT. This suggests that bleeding risk is not decisive when considering P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy.

The "sex gap" in COVID-19 trials: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Many studies investigate the role of pharmacological treatments on disease course in Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Sex disparities in genetics, immunological responses, and hormonal mechanisms may underlie the substantially higher fatality rates reported in male COVID-19 patients. To optimise care for COVID-19 patients, prophylactic and therapeutic studies should include sex-specific design and analyses. Therefore, in this scoping review, we investigated whether studies on pharmacological treatment in COVID-19 were performed based on a priori sex-specific design or post-hoc sex-specific analyses. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, UpToDate, clinical trial.org, and MedRxiv for studies on pharmacological treatment for COVID-19 until June 6th, 2020. We included case series, randomized controlled trials, and observational studies in humans (≥18 years) investigating antiviral, antimalarial, and immune system modulating drugs. Data were collected on 1) the proportion of included females, 2) whether sex stratification was performed (a priori by design or post-hoc), and 3) whether effect modification by sex was investigated. FINDINGS: 30 studies were eligible for inclusion, investigating remdesivir (n = 2), lopinavir/ritonavir (n = 5), favipiravir (n = 1), umifenovir (n = 1), hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine (n = 8), convalescent plasma (n = 6), interleukin-6 (IL-6) pathway inhibitors (n = 5), interleukin-1 (IL-1) pathway inhibitors (n = 1) and corticosteroids (n = 3). Only one study stratified its data based on sex in a post-hoc analysis, whereas none did a priori by design. None of the studies investigated effect modification by sex. A quarter of the studies included twice as many males as females. INTERPRETATION: Analyses assessing potential interference of sex with (side-)effects of pharmacological therapy for COVID-19 are rarely reported. Considering sex differences in case-fatality rates and genetic, immunological, and hormonal mechanisms, studies should include sex-specific analyses in their design to optimise COVID-19 care. FUNDING: None.

Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials

Background New-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) have mostly been investigated in head-to-head non-inferiority trials against early-generation DES and have typically shown similar efficacy and superior safety. How the safety profile of new-generation DES compares with that of bare-metal stents (BMS) is less clear.Methods We did an individual patient data meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials to compare outcomes after implantation of new-generation DES or BMS among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiac death or myocardial infarction. Data were pooled in a one-stage random-effects meta-analysis and examined at maximum follow-up and a 1-year landmark. Risk estimates are reported as hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% CIs. This study is registered in PROSPERO, number CRD42017060520.Findings We obtained individual data for 26 616 patients in 20 randomized trials. Mean follow-up was 3·2 (SD 1·8) years. The risk of the primary outcome was reduced in DES recipients compared with BMS recipients (HR 0·84, 95% CI 0·78­0·90, p<0·001) owing to a reduced risk of myocardial infarction (0·79, 0·71­0·88, p<0·001) and a possible slight but non-significant cardiac mortality benefit (0·89, 0·78­1·01, p=0·075). All-cause death was unaffected (HR with DES 0·96, 95% CI 0·88­1·05, p=0·358), but risk was lowered for definite stent thrombosis (0·63, 0·50­0·80, p<0·001) and target-vessel revascularization (0·55, 0·50­0·60, p<0·001). We saw a time-dependent treatment effect, with DES being associated with lower risk of the primary outcome than BMS up to 1 year after placement. While the effect was maintained in the longer term, there was no further divergence from BMS after 1 year. Interpretation The performance of new-generation DES in the first year after implantation means that BMS should no longer be considered the gold standard for safety. Further development of DES technology should target improvements in clinical outcomes beyond 1 year. (AU)

Impact of multivessel disease on myocardial perfusion and survival among patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention with glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Although primary angioplasty achieves thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow in most patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction, epicardial recanalization does not guarantee optimal perfusion in a large proportion of patients. The influence of multivessel disease on myocardial reperfusion and survival after primary angioplasty has not been extensively investigated. AIM: To evaluate the impact of multivessel disease on myocardial perfusion and survival in a large cohort of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction treated with angioplasty and glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors. METHODS: This analysis is based on 1494 patients undergoing primary angioplasty included in the EGYPT database. Myocardial perfusion was evaluated by angiography or ST-segment resolution, whereas infarct size was estimated by using peak creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB). Follow-up data were collected between 30 days and 1 year after primary angioplasty. RESULTS: Multivessel disease was observed in 870 patients (58.2%). The extent of coronary artery disease was associated with age, diabetes, hypertension, previous myocardial infarction, previous revascularization, abciximab treatment and longer ischaemic time, and was independently associated with impaired angiographic myocardial perfusion (adjusted odds ratio 1.18, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.40, P=0.049). At 208±160 days, the extent of coronary artery disease was independently associated with higher mortality (adjusted hazard ratio 1.54, 95% CI 1.06-2.24, P=0.022). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary angioplasty with GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor treatment, the extent of coronary artery disease was independently associated with impaired myocardial perfusion and survival.

Impact of time-to-treatment on myocardial perfusion after primary percutaneous coronary intervention with Gp IIb-IIIa inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Primary angioplasty has been shown to be superior to thrombolysis. However, previous reports have shown a negative impact of longer time-to-treatment on myocardial perfusion and survival even with mechanical reperfusion. However, these deleterious effects might potentially be overcome by an extensive use of glycoprotein (Gp) IIb-IIIa inhibitors. Thus, the aim of the current study was to evaluate the prognostic role of the interval from symptoms onset to reperfusion in a large cohort of patients undergoing primary angioplasty with Gp IIb-IIIa inhibitors. METHODS: Our population is represented by 1560 patients undergoing primary angioplasty for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) included in the EGYPT (Early Glycoprotein IIb-IIIa Inhibitors in Primary Angiography) database. Myocardial perfusion was evaluated by angiography or ST-segment resolution, whereas infarct size was estimated by using peak creatine kinase and creatine kinase-MB (CK-MB). Follow-up data were collected between 30 days and 1 year after primary angioplasty. RESULTS: Time-to-treatment was significantly associated with age and female sex, diabetes and previous myocardial infarction (MI), but inversely related to smoking. Time-to-treatment affected the rate of postprocedural thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) 3 flow (P < 0.0001), myocardial blush grade 2-3 (P = 0.052), complete ST-resolution (P < 0.0001) and distal embolization (P = 0.038). This relationship was confirmed after correction for baseline confounding factors for postprocedural TIMI 3 flow (P = 0.008) and complete ST-segment resolution (P = 0.003). Furthermore, time-to-treatment significantly affected enzymatic infarct size, even after correction for baseline confounding factors [odds ratio (OR) 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 1.002 (1.001-1.003), P = 0.004]. At 208 ±â€Š160 days follow-up, time-to-treatment was associated with a significantly higher mortality (P = 0.006). The impact was confirmed when time-to-treatment was evaluated as a continuous variable (P < 0.001), even after correction for baseline confounding factors [age, sex, diabetes, smoking, hypertension, previous myocardial infarction (MI), preprocedural TIMI 3 flow, multivessel disease, coronary stenting and early Gp IIb-IIIa inhibitors] (P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: This study showed that time-to-treatment is a major determinant of mortality in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary angioplasty. Impaired epicardial and myocardial perfusion and larger infarct size associated with longer ischemia time contribute to explain this finding.