急性冠状动脉综合征中的新型口服抗凝剂:与现有疗法相比是否有优势?

IF 0.2 Q4 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS International Cardiovascular Research Journal Pub Date : 2014-09-01
Andrea Messori, Valeria Fadda, Roberta Gatto, Dario Maratea, Sabrina Trippoli
{"title":"急性冠状动脉综合征中的新型口服抗凝剂:与现有疗法相比是否有优势?","authors":"Andrea Messori, Valeria Fadda, Roberta Gatto, Dario Maratea, Sabrina Trippoli","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>After an acute coronary syndrome, dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel plus aspirin is still a standard of care, but several new approaches have been investigated.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The present study re-examined the studies published thus far on this topic to evaluate the effectiveness of dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison to some of these new approaches (mainly, ticagrelor + aspirin and dual therapy plus a new oral anticoagulant [NOAC]; i.e., \"triple therapy\").</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The clinical material was directly derived from that reported in recent meta-analyses. Our re-analysis relied on standard equivalence methods in which interpretation is based on Relative Risks (RRs) along with their 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). The equivalence margins employed in our statistical testing were directly derived from those reported in randomized studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The equivalence margins were initially set at RR ranging from 0.775 to 1.29. According to these margins, triple therapy based on any NOAC proved to be superior to dual therapy alone, but at the same time demonstrated its equivalence with dual therapy. The results for apixaban-based triple therapy were inconclusive (not superior, not not-inferior, not equivalent and, of course, not inferior to the controls). Those for rivaroxaban-based triple therapy showed that this combination treatment was superior to dual therapy alone and failed to meet the criterion of equivalence. In the comparison between rivaroxaban-based triple therapy and ticagrelor + aspirin, the RR was 1 and its 95% CI remained within a post-hoc margin of ± 15%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Even if one considers the most effective NOAC in combination with clopidogrel + ticagrelor, this triple therapy is not more effective than ticagrelor + aspirin. On the other hand, the increased risk of bleeding with triple regimens is well demonstrated. We therefore conclude that these triple regimens did not play any important roles in the patients experiencing an acute coronary syndrome.</p>","PeriodicalId":43653,"journal":{"name":"International Cardiovascular Research Journal","volume":"8 3","pages":"124-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4109037/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"New oral anticoagulants in acute coronary syndrome: is there any advantage over existing treatments?\",\"authors\":\"Andrea Messori, Valeria Fadda, Roberta Gatto, Dario Maratea, Sabrina Trippoli\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>After an acute coronary syndrome, dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel plus aspirin is still a standard of care, but several new approaches have been investigated.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The present study re-examined the studies published thus far on this topic to evaluate the effectiveness of dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison to some of these new approaches (mainly, ticagrelor + aspirin and dual therapy plus a new oral anticoagulant [NOAC]; i.e., \\\"triple therapy\\\").</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The clinical material was directly derived from that reported in recent meta-analyses. Our re-analysis relied on standard equivalence methods in which interpretation is based on Relative Risks (RRs) along with their 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). The equivalence margins employed in our statistical testing were directly derived from those reported in randomized studies.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The equivalence margins were initially set at RR ranging from 0.775 to 1.29. According to these margins, triple therapy based on any NOAC proved to be superior to dual therapy alone, but at the same time demonstrated its equivalence with dual therapy. The results for apixaban-based triple therapy were inconclusive (not superior, not not-inferior, not equivalent and, of course, not inferior to the controls). Those for rivaroxaban-based triple therapy showed that this combination treatment was superior to dual therapy alone and failed to meet the criterion of equivalence. In the comparison between rivaroxaban-based triple therapy and ticagrelor + aspirin, the RR was 1 and its 95% CI remained within a post-hoc margin of ± 15%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Even if one considers the most effective NOAC in combination with clopidogrel + ticagrelor, this triple therapy is not more effective than ticagrelor + aspirin. On the other hand, the increased risk of bleeding with triple regimens is well demonstrated. We therefore conclude that these triple regimens did not play any important roles in the patients experiencing an acute coronary syndrome.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":43653,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Cardiovascular Research Journal\",\"volume\":\"8 3\",\"pages\":\"124-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4109037/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Cardiovascular Research Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Cardiovascular Research Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:急性冠状动脉综合征发生后,氯吡格雷加阿司匹林的双联抗血小板疗法仍是标准治疗方法:急性冠状动脉综合征发生后,氯吡格雷加阿司匹林的双联抗血小板疗法仍是治疗标准,但也有一些新方法得到了研究:本研究重新审查了迄今为止已发表的相关研究,以评估双重抗血小板疗法与其中一些新方法(主要是替卡格雷+阿司匹林和双重疗法加新型口服抗凝剂[NOAC],即 "三联疗法")相比的有效性:临床材料直接来源于最近的荟萃分析报告。我们的再分析依赖于标准等效方法,该方法的解释基于相对风险(RR)及其 95% 置信区间(CI)。我们在统计测试中采用的等效边际值直接来自随机研究报告中的等效边际值:等效边际最初设定为 0.775 至 1.29 的 RR。根据这些差值,基于任何一种 NOAC 的三联疗法被证明优于单独的双联疗法,但同时也证明了其与双联疗法的等效性。基于阿哌沙班的三联疗法的结果尚无定论(不优、不劣、不等效,当然也不劣于对照组)。利伐沙班三联疗法的结果表明,这种联合疗法优于单独的双重疗法,但未达到等效标准。在利伐沙班三联疗法与替卡格雷+阿司匹林的比较中,RR为1,其95% CI保持在±15%的事后差值范围内:即使考虑到最有效的 NOAC 与氯吡格雷+替卡格雷的组合,这种三联疗法也并不比替卡格雷+阿司匹林更有效。另一方面,三联疗法会增加出血风险,这一点已得到充分证实。因此,我们得出结论,这些三联疗法在急性冠脉综合征患者中没有发挥任何重要作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
New oral anticoagulants in acute coronary syndrome: is there any advantage over existing treatments?

Background: After an acute coronary syndrome, dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel plus aspirin is still a standard of care, but several new approaches have been investigated.

Objectives: The present study re-examined the studies published thus far on this topic to evaluate the effectiveness of dual antiplatelet therapy in comparison to some of these new approaches (mainly, ticagrelor + aspirin and dual therapy plus a new oral anticoagulant [NOAC]; i.e., "triple therapy").

Materials and methods: The clinical material was directly derived from that reported in recent meta-analyses. Our re-analysis relied on standard equivalence methods in which interpretation is based on Relative Risks (RRs) along with their 95% Confidence Intervals (CI). The equivalence margins employed in our statistical testing were directly derived from those reported in randomized studies.

Results: The equivalence margins were initially set at RR ranging from 0.775 to 1.29. According to these margins, triple therapy based on any NOAC proved to be superior to dual therapy alone, but at the same time demonstrated its equivalence with dual therapy. The results for apixaban-based triple therapy were inconclusive (not superior, not not-inferior, not equivalent and, of course, not inferior to the controls). Those for rivaroxaban-based triple therapy showed that this combination treatment was superior to dual therapy alone and failed to meet the criterion of equivalence. In the comparison between rivaroxaban-based triple therapy and ticagrelor + aspirin, the RR was 1 and its 95% CI remained within a post-hoc margin of ± 15%.

Conclusions: Even if one considers the most effective NOAC in combination with clopidogrel + ticagrelor, this triple therapy is not more effective than ticagrelor + aspirin. On the other hand, the increased risk of bleeding with triple regimens is well demonstrated. We therefore conclude that these triple regimens did not play any important roles in the patients experiencing an acute coronary syndrome.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Cardiovascular Research Journal
International Cardiovascular Research Journal CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS-
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
50.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Speckle tracking echocardiography before and after Surgical pulmonary valve replacement in Tetralogy of Fallot patients: Can STE elucidate early left ventricular dysfunction? Cytomegalovirus Infection and Coronary Artery Disease: A Single- Center Serological Study in Northwestern Iran Weaning from IABP after CABG Surgery: Impact of Serum Lactate Levels as an Early Predictor The Association between PAI-1 Gene Promoter Polymorphism and Serum Serpin E1, MDA, and Hs-CRP Levels in Coronary Artery Disease The Predictors of No-Reflow Phenomenon after Primary Angioplasty for Acute Myocardial Infarction
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1