Why the study?
Previous RCTs and meta-analyses on guided P2Y12 therapy during PCI reported conflicting results, partly because past meta-analyses lumped together heterogeneous designs and non-guided switching studies.
Does guided antiplatelet therapy with P2Y12 antagonists reduce major adverse cardiovascular events or major bleedings in patients undergoing PCI?
Does guided antiplatelet therapy with P2Y12 antagonists reduce major adverse cardiovascular events or major bleedings in patients undergoing PCI?
Genotype-guided P2Y12 inhibitor therapy reduces MACE in PCI patients, particularly in Chinese populations, without increasing major bleeding, whereas platelet function test-guided therapy does not show overall MACE reduction.
Genotype-guided P2Y12 selection may safely lower post-PCI MACE; confirms benefit in East Asian cohorts while leaving PFT-guided strategies unsupported.
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 1 st 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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Birocchi et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: