Search

Background: Studies show inconsistent results regarding the impact of CYP2C19 genotype on the pharmacodynamics (PD) and clinical outcomes of ticagrelor. With the implementation of genotype-guided individualized antiplatelet therapy, the association between CYP2C19 polymorphism and the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor for patients is still worthy of exploring and studying.Methods: This systematic review protocol has been registered in the PROSPERO network (No. CRD 42020158920). Electronic databases of PubMed, EmBase, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched from inception to January 6th, 2022 to select studies investigating the impact of CYP2C19 genotype on PD and clinical outcomes of ticagrelor. The results were presented as odds ratio (OR) or weight mean difference with its 95% confidence interval (CI) by using the random-effects model. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used to control risk of random errors and detect the robustness of outcomes.Results: Eight studies recruited a total of 6405 patients treated with ticagrelor. Mostly trials reported no significant effect of any or no CYP2C19 loss-of-function (LOF) allele (*2 or *3) on all the endpoints. Compared with no LOF allele carriers, subgroup analysis suggested any LOF allele in Asian patients was associated with a significant decreased risk of bleeding events (OR: 0.41; 95% CI: 0.22-0.75; P = 0.004). Furthermore, any LOF allele carriers didn't yield any impact on the risk of MACEs (OR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.76-1.64; P = 0.586), stroke (OR: 1.71; 95% CI: 0.99-2.96; P = 0.054), definite stent thrombosis (OR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.17-4.60; P = 0.882), bleeding (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.27-1.46; P = 0.281), myocardial infarction (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.30-2.20; P = 0.682), and revascularization (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.33-2.00; P = 0.649) in all patients. The results of TSA were indicated that more further trials would be required.Conclusions: This qualitative and quantitative study suggested Asian patients carrying any CYP2C19 LOF allele might have a lower risk of bleeding events comparing with no LOF allele carriers when treated with ticagrelor. However, we did not prove an important role of CYP2C19 genotype on the risk of PD and clinical endpoints in the whole cohort. In future, more large-scale prospective studies and more different ethnic populations should be included. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Low-dose rivaroxaban is often given to patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) around the world, but the rationale for its use remains unclear. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of standard- or low-dose rivaroxaban in patients with AF through systematic review of literature with meta-analysis. Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, Clinical Trials.gov, the Cochrane Library, and Bayer trial website from inception of each database until June 2020. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies were included in the meta-analysis. A random-effects model was employed to calculate the pooled effect estimates. Results: Two RCTs and 17 cohort studies were included in the qualitative analysis. Indirect comparison of RCTs showed no significant difference between the two rivaroxaban dosages in risk of efficacy or safety outcomes (p > 0.05). Indirect comparison of cohort studies showed a lower risk of MACE among Caucasians in standard-dose group (HR 0.779; 95% CI 0.687–0.884; p < 0.001). Bleeding outcomes did not differ significantly between the two dosage regimens in Asian or Caucasian populations, except that the standard dose was associated with higher risk of major bleeding among elderly Caucasian patients (HR 1.329; 95% CI 1.141–1.547; p < 0.001). The quality of evidence was rated ranging from very low to low for all the efficacy and safety outcomes. Conclusion: In Caucasians with AF, standard-dose rivaroxaban may prevent MACE significantly better than low-dose treatment. Further studies in Asians are needed to verify the advantages of the standard dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is known and objective: Limited data are available for the comparison between different non‐vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants (NOACs) on clinical outcomes. We aimed to provide evidence of different NOACs for patients with non‐valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF). Methods: Electronic databases were searched from inception through 22 March 2020 to identify eligible studies in which clinical outcomes (stroke, systemic embolism [SE], bleeding or death events) were directly compared between different NOACs. Results: 29 real‐world studies enrolled more than 700,000 patients were included. Compared with dabigatran, apixaban had higher risk of death (OR 1.07), major bleeding (1.43), GI bleeding (1.64), ischaemic stroke and stroke/SE events (1.10); rivaroxaban had higher risk of death (1.28), major bleeding (1.24), GI bleeding (1.14) and ischaemic stroke (1.08). Compared with rivaroxaban, apixaban had lower risk of death (0.8), major bleeding (0.56) and ischaemic stroke events (0.71). Compared with edoxaban, rivaroxaban had higher risk of major bleeding (2.83), GI bleeding (5.18) and ischaemic stroke (2.28). What is new and conclusion: In view of the global burden of disease and the routine use of NOACs worldwide, the findings have immediate and important implications. Our data suggested that apixaban might be the priority choice in prevention of bleeding and stroke and dabigatran could be the priority choice in prevention of death events. Trial registration: This systematic review and meta‐analysis were conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA), Meta‐analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) guidelines and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019140553). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Due to the high risk of ischemic and arterial or venous bleeding events in atrial fibrillation (AF) or venous thromboembolism (VTE) patients with renal impairment (RI), selection of appropriate anticoagulant regimen is important. Therefore, we systematically reviewed and compared the safety and effects of oral anticoagulants in AF and VTE patients with RI. Methods: Eligible articles were identified through a literature search in PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between January 2008 and November 2020. Network meta-analysis was conducted with STATA 14.0 to analyze the effects and safety of each drug with regard to different levels of renal function. Results: 15 studies including 82,931 patients (76,957 with AF and 5974 with VTE) were analyzed. Compared with those of warfarin, the risk ratios of effect and safety outcomes of apixaban were 0.70 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60–0.82) and 0.56 (95% CI 0.42–0.76) in AF patients and 0.33 (95% CI 0.19–0.59) and 0.95 (95% CI 0.68–1.34) in VTE patients. Apixaban had the first or second highest probability of being ranked first with respect to surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) scores in the prevention of major bleeding events, while in the prevention of ischemic events, rivaroxaban showed a higher SUCRA score (0.78–0.92) in mild RI patients and dabigatran showed a higher SUCRA value (0.90–0.99) in moderate RI patients. Conclusions and Relevance: In the systematic review and meta-analysis, for AF or VTE patients with RI, direct oral anticoagulants performed comparably to or better than warfarin with regard to safety and effects. The network meta-analysis indicated that for patients with mild RI, apixaban might be safer for patients with a lower risk of ischemic events, while rivaroxaban might be suitable for patients with a lower risk of bleeding events. For patients with moderate RI, apixaban could reduce the risk of ischemic events without increasing the risk of bleeding events. For AF patients with severe RI, apixaban, rivaroxaban, and warfarin showed a similar effect. These results might provide suggestions for clinical arterial and venous thrombosis prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) monoclonal antibodies are powerful lipid-lowering drugs which have been shown to improve clinical endpoints in patients with hypercholesterolemia. However, it is not clear how effective PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies are for patients at high cardiovascular risk. Also, whether the effectiveness of PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies varies between different drug types, dosages, race, and indications for PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies remains unclear. Therefore, we used recently published studies to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies by analyzing the lipid profiles, adverse events, and clinical endpoints in patients at high cardiovascular risk.Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies with placebos or active drugs in patients at high cardiovascular risk were retrieved from electronic databases from their inception until November 2019. Efficacy and safety outcomes included low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and other lipid profiles, treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and adverse events of interests, and clinical endpoints. Subgroup analyses based on drug types, dosing, and race were conducted. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA 15.1 and RevMan 5.0.Results: Thirty-two RCTs were included in the systematic review, and 25 of them (57,090 individuals) were included in the meta-analysis. PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies significantly improved LDL-C and other lipid profiles (P < 0.05), and no racial differences were found. A recommended dose of 140 mg of evolocumab every 2 weeks was likely to produce a relatively stronger effect than 150 mg of alirocumab every 2 weeks in terms of the absolute change (weighted mean differences (WMD) - 0.36; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.71 to - 0.01; P = 0.041) and percent change (WMD - 19.53; 95% CI - 32.02 to - 7.04; P = 0.002) in LDL-C levels. Overall, PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies were safe, except for the significantly increased risk of injection site reactions (relative risks (RR) 1.54; 95% CI 1.38-1.71; P < 0.001). Both alirocumab (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.83-0.95; P < 0.001) and evolocumab (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.80-0.92; P < 0.001) were associated with a lower risk of major cardiovascular events (MACEs), especially in secondary preventive patients (alirocumab group: RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.82-0.95; P < 0.001; evolocumab group: RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.80-0.92; P < 0.001). The reduction in MACEs was observed in White but not in Asian subjects. No significant reduction of all-cause mortality was found (RR 0.88; 95% CI 0.72-1.07; P = 0.182).Conclusion: Both alirocumab and evolocumab are well tolerated and can greatly improve lipid profiles for patients at high cardiovascular risk. Both PCSK9 monoclonal antibodies significantly reduce the risk of nonfatal MACEs in patients with previous cardiovascular events, but the effect on all-cause mortality remains uncertain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

What is known and objective: Dopamine D2 receptor (DRD2) polymorphisms are inconsistently associated with elevated prolactin levels related to risperidone treatment. The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analysis was to investigate whether DRD2 polymorphisms could modulate prolactin levels in patients treated with risperidone. Methods : Three electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library) were searched for studies investigating the effect of DRD2 polymorphisms on prolactin levels in patients treated with risperidone until May 2018. Summary standard mean differences (SMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with Hedges' g tests for effect estimates using random effects models. The heterogeneity, sensitivity, univariable meta‐regression, subgroup analyses and publication biases were calculated. Results and discussion : After initially identifying 886 studies, 772 patients from eight studies were included. Summary SMDs indicated that compared with A1 non‐carriers, Taq1A A1 carriers did not have different risperidone‐related prolactin levels (SMD: 0.13; 95% CI: −0.18 to 0.43; P = 0.423) among patients with schizophrenia (SCZ; SMD: 0.07; 95% CI: −0.14 to 0.29; P = 0.505) or among those without SCZ (SMD: 0.16; 95% CI: −0.39 to 0.71; P = 0.562). There was no significant difference between Del carriers and Del non‐carriers with regard to risperidone‐related prolactin levels (SMD: −0.00; 95% CI: −0.59 to 0.58; P = 0.996). In an Asian subgroup analysis, we also noted that compared with Taq1A A1A2 carriers, Taq1A A1A1 carriers had lower prolactin levels (SMD: −0.34; 95% CI: −0.66 to −0.02; P = 0.040). However, there was no significant difference in prolactin levels between A1A1 carriers and A2A2 carriers (SMD: −0.27; 95% CI: −0.60 to 0.05; P = 0.098), or between A2 carriers and A2 non‐carriers (SMD: 0.29; 95% CI: −0.01 to 0.59; P = 0.059). Based on univariable meta‐regression analyses, the effects of publication year, study design, ethnicity, comparison groups and study quality could bias the identified association of DRD2 Taq1A with risperidone‐related prolactin levels. What is new and conclusion : The findings of this study suggest that there is no significant difference between Taq1A A1 carriers and non‐A1 carriers with regard to risperidone‐related prolactin levels. As there were few A1 homozygotes, large prospective studies with robust designs are still needed to investigate whether A1A1 could affect risperidone‐related prolactin levels in the Asian population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]