gao-efficacyandsafety-2015.pdf (2.3 MB)
Efficacy and safety of thrombin-receptor antagonist (atopaxar and vorapaxar) in patients with acute coronary syndrome or coronary artery disease-a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
journal contributionposted on 2015-01-01, 00:00 authored by Lan GaoLan Gao, F L Zhao, S C Li
Background: Meta-analysis for the efficacy and safety data of thrombin-receptor antagonist (TRA) based on patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or coronary artery disease (CAD) and indirect comparisons between TRAs were not available. Objectives: We intended to synthesize the primary end points based on different patient populations (ACS or CAD) as well as perform indirect comparison between two newly invented antiplatelet agents atopaxar and vorapaxar. Methods: A literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Incidences of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and bleeding events according to thrombolysis in myocardial infarction were selected as primary outcomes, whereas adverse effects were considered as secondary outcomes. Corresponding results were synthesized using Revman 5.1 according to ACS or CAD cohorts. Results: Among the seven included randomized controlled trials, the efficacy end points in the TRA treatment group were favorable compared with placebo. Specifically, the odds ratio (OR) of MACEs was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.52-1.22) for patients with ACS and 0.74 (95% CI 0.53-1.05) for the cohort with CAD. The events of bleeding were unanimously superior in the placebo arm for both cohorts. The indirect comparison showed a superior trend in favor of atopaxar over vorapaxar in occurrences of MACEs (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.38-1.32), myocardial infarction (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.13-0.95), and cardiovascular death (OR 0.82; 95% CI 0.12-4.24) and caused less incidence of bleeding. Conclusions: Besides being more effective than placebo in improving the incidence of MACEs but with a higher risk of bleeding, TRAs may exert different effects in patients with ACS and CAD. Indirect comparisons also suggested that atopaxar might be better than vorapaxar in lowering the incidence of MACEs, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death and at the same time with lower risks of bleeding.