RESUMO
Background: Recent guidelines suggest that antiplatelet therapy (APT) is the standard of care in the absence of long-term oral anticoagulation (OAC) indications in patients post-transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). The superiority of one method over the other remains controversial. Materials and methods: Several databases, including MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and EMBASE, were electronically searched. The primary endpoint was the all-cause mortality (ACM) rate. Secondary endpoints included cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke/TIA, haemorrhagic stroke, bleeding events, systemic embolism, and valve thrombosis in post-TAVR patients receiving APT and oral anticoagulants (OACs). Forest plots were generated using Review Manager version 5.4, with a p value less than 0.05 indicating statistical significance. Subgroup analysis was performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity. Results: Twelve studies were selected. No significant differences were observed in APT and OAC group for ACM [risk ratio (RR): 0.67; 95% CI:0.45-1.01; P=0.05], cardiovascular death [RR:0.91; 95% CI:0.73-1.14; P=0.42], MI [RR:1.69; 95% CI:0.43-6.72; P=0.46], Stroke/TIA [RR:0.79; 95% CI:0.58-1.06; P=0.12], ischaemic stroke [RR:0.83; 95% CI:0.50-1.37; P=0.47], haemorrhagic stroke [RR:1.08; 95% CI: 0.23-5.15; P=0.92], major bleeding [RR:0.79; 95% CI:0.51-1.21; P=0.28], minor bleeding [RR:1.09; 95% CI: 0.80-1.47; P=0.58], life-threatening bleeding [RR:0.85; 95% CI:0.55-1.30; P=0.45], any bleeding [RR:0.98; 95% CI:0.83-1.15; P=0.78], and systemic embolism [RR:0.87; 95% CI:0.44-1.70; P=0.68]. The risk of valve thrombosis was higher in patients receiving APT than in those receiving OAC [RR:2.61; 95% CI:1.56-4.36; P =0.0002]. Conclusions: Although the risk of valve thrombosis increased in patients receiving APT, the risk of other endpoints was comparable between the two groups.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Hepatocellular carcinoma is a lethal disease and there has been a debate regarding the first-line treatment of its advanced and unresectable form. Observational studies have explored atezolizumab plus bevacizumab versus lenvatinib, yielding mixed results. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to compare efficacy and safety of both treatment arms. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Randomized control trials, cohort studies, or case-control that included patients above age 60 with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma confirmed by radiological imaging were included. At least one of the outcomes: overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), duration of response, or adverse events was included in the selected studies. RESULTS: Ten cohorts were included in the analysis with a total of 6493 patients. Nine of the included studies had patients with advanced HCC (BCLC-C) or intermediate HCC (BCLC-B) and 1 study included patients with all three stages (BCLC-A, BCLC-B, and BCLC-C). Of these patients, 2524 patients received atezolizumab plus bevacizumab (A + B) combination while 3969 received lenvatinib. The overall survival was better statistically in the A + B group then the lenvatinib group (MD: - 5.06; 95% CI: - 7.79 to - 2.33; p = 0.0003, I2 = 0%). The progression-free survival was significantly improved in A + B arm as well group (MD: - 4.96; 95% CI: - 7.67 to - 2.26; I2 = 0%, p = 0. 0003). There was no significant difference in objective response rate, disease control rate, and frequency of adverse events in either of the group. CONCLUSION: Our study concluded that combination therapy with atezolizumab plus bevacizumab could increase the survival duration without affecting the disease course. Moreover, while the severity of adverse events was greater in the A + B group, their frequency was comparable to the lenvatinib group.