ArticleJACC. Advances2026
Antiplatelet Therapy in Stable Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Article in JACC. Advances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStable coronary artery disease (CAD) affects around 200 million people worldwide. Recent evidence with P2Y12 inhibitors, direct oral anticoagulants, and combination strategies has challenged aspirin monotherapy as the standard antithrombotic approach.
objectivesThe purpose of this study was to evaluate antiplatelet strategy efficacy and safety in stable CAD, focusing on monotherapy comparisons, oral anticoagulant strategies in atrial fibrillation with CAD, intensified therapy in high-risk patients, and diabetes-specific strategies.
methodsWe searched databases through May 13, 2025, including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies. Primary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) and major bleeding. We performed random-effects meta-analyses, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression.
resultsTwenty-three studies (437,662 patients; 13 RCTs, 6 observational, 4 post-hoc) were included. Two RCTs (HOST-EXAM, CAPRIE; n = 24,623) demonstrated clopidogrel superiority over aspirin for MACE (hazard ratio [HR] 0.73 [0.59-0.90]) and bleeding (HR 0.63 [0.41-0.97]). In atrial fibrillation with stable CAD, 2 RCTs (AFIRE, EPIC-CAD; n = 3,276) showed anticoagulant monotherapy had superior efficacy (HR 0.61 [0.49-0.76]) and safety (HR 0.52 [0.36-0.76]) vs combination therapy; observational data (Lamberts; n = 8,700) showed discordant results. Four RCTs showed intensified therapy reduced MACE (HR 0.85 [0.80-0.91]) but increased bleeding (HR 1.85 [1.65-2.07]).
conclusionsBased on 2 RCTs, clopidogrel monotherapy may offer advantages over aspirin in stable CAD. RCT evidence supports anticoagulant monotherapy in atrial fibrillation with stable CAD beyond 12 months post-revascularization. Intensified strategies may benefit selected high-risk patients though narrow therapeutic margins (number needed to treat 91 vs number needed to harm 85) necessitate careful patient selection.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.