SynthesisThe Journal of international medical research2026
Indobufen-based dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in The Journal of international medical research, 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
15 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
ObjectiveIndobufen has been proposed as an aspirin substitute within dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but has been compared only with aspirin plus clopidogrel. We aimed to estimate the comparative safety and efficacy of indobufen-based DAPT against contemporary antiplatelet strategies after PCI.MethodsIn a systematic review and frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis, we searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception to May 2026 for randomised controlled trials of adults undergoing PCI with drug-eluting stents that compared antiplatelet strategies mapping onto seven pre-specified nodes, with aspirin plus clopidogrel as the reference. Crude per-arm event counts were extracted in duplicate. The connected primary safety outcome was major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] type 3/5); efficacy outcomes (myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, all-cause death, stroke) were analysed per component. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and P-scores were estimated.ResultsEleven trials enrolling more than 55, 000 patients were included. Indobufen plus clopidogrel did not differ significantly from aspirin plus clopidogrel for major bleeding (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.62-1.78), myocardial infarction (0.91, 0.29-2.89), stent thrombosis (1.27, 0.34-4.74), or stroke (0.96, 0.27-3.44). In a disconnected direct comparison, indobufen reduced BARC 2-5 bleeding (OR 0.62, 0.45-0.84). The significant between-strategy differences concerned others: aspirin plus ticagrelor showed higher major bleeding (2.07, 1.46-2.94) and clopidogrel monotherapy lower (0.38, 0.22-0.64). Every comparison across clusters depended on a single bridging trial, and no network contained closed loops, precluding assessment of inconsistency.ConclusionsIndobufen-based DAPT was comparable, not superior, to aspirin plus clopidogrel across bleeding and ischaemic outcomes, with no signal of increased ischaemic risk. Because only one randomised trial has directly tested indobufen and all comparisons with ticagrelor-based or monotherapy strategies rest on a single bridging trial, the findings primarily support indobufen as a reasonable aspirin-sparing alternative within clopidogrel-based DAPT. Its relative position against other contemporary bleeding-reduction strategies remains unproven. These results reinforce the need for individualised antiplatelet therapy guided by patient-specific ischaemic and bleeding risk.INPLASY registration number: INPLASY202680037.
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.