Cavalcante Deivyd Vieira Silva, Krishna Mrinal Murali, Joseph Meghna, de Farias Santos Ana Clara Felix, Mendes Beatriz Ximenes, Asbeg Nicole, Gomes Wilton Francisco
Federal University of Maranhao, São Luís, Brazil.
Medical College Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, India.
Vascul Pharmacol. 2025 Mar;158:107465. doi: 10.1016/j.vph.2025.107465. Epub 2025 Jan 23.
Aspirin is commonly recommended for individuals who have experienced stroke or myocardial infarction (MI). Indobufen, a cyclooxygenase-1 inhibitor, has been studied as a potential alternative. We conducted a meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA) to compare indobufen with aspirin in patients requiring antiplatelet therapy.
We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane Central for studies that compared indobufen and aspirin antiplatelet therapies. We focused on efficacy outcomes, such as composite vascular events, MI, and ischemic stroke, and safety outcomes, such as major bleeding and any bleeding. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 statistics, and our analysis followed the PRISMA guidelines.
The review included 5 studies with 11,943 patients (indobufen n = 5952, 49.84 %), three involving post-MI and two involving post-stroke patients. No significant differences were found between the groups in composite vascular events at 90 days (RR 0.84; 95 % CI 0.46-1.53; p = 0.560; I2 = 53 %) and 1-year (RR 1.13; 95 % CI 0.99-1.29; p = 0.08; I2 = 0 %). MI (RR 0.73; 95 % CI 0.43-1.22; p = 0.22; I2 = 0 %), ischemic stroke (RR 1.16; 95 % CI 0.99-1.37; p = 0.06; I2 = 0 %), and cardiovascular death (RR 1.35; 95 % CI 0.80-2.26; p = 0.257; I2 = 0 %) at 1-year also showed no significant differences. Major bleeding at 1 year (RR 0.73; 95 % CI 0.41-1.31; p = 0.297; I2 = 64 %) was comparable, but any bleeding at 1 year showed a significant difference (RR 0.65; 95 % CI 0.43-0.98; p = 0.03; I2 = 87 %) favoring indobufen. Subgroup analysis of RCTs showed marginally significant increased risk regarding ischemic stroke with indobufen (RR 1.18; 95 % CI 1.00-1.39; p = 0.05).
The efficacy and safety of antiplatelet therapy with indobufen were comparable to those of aspirin alone. Therefore, indobufen can be considered as a suitable alternative for patients who are intolerant or hypersensitive to aspirin. Nevertheless, additional trials involving larger populations are required to establish their clinical applicability.
对于曾经历过中风或心肌梗死(MI)的个体,阿司匹林通常是推荐用药。吲哚布芬作为一种环氧化酶 -1 抑制剂,已被作为一种潜在的替代药物进行研究。我们进行了一项荟萃分析和试验序贯分析(TSA),以比较吲哚布芬与阿司匹林在需要抗血小板治疗的患者中的疗效。
我们检索了 PubMed、Scopus 和考克兰中心对照试验注册库,查找比较吲哚布芬和阿司匹林抗血小板治疗的研究。我们重点关注疗效指标,如复合血管事件、心肌梗死和缺血性中风,以及安全性指标,如大出血和任何出血情况。使用 I² 统计量评估异质性,我们的分析遵循 PRISMA 指南。
该综述纳入了 5 项研究,共 11943 名患者(吲哚布芬组 n = 5952,占 49.84%),其中三项研究涉及心肌梗死后患者,两项涉及中风后患者。两组在 90 天时的复合血管事件(风险比[RR] 0.84;95%置信区间[CI] 0.46 - 1.53;p = 0.560;I² = 53%)和一年时(RR 1.13;95% CI 0.99 - 1.29;p = 0.08;I² = 0%)均未发现显著差异。一年时的心肌梗死(RR 0.73;95% CI 0.43 - 1.22;p = 0.22;I² = 0%)、缺血性中风(RR 1.16;95% CI 0.99 - 1.37;p = 0.06;I² = 0%)和心血管死亡(RR 1.35;95% CI 0.80 - 2.26;p = 0.257;I² = 0%)也均未显示出显著差异。一年时的大出血情况(RR 0.73;95% CI 0.41 - 1.31;p = 0.297;I² = 64%)相当,但一年时的任何出血情况显示出显著差异(RR 0.65;95% CI 0.43 - 0.98;p = 0.03;I² = 87%),支持吲哚布芬。随机对照试验的亚组分析显示,使用吲哚布芬时缺血性中风风险略有显著增加(RR 1.18;95% CI 1.00 - 1.39;p = 0.05)。
吲哚布芬抗血小板治疗的疗效和安全性与单独使用阿司匹林相当。因此,对于对阿司匹林不耐受或过敏的患者,吲哚布芬可被视为一种合适的替代药物。然而,需要更多涉及更大样本量人群的试验来确定其临床适用性。