Short- versus long-term dual antiplatelet therapy after second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with diabetes mellitus: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Diabetes is considered to be a high-risk factor for thromboembolic events. However, available data about the optimal dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) after second-generation drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation are scant.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare the impact of various DAPT durations on clinical outcomes in patients with DM after second-generation DES implantation.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies that compared short-term (≤ 6 months) and long-term (≥ 12 months) DAPT in patients with DM. The primary endpoints were late (31-365 days) and very late (> 365 days) stent thrombosis (ST). The secondary endpoints included myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel recanalization (TVR), all-cause death, and major bleeding.
RESULTS: Six randomized controlled trials, with a total of 3,657 patients with DM, were included in the study. In terms of the primary endpoint, there was no significant difference between the two groups in late (OR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.42-3.19, P = 0.79) or very late (OR 2.18, 95% CI: 0.20-24.18; P = 0.53) ST. Moreover, there was no significant difference in the secondary endpoints, including MI (OR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.72-1.71, P = 0.63), TVR (OR 1.31, 95% CI: 0.82-2.07, P = 0.26), all-cause death (OR 1.03, 95% CI: 0.61-1.75, P = 0.90) and major bleeding (OR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.34-3.40, P = 0.90) between the two groups.
CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrated that compared with long-term DAPT, short-term DAPT had no significant difference in the clinical outcomes of patients with DM implanted with second-generation DES.

Introduction

Nowadays, drug-eluting stent (DES) is widely used in diabetic patients with coronary artery disease because of their lower restenosis and target lesion revascularization rates compared to bare-metal stents (BMS). However, due to incomplete endothelial coverage, DES appear to be associated with an increased risk of late and very late stent thrombosis (ST) [1]. Compared with the early generation DES, the second-generation DES significantly reduces ST as these stents are made of novel materials, and newer anti-proliferative drugs are used. Unfortunately, the risk of thrombosis after second-generation DES implantation in patient with diabetes mellitus (DM) remains high.

As is well known, DM is an independent risk factor for ST after a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) [2]. Due to the high platelet reactivity, increased thrombin activity, and decreased reactivity of antiplatelet drugs in patients with DM, these factors might lead to ischemic events [3]. Therefore, how to prevent thromboembolism and adverse cardiovascular events after PCI in patients with DM is still worth investigating.

Current guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) of aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitor after stent implantation [4, 5]. This dual therapy aims to reduce the risk of ST after PCI and prevent the occurrence of thromboembolic events in coronary arteries outside the stented segment. However, available data on the optimal DAPT in patients with DM after second-generation DES implantation are scant. Moreover, with high diabetes prevalence worldwide, the number of patients with DM, complicated by coronary artery disease is increasing, introducing a great challenge to clinical practice. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to investigate the optimal DAPT in patients with DM after PCI.

Methods

Data sources and search strategy

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies that compared short-term (≤ 6 months) and long-term (≥12 months) DAPT in patients with DM after second-generation DES implantation. We also searched for relevant trials in the ClinicalTrials.gov. The search strategy is shown in S1 Text. Search terms included “diabetes mellitus”, “diabetes,” “percutaneous coronary intervention”, “drug-eluting stent”, “dual antiplatelet therapy”, “aspirin”, “clopidogrel”, “prasugrel”, “ticagrelor”, and “P2Y12 receptor inhibitor”. We searched all articles in the databases up to December 2019. Only studies published in English were included in this study. Ethical approval and patient consent were not required because this is an analysis of previously published studies.

Inclusion criteria

randomized controlled trials (RCTs); (2) trials that compared short-term (≤ 6 months) and long-term (≥ 12 months) DAPT following PCI; (3) trials on implanted second-generation DES; (4) trials that report clinical outcomes in patients with DM, such as ST, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel recanalization (TVR), all-cause death, or major bleeding.

Exclusion criteria

Meta-analysis, case reports, ongoing trials or editorials; (2) studies that did not compare short-term(≤ 6 months) and long-term(≥ 12 months) DAPT after PCI; (3) studies that did not include patients with DM; (4) studies that did not include second-generation DES; (5) studies that did not report adverse clinical endpoints as described in the inclusion criteria; (6) duplicate studies.

Study endpoints

The primary endpoints were late and very late ST. Secondary endpoints included MI, TVR, all-cause death, and major bleeding. All clinical endpoint definitions followed the original definitions in included the studies. ST was as defined by the Academic Research Consortium [6]. Late ST was defined as ST that occurred between 31 to 365 days after PCI. Very late ST was defined as ST that occurred more than 365 days after PCI. Major bleeding was defined differently in each study. In the RESET trial [10], it was defined following the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) criteria [7]. In the OPTIMIZE trial [11], it referred to intracranial, intraocular, or retroperitoneal hemorrhages. In the SECURITY trial [19], it was classified according to the standardized definition of the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) [8]. We accepted the definition of major bleeding as used in each study.

Data extraction and risk of bias assessment

Two investigators (ZHY and KJS) independently reviewed the titles and abstracts to excluded irrelevant records, and then obtained eligible articles. Disagreements were resolved by consensus, and a third opinion (XK) was sought if necessary. After agreement on the included studies, relevant data were extracted from the studies, including study characteristics, baseline patient characteristics, and clinical outcomes. Quality assessment of the above studies was based on the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool [9].

Statistical analyses

All data analyses were conducted by the Cochrane Review Manager (RevMan 5.3). Results are expressed as odds ratios (OR) with its 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was evaluated by Cochran’s Q test, and P-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The I2 statistic test was also used to assessed heterogeneity, in which I2 < 25%, 25% ≤ I2 ≤ 50%, I2 ≥ 50% were considered low, medium, or high heterogeneity, respectively. If I2 was more than 50%, a random-effects model was used for data analysis. Otherwise, a fixed model was used.

Results

Search result and study characteristics

According to the search strategy, a total of 5,193 records were identified. After removing 672 duplicates, we carefully reviewed the titles and abstracts and eliminated 4,490 irrelevant studies. Thirty-one full-text articles were assessed for eligibility, and six RCTs [10-15] were finally included in our study. The study selection process is shown in Fig 1.

Fig 1

Flowchart for study selection.

A total of 3,657 patients with DM were involved, including 1,813 patients in the short-term DAPT group and 1,844 patients in the long-term DAPT group. All patients were implanted with a second-generation DES, such as everolimus-eluting stent (EES), biolimus-eluting stents (BES), or zotarolimus-eluting stents (ZES). The study published by Tarantini et al. [14] was a sub-study of the SECURITY trial [19], and all participants were diabetic patients. The remaining five articles were subgroup analyses of RCTs [10–13, 15]. Two studies compared 3-month versus 12-month DAPT [10, 11], one study compared 6-month versus 24-month DAPT [12], and three studies compared 6-month versus 12-month DAPT [13-15]. Most studies used clopidogrel as a second antiplatelet agent, with follow-up periods ranging from 12 to 24 months. The general characteristics of all studies are listed in Table 1.

Table 1

Characteristics of included trials.

Study name	Year	Type of study	Types of participants	No. of DM patients in the short-term group (n)	No. of DM patients in the long-term group (n)	Type of DES used	Comparison of DAPT duration (months)	Clopidogrel	Ticagrel or prasugrel	Follow up period
RESET [10]	2012	RCT	ACS and SCAD	146	146	ZES	3 vs 12	100%	0%	12 months
OPTIMIZE [11]	2013	RCT	ACS and SCAD	554	549	ZES	3 vs 12	100%	0%	12 months
ITALIC [12]	2015	RCT	ACS and SCAD	331	344	EES	6 vs 24	98.6%	1.4%	12 months
I-LOVE IT 2 [13]	2016	RCT	ACS and SCAD	211	203	BP-DES	6 vs 12	100%	0%	18 months
Tarantini 2016 [14]	2016	RCT	ACS and SCAD	206	223	ZES, EES, BES	6 vs 12	98.8%	1.2%	24 months
SMART-DATE [15]	2018	RCT	ACS	365	379	ZES, EES, BES	6 vs 12	80.8%	19.2%	18months

ACS: acute coronary syndrome; BES: biolimus-eluting stents; BP-DES: biodegradable polymer drug eluting stent; DAPT: dual anti-platelet therapy; DM: diabetes mellitus; DES: drug-eluting stents; EES: everolimus-eluting stent; ZES: zotarolimus-eluting stents; RCT: randomized controlled trials; SCAD: stable coronary artery disease; ZES: zotarolimus-eluting stents.

Patient characteristics of included studies

Table 2 describes the patient characteristics of included studies. In this meta-analysis, the average age of patients ranged from 60.0 to 66.7 years; the percentage of men between 62.9% and 80.8%; diabetic patients between 22.1% and 100%; and the percentage of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) between 31.6% and 100%. According to the general characteristics of patients, there was no difference between the short- and long-term DAPT groups.

Table 2

Patient characteristics of included studies.

Characteristics	RESET [10]*		OPTIMIZE [11]*		ITALIC [12]*		I-LOVE IT 2 [13]*		Tarantini 2016 [14]		SMART-DATE [15]*
	ST	LT	ST	LT	ST	LT	ST	LT	ST	LT	ST	LT
Age (years)	62.4±9.4	62.4±9.8	61.3±10.4	61.9±10.6	61.7±10.9	61.5±11.1	60.4±10.2	60.0±10.0	65.5±10.1	66.7±9.1	62.0±11.5	62.2±11.9
Males (%)	64.9	62.9	63.5	63.1	80.8	79.2	67.2	68.7	71.8	74.0	74.9	75.9
Hypertension (%)	62.6	61.4	86.4	88.2	65.2	64.7	61.0	64.8	82.5	80.3	49.9	48.7
Dyslipidemia (%)	58.2	59.9	63.2	63.7	67.1	67.1	25.3	23.4	69.4	70.9	24.2	25.2
Diabetes (%)	30.1	28.8	35.4	35.3	36.3	37.8	23.2	22.1	100	100	26.9	28.1
Insulin dependent	-	-	10.2	10.4	-	-	9.7	7.2	21.4	19.7	-	-
Current smoking (%)	25.2	22.8	18.3	17.3	50.9	52.7	36.6	38.3	33.5	35.9	38.0	40.1
Previous MI (%)	1.8	1.6	34.6	34.8	15.6	14.7	17.2	15.8	23.8	17.1	2.3	1.7
Previous PCI (%)	3.7	3.0	20.9	19.1	24.1	22.5	8.5	6.5	22.8	17.0	4.9	3.9
Previous CABG (%)	0.2	0.6	7.1	8.2	6.7	4.9	0.4	0.4	5.8	7.2	-	-
LVEF (%)	64.2±9.4	63.9±9.4	-	-	-	-	60.8±8.4	60.3±8.2	55.8±9.7	55.7±9.1	55.5±11.0	55.4±10.5
Clinical presentation (%)
STEMI	14.7	13.8	-	-	7.3	7.6	13.4	13.7	0.0	0.0	37.5	37.9
NSTEMI	0.0	0.0	5.4	5.4	15.7	16.5	11.3	10.7	0.0	0.0	31.5	31.4
Unstable angina	40.8	39.9	-	-	20.3	20.1	58.0	56.5	35.9	32.3	31.0	30.7
Stable angina	44.5	46.3	59.8	58.6	41.3	41.5	14.3	15.1	64.1	67.7	0.0	0.0
Silent ischemia	0.0	0.0	8.6	9.2	15.4	14.3	3.0	4.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Number of lesions (%)
1-vessel disease	56.9	57.1	-	-	50.3	54.3	68.4	69.0	45.6	52.0	-	-
2-vessel disease	27.6	27.6	-	-	30.2	27.7	27.8	27.3	42.2	34.5	-	-
3-vessel disease	15.5	15.3	-	-	19.5	18.0	3.4	3.5	12.1	13.5	-	-
Treated vessel (%)
Left anterior descending	52.7	53.6	47.9	46.6	73.4	72.3	45.9	45.3	39.0	41.0	56.6	61.0
Left Circumflex	21.3	19.2	23.4	24.3	50.0	47.9	22.9	22.2	39.0	41.0	24.4	25.1
Right coronary artery	67.6	69.2	27.6	27.7	53.6	52.1	29.4	30.8	19.0	18.0	37.2	36.2
Bifurcation (%)	0.0	0.0	14.7	14.9	-	-	30.8	33.1	10.7	12.1	9.2	9.1
Stents implanted, mean
Per patient	1.3	1.5	1.6	1.6	1.7	1.7	1.7	1.7	1.6	1.6	1.4	1.5
Per lesion	1.0	1.2	1.2	1.2	-	-	1.3	1.3	1.1	1.2	1.1	1.1
Stent length per lesion (mm)	22.7	22.9	20.4	20.4	-	-	30.2	30.5	19.2	19.3	26.1	26.3

*The characteristics of the patients were extracted from the original text, include diabetic and non-diabetic patients; CABG: Coronary artery bypass grafting; LVEF: Left ventricular ejection fraction; LT: Long term DAPT group; MI: Myocardial infarction; PCI: Percutaneous coronary intervention; ST: Short term DAPT group.

Risk of bias assessment and sensitivity analysis

The quality of all studies was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaborative’s tool, as shown in S1 Table. Risk of bias summary and graph (Fig 2) showed that all included studies in this meta-analysis were in the lower categories for risk of bias. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots. Evidence of publication bias reported among the studies that assessed all clinical endpoints was also low as shown in S1–S5 Figs. Sensitivity analysis was performed by removing one study at a time and repeating the statistical analysis. The statistical significance of the overall results did not change through the sensitivity analyses, confirming their robustness.

Fig 2

Risk of bias graph and summary.

(a) Risk of bias graph: review of the authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item, presented as percentages across all of the included studies. (b) Risk of bias summary: review of the authors’ judgments about each risk of bias item for each included study.

Clinical endpoints

The primary endpoints of this study were late and very late ST after PCI. For late ST, there were six patients (0.4%) in the short-term DAPT group and five patients (0.3%) in the long-term DAPT group. Only two studies reported very late ST incidence, which occurred in two patients (0.5%) in the short-term DAPT group and one patient (0.2%) in the long-term DAPT group. There was no significant difference in late (OR 1.15, 95% CI: 0.42–3.19, P = 0.79, I2 = 0%, Fig 3A) or very late (OR 2.18, 95% CI: 0.20–24.18; P = 0.53, Fig 3B) ST between the two groups.

Fig 3

Forest plot of late and very late stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, all-cause death and major bleeding.

In terms of MI, there were 44 patients (2.4%) in the short-term DAPT group and 40 patients (2.2%) in the long-term DAPT group. For TVR, there were 33 patients (2.3%) in the long-term DAPT group and 43 patients (3.0%) in the short-term DAPT group. For all-cause death, there were 29 patients (2.0%) in the short-term DAPT group, and 28 patients (1.9%) in the long-term DAPT group. For Major bleeding, there were four patients (0.5%) in the short-term DAPT group and six (0.6%) in the long-term DAPT group. There were no significant differences between the two groups in the rates of MI (OR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.72–1.71; P = 0.63, I2 = 0%, Fig 3C), TVR (OR 1.31, 95% CI: 0.82–2.07; P = 0.26, I2 = 0%, Fig 3D), all-cause death (OR 1.03, 95% CI: 0.61–1.75; P = 0.90, I2 = 0%, Fig 3E), or major bleeding (OR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.34–3.40; P = 0.90, I2 = 0%, Fig 3F).

Discussion

Our study aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of short-term (≤ 6 months) versus long-term (≥ 12 months) DAPT in patients with DM after second-generation DES implantation. The results show that the different DAPT durations had no impact on the clinical outcomes of patients with DM in terms of late and very late ST, MI, TVR, all-cause death, and major bleeding.

Unlike BMS, DES is widely used in clinical practice because it can inhibit the proliferation of smooth muscle cells and reduce the rate of restenosis. However, due to insufficient endothelialization, DES appears to be associated with an increased propensity towards ST [1]. This tendency is especially true for the early generation DES. Pfisterer et al. [16] reported that the risk for very late ST in early generation DES was twice that of BMS (2.6% vs. 1.3%) and was even higher in cases of early discontinuation of DAPT (4.9%). Such data led to the view that patients with DES should take antiplatelet drugs as long as possible. However, with the advent of the second-generation DES, some trials had demonstrated the safety of short-term DAPT after PCI [10–15, 17–19]. Because the second generation DES was implemented with new materials and new anti proliferation drugs, such as zoltamox, everolimus and bioramus. Compared with early DES, these factors greatly reduce the risk of ST. From this point of view, it seems reasonable to shorten the duration of DAPT.

Patients with ACS should consider receiving DAPT for at least 12 months after PCI, a currently recognized clinical practice [4, 5]. However, recent evidence indicates that the benefits of thrombosis prevention endowed by DAPT following DES implantation are primarily in the first six months after implantation [20]. Some special patient groups might, however, benefit from long-term DAPT. It is well known that DM is consider to be a prothrombotic state characterized by platelet activation, inflammation, and hypercoagulability [3]. Platelet activation is a key factor in thrombosis in patients with DM, and even in the early and preclinical stages of patients with impairment of glucose metabolism, platelet activation increases with increased thromboxane biosynthesis [3, 21]. These findings led to the view that prolonging the DAPT is a more reasonable treatment approach for DM patients after PCI.

In this context, some studies have investigated the optimal duration of DAPT after stent implantation. In the EXCELLENT trial, when compared with six months of DAPT, twelve months of DAPT will significantly reduce the target vessel failure (composed of cardiac death, MI, and TVR) rate of patients with DM [22]. Unfortunately, 25% of the patients in this trial were implanted with early generation DES, which might have affected the robustness of the results. On the other hand, trials in which second-generation DES was used, such as OPTIMIZE [11], ITALIC [12], I-LOVE-IT 2 [13] and SECURITY [19], showed that long-term DAPT did not improve adverse clinical outcomes in patients with DM, including all-cause death, MI, ST, and TVR. Partially similar to the results of these trials, a recent meta-analysis involving 17 RCTs also showed that in patients with ACS and stable coronary heart disease, DAPT for three to six months was safer than DAPT for twelve months. Notably, this meta-analysis involved more than 30% of the patients with DM. Not only that, their subgroup analysis found that, when compared with three to six months, long-term DAPT was associated with a higher all-cause mortality in patients implanted with second-generation DES [23]. However, in our analysis, we did not find a significant difference in all-cause mortality between the two groups. This might be because our analysis evaluated different trials and subgroups. Another meta-analysis published by Sharma et al. [24] found that the risks for MI, TVR, and ST were similar in patients with DM after PCI treated by short- or long-term DAPT. From these results, it is not difficult to see that long-term DAPT is not superior to short-term DAPT in preventing ischemic events in patients with DM after PCI.

For DAPT, it is essential to weigh the risk of ischemia and bleeding, as these are closely related to the occurrence of adverse events after PCI [25, 26]. When the duration of DAPT is prolonged, the subsequent concern is the risk of bleeding. More importantly, Berardis et al. [27] found that patients with DM had a higher risk of bleeding than those without DM, which was independent of the use of antiplatelet drug use. Recently, Bundhun et al. used meta-analysis to compare short- and long-term DAPT after DES implantation. Their analysis involved 15 studies and 25,742 diabetic patients. They showed that as the duration of DAPT was prolonged, bleeding, as defined by BARC, had increased significantly [28]. However, we found no difference in major bleeding events between the two groups in our meta-analysis. This might be due to the overall low incidence of overall bleeding events (0.5%). Despite this, other studies have also shown that long-term DAPT was associated with a higher risk of bleeding compared with short-term DAPT [28, 29]. A study published by Gargiulo et al. [29], concluded that diabetes should not be a driver for prolonging the DAPT, because the potential benefits of this strategy were accompanied by an increased risk of bleeding. Furthermore, Capodanno et al. [30] Proposed such a concept that in the contemporary era of widespread DES use, bleeding has a more significant impact on mortality than ST. From this perspective, it might be reasonable to shorten the duration of DAPT.

Our results corroborate with those reported by the International ISAR 2000 All Comers Registry, which showed that short- and long-term DAPT presented a similar risk for late ST, MI, and all-cause death [31]. Based on these findings, they suggested that short-term DAPT was a reasonable strategy for patients with DM after PCI. All participants in their study were DM patients; however, it was not included in our meta-analysis as it was an observational trial.

Limitations

There are several limitations to our study. First, only six RCTs were included in our meta-analysis, with a relatively small number of patients, different follow-up period, and different stent types, all of which could have affected the results. However, the included studies were strictly selected, so we could not avoid this limitation. Second, most of the six trials used aspirin combined with clopidogrel as DAPT, so we were unable to evaluate the effect of DAPT duration for other antiplatelet agents, such prasugrel or ticagrelor. Third, five of the include studies we included were subgroup analyses of large RCTs. These did not report the proportion of ACS in patients with DM. Therefore, our study could not individually assess the efficacy and safety of diabetic patients with ACS. Fourth, due to the low risk of thromboembolic events in the included patients, our results might not be apply to high-risk patients, such as those with DM who require insulin therapy, having lower extremity arterial disease, or experienced previous stent thrombosis.

Conclusions

Although DM is considered a predictor of cardiovascular adverse events, our study demonstrated that long- and short-term DAPT had similar clinical outcomes in patients with DM after second-generation DES implantation. Based on our results, short-term DAPT seems to be a reasonable strategy for these patients. Because this short-term treatment reduces bleeding risk without increasing the occurrence of ST or other adverse clinical outcomes. However, due to the limitations of this study, our results need to be confirmed by more extensive RCTs for patients with DM.

Funnel plot for late stent thrombosis.

OR: odds ratio; SE: standard error.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Funnel plot for myocardial infarction.

OR: odds ratio; SE: standard error.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Funnel plot for target vessel revascularization.

OR: odds ratio; SE: standard error.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Funnel plot for all-cause death.

OR: odds ratio; SE: standard error.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Funnel plot for major bleeding.

OR: odds ratio; SE: standard error.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Risk of bias assessment in details.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Checklist for PRISMA guidelines.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

Search strategy.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

2 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-24066

Short- versus long-term  dual antiplatelet therapy after second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with diabetes mellitus: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Huang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Editors comments:

The major limitation of this study is that it was snot mentioned whether this is all PCI with diabetes  and percentage of ACS or stable ischemic heart disease ( SIHD) patients. The current guidelines have specific recommendations on DAPT such as ACS patients 6-12 month and stable angina patients 3-6 months and can stop after minimum 3 or 6 months if needed.

I recommend to do 1) a subgroup analysis of ACS and SIHD patients 2) 3 months Vs 6 months instead of 6 months vs 12 months

Please submit your revised manuscript by 60 days.  If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Timir Paul

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please provide a quality a publication bias assessment on the studies included in the systematic review

3. We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

4.

We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please amend the manuscript submission data (via Edit Submission) to include author Kai Xu. M.M., Yun Chen. M.M

6.

Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

Editor Comments :

The major limitation of this study is that it was snot mentioned whether this is all PCI with diabetes  and percentage of ACS or stable ischemic heart disease ( SIHD) patients. The current guidelines have specific recommendations on DAPT such as ACS patients 6-12 month and stable angina patients 3-6 months and can stop after minimum 3 or 6 months if needed.

I recommend to do 1) a subgroup analysis of ACS and SIHD patients 2) 3 months Vs 6 months instead of 6 months vs 12 months

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I Don't Know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This meta-analysis is well performed. I have some concern regarding the study as mentioned below.

- 6 months DAPT after PCI has already been accepted in the guidelines to be safe for all patients including diabetes. The question is not to compare 6 months of DAPT to 12 months or more, but rather to compared shorter DAPT therapy duration to 6 months DAPT therapy duration.

- The manuscript is lacking the brief overview of each research studies used in meta-analysis in tabular format including stent types, IDDM vs NIDDM if data is available, bifurcation stenting, anticoagulation used during PCI, duration of DAPT, follow-up time, etc. This is very vital for any meta-analysis. I see some details in the result section, but that is not enough.

Reviewer #2: besides few words corrections, it is a well written nice manuscript. It is written in good intellectual language and lays the strengths and weaknesses of the study. The limitations were laid out nicely and it speaks for the study power.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

8 Nov 2020

Reply to editor comments:

1)a subgroup analysis of ACS and SIHD patients

Response: Since the study we included did not report the proportion of diabetic patients with ACS or SIHC, we were unable to conduct a subgroup analysis of such patients. This point has been described in the third point of the limitations of this article

2)3 months vs 6 months instead of 6 months vs 12 months

Response: Current clinical practice guidelines recommend 6–12-month DAPT following DES implantation. Despite these recommendations, due to refinements in DES technologies and the advent of potent P2Y12 receptor inhibitors, the optimal DAPT after stent implantation in patients with diabetes continues to be a matter of debate. Unfortunately, as literature is scant concerning DAPT durations for DM, the current meta-analysis was hindered in determining the impact of second-generation DESs or new-generation P2Y12 inhibitors on the optimal DAPT duration. We searched a large amount of literatures and found that most trials compared the DAPT of 3-6 months to 12 months or longer. Due to the limited literature available, we could not compare 3 months to 6 months of DAPT. And our meta-analysis shows that DAPT of 3-6 months is not inferior to DAPT of 12-24 months, which also has a certain guiding significance for clinical practice.

Reply to reviewer #1

1.6 months DAPT after PCI has already been accepted in the guidelines to be safe for all patients including diabetes. The question is not to compare 6 months of DAPT to 12 months or more, but rather to compared shorter DAPT therapy duration to 6 months DAPT therapy duration.

Response: At present, there are few literature about the duration of DAPT after PCI in patients with diabetes, and most trials compared the DAPT of 3-6 months to 12 months or longer, in order to explore the optimal DAPT duration for such patients. Due to limited data, we were unable to compare 6 months with shorter duration of DPAT. And our meta-analysis shows that for patients with stable coronary heart disease or ACS, 3-6 months of DAPT was noninferior to 12-24 months, which also has a certain guiding significance for clinical practice.

2. The manuscript is lacking the brief overview of each research studies used in meta-analysis in tabular format including stent types, IDDM vs NIDDM if data is available, bifurcation stenting, anticoagulation used during PCI, duration of DAPT, follow-up time, etc. This is very vital for any meta-analysis. I see some details in the result section, but that is not enough.

Response: Some tables have been modified, as shown in Table 1 and Table 2.

Reply to reviewer #2

Besides few words corrections, it is a well written nice manuscript. It is written in good intellectual language and lays the strengths and weaknesses of the study. The limitations were laid out nicely and it speaks for the study power.

Response: None.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

11 Nov 2020

Short- versus long-term  dual antiplatelet therapy after second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with diabetes mellitus: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

PONE-D-20-24066R1

Dear Dr. Huang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Timir Paul

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

All queries have been addressed appropriately

1 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-24066R1

Short- versus long-term dual antiplatelet therapy after second-generation drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with diabetes mellitus: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Dear Dr. huang:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Timir Paul

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE