Peer Review History

Original SubmissionAugust 6, 2020
Decision Letter - Timir Paul, Editor

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.

Revision 1

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.

Attachments
Attachment
Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx
Decision Letter - Timir Paul, Editor

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 

Formally Accepted
Acceptance Letter - Timir Paul, Editor

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

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .