Real-World Data of Prasugrel vs. Ticagrelor in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Results from the RENAMI Registry

Low-dose prasugrel versus standard-dose ticagrelor in east Asian patients with acute coronary syndrome

Low-dose prasugrel demonstrated a similar effectiveness profile to clopidogrel in East Asian ACS patients, but its comparison with another new-generation potent P2Y12 inhibitor, ticagrelor, remains unclear. To compare the effectiveness and safety of low-dose prasugrel against those of standard-dose ticagrelor in East Asian patients with ACS. This retrospective cohort study used Taiwan's National Health and Welfare Database. This study included ACS patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and, at discharge between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2020, were prescribed with low-dose prasugrel plus aspirin or standard-dose ticagrelor plus aspirin. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to balance the covariates across these two groups. The primary effectiveness outcome was a composite of acute myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and cardiovascular death; the secondary effectiveness outcome was each of the individual components of the primary outcome, transient ischemic attack, and repeat revascularization. The primary safety outcome was a composite of intracranial hemorrhage and gastrointestinal bleeding, and the two secondary safety outcomes were intracranial hemorrhage and gastrointestinal bleeding. A total of 24,807 patients were included in this study. Among them, 1,493 were low-dose prasugrel users and 23,314 were standard-dose ticagrelor users. No significant differences were found in primary effectiveness [HR: 0.97 (0.74-1.28)] or primary safety outcomes [HR: 1.22 (0.73-2.01)] between the two study groups. For East Asian patients with ACS, low-dose prasugrel provides comparable effectiveness without increasing bleeding risk compared to standard-dose ticagrelor. Low-dose prasugrel may be an appropriate alternative for East Asian populations.

Duration and kind of dual antiplatelet therapy for acute coronary syndrome patients: a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

For acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the choice of the duration and kind of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) offering the most accurate balance between ischemic and bleeding risk remains unknown.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A network meta-analysis was performed including all Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing different DAPT regimens and duration in ACS patients undergoing PCI. Trial-defined MACE and major bleedings were the primary endpoints. Stroke, stent thrombosis (ST), all-cause and cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI) represented secondary endpoints.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

13 RCTs encompassing 46145 patients were included. Mean age was 62 (61-64) years old, 42% being admitted with STEMI, 33% with NSTEMI and 25% with UA. The competitive arms were: clopidogrel and aspirin for 12 months (6 arms/18183 patients), clopidogrel and aspirin for 6 months (4/3329), clopidogrel and aspirin >12 months (3/2238), ticagrelor and aspirin for 12 months (6/12942) and prasugrel and aspirin for 12 months (3/9453). Trial-defined MACE and major bleedings, stroke and death were similar among the different arms. DAPT with prasugrel and aspirin for 12 months reduced MI compared to aspirin and clopidogrel for 12 months (OR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54.0.94) and reduced the risk of ST compared to ticagrelor (OR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.49-0.90). Both prasugrel and ticagrelor reduced ST as compared to clopidogrel and aspirin for 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Different DAPT strategies yield similar risk of MACE, major bleeding, death and stroke in ACS patients. Prasugrel and aspirin for 12 months proved to be the most effective strategy regarding ST and MI.

Safety and efficacy of different P2Y12 inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndromes stratified by the PRAISE risk score: a multicentre study

AIMS

To establish the safety and efficacy of different dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) combinations in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) according to their baseline ischaemic and bleeding risk estimated with a machine learning derived model [machine learning-based prediction of adverse events following an acute coronary syndrome (PRAISE) score].

METHODS AND RESULTS

Incidences of death, re-acute myocardial infarction (re-AMI), and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3-5 bleeding with aspirin plus different P2Y12 inhibitors (clopidogrel or potent P2Y12 inhibitors: ticagrelor or prasugrel) were appraised among patients of the PRAISE data set grouped in four subcohorts: low-to-moderate ischaemic and bleeding risk; low-to-moderate ischaemic risk and high bleeding risk; high ischaemic risk and low-to-moderate bleeding risk; and high ischaemic and bleeding risk. Hazard ratios (HRs) for the outcome measures were derived with inverse probability of treatment weighting adjustment. Among patients with low-to-moderate bleeding risk, clopidogrel was associated with higher rates of re-AMI in those at low-to-moderate ischaemic risk [HR 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.16-2.51; P = 0.006] and increased risk of death (HR 3.2, 1.45-4.21; P = 0.003) and re-AMI (HR 2.23, 1.45-3.41; P < 0.001) in those at high ischaemic risk compared with prasugrel or ticagrelor, without a difference in the risk of major bleeding. Among patients with high bleeding risk, clopidogrel showed comparable risk of death, re-AMI, and major bleeding vs. potent P2Y12 inhibitors, regardless of the baseline ischaemic risk.

CONCLUSION

Among ACS patients with non-high risk of bleeding, the use of potent P2Y12 inhibitors is associated with a lower risk of death and recurrent ischaemic events, without bleeding excess. Patients deemed at high bleeding risk may instead be safely addressed to a less intensive DAPT strategy with clopidogrel.

Efficacy and Safety of Clopidogrel Versus Ticagrelor as Part of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndrome-A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

ABSTRACT

The efficacy and safety of clopidogrel compared with ticagrelor as part of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients, and in older patients, with acute coronary syndrome is reviewed. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and HTA databases were searched (September 2, 2020) for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Pooled risk differences (clopidogrel minus ticagrelor) were estimated using random-effects meta-analyses, and certainty of evidence was assessed according to Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. In all, 29 RCTs were identified. The risk difference for all-cause mortality was 0.6% (-0.03% to 1.3%), cardiovascular (CV) mortality: 0.6% (95% confidence interval: 0.01% to 1.1%), myocardial infarction (MI): 0.9% (0.4% to 1.3%), stent thrombosis: 0.7% (0.4 to 1.1%), clinically significant bleeding: -1.9% (-3.7% to -0.2%), major bleeding: -0.9% (-1.6% to -0.1%), and dyspnea: -5.8% (-7.7% to -3.8%). In older patients, there were no differences between the comparison groups regarding all-cause mortality, CV mortality, and MI, whereas the risk of clinically significant bleeding and major bleeding was lower in the clopidogrel group, -5.9% (-11 to -0.9%, 1 RCT) and -2.4% (-4.4% to -0.3%), respectively. Compared with ticagrelor, clopidogrel may result in little or no difference regarding all-cause mortality. Although not evident in older patients, it cannot be excluded that clopidogrel may be slightly less efficient in reducing the risk of CV mortality and MI, whereas ticagrelor is probably more efficacious in reducing the risk of stent thrombosis. Clopidogrel results in a reduced risk of dyspnea and clinically significant bleeding and in older people probably in a reduced risk of major bleeding.

Ticagrelor versus Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention - analysis from the Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Survey (ACSIS)

INTRODUCTION

We aimed to compare the outcomes of ACS (acute coronary syndrome) patients undergoing in-hospital PCI (percutaneous coronary intervention) treated with prasugrel versus ticagrelor.

METHODS

Among 7,233 patients enrolled to the ACSIS (Acute Coronary Syndrome Israeli Survey) between 2010 and 2018, we identified 1126 eligible patients treated with prasugrel and 817 with ticagrelor. Comparison between the groups was preformed separately in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients, propensity score matched (PSM) STEMI patients, and non-ST-elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS) patients.

RESULTS

In-hospital complication rates, including rates of stent thrombosis, were not significantly different between groups. In PSM STEMI patients, 30-day re-hospitalization rate (p <0.05), 30-day MACE (the composite of death, MI, stroke and urgent revascularization; p=0.006), and 1-year mortality rates (p = 0.08) were higher in the ticagrelor group compared to the prasugrel group; In NSTE-ACS patients, outcomes were not associated with drug choice. In cox regression analysis applied on the entire cohort, prasugrel was associated with lower 1-year mortality in STEMI patient but not in NSTE-ACS patients (p for interaction 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to ticagrelor, prasugrel was associated with superior clinical outcomes in STEMI patients, but not in NSTE-ACS patients.

Clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor for all-comers with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

To compare effectiveness and safety of clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor among all-comers with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and extend the knowledge from randomized clinical trials.

METHODS

All consecutive patients with STEMI admitted to Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, from 2009 to 2016 were identified via the Eastern Danish Heart Registry. By individual linkage to Danish nationwide registries, claimed drugs and end points were obtained. Patients alive a week post-discharge were included, stratified according to clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor treatment, and followed for a year. The effectiveness end point (a composite of all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke) and safety end point (a composite of bleedings leading to hospitalization) were assessed by multivariate Cox proportional-hazards models.

RESULTS

In total, 5123 patients were included (clopidogrel [1245], prasugrel [1902], ticagrelor [1976]) with ≥95% treatment persistency. Concomitant use of aspirin was ≥95%. Females accounted for 24% and elderly for 17%. Compared with clopidogrel, the effectiveness end point occurred less often for ticagrelor (HR 0.50, 95% CI 0.35-0.70) and prasugrel (HR 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.68) without differences in bleedings leading to hospitalization. No differences in comparative effectiveness or safety were found between prasugrel and ticagrelor. Sensitivity analyses with time-dependent drug exposure and the period 2011-2015 showed similar results.

CONCLUSIONS

Among all-comers with STEMI, ticagrelor and prasugrel were associated with reduced incidence of the composite end point of all-cause mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction, and ischemic stroke without an increase in bleedings leading to hospitalization compared with clopidogrel. No differences were found between prasugrel and ticagrelor.

Ticagrelor versus prasugrel in acute coronary syndrome: sex-specific analysis from the RENAMI Registry

BACKGROUND

The use of potent P2Y12 inhibitors (ticagrelor & prasugrel) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) is a class I recommendation. We performed a sex-specific analysis comparing the difference in efficacy and safety outcomes between ticagrelor and prasugrel in a real-world ACS population.

METHODS

Data from the multicenter REgistry of New Antiplatelets in patients with Myocardial Infarction (RENAMI) for 4424 ACS patients who underwent PCI and were treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel between 2012 to 2016 were analyzed. Mean follow-up was 17±9 months.

RESULTS

After propensity score matching, there was no significant difference in the occurrence of primary endpoint of net adverse cardiac events between ticagrelor and prasugrel in men (HR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.69-1.29; P=0.71), or women (HR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.63-2.20; P=0.62; P interaction [sex] = 0.40). Similarly, no differences were found in the occurrence of any of the secondary endpoints (MACE, all cause death, re-infarction, stent thrombosis, BARC major bleeding and BARC any bleeding) between the two P2Y12 groups between men and women.

CONCLUSIONS

In this real-world ACS population, no relative difference in efficacy or safety outcomes were found between ticagrelor and prasugrel between sexes.

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With ST-Segment–Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background:

Data on the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention are limited. We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in a head-to-head comparison in patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Methods:

In this prespecified subgroup analysis, we included 1653 patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel in the setting of the ISAR REACT-5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5). The primary end point was the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year after randomization. The secondary end point was the incidence of bleeding defined as BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 1 year after randomization.

Results:

The primary end point occurred in 83 patients (10.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 64 patients (7.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 0.95–1.82]; P =0.10). One-year incidence of all-cause death (4.9% versus 4.7%; P =0.83), stroke (1.3% versus 1.0%; P =0.46), and definite stent thrombosis (1.8% versus 1.0%; P =0.15) did not differ significantly in patients assigned to ticagrelor or prasugrel. One-year incidence of myocardial infarction (5.3% versus 2.8%; hazard ratio, 1.95 [95% CI, 1.18–3.23]; P =0.010) was higher with ticagrelor than with prasugrel. BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 46 patients (6.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 39 patients (5.1%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.80–1.87]; P =0.36).

Conclusions:

In patients with ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, there was no significant difference in the primary end point between prasugrel and ticagrelor. Ticagrelor was associated with a significant increase in the risk for recurrent myocardial infarction.

Registration:

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Use of Clopidogrel, Prasugrel, or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcome after Acute Coronary Syndrome in Austria from 2015 to 2017

Background: Dual antiplatelet therapy improves patient outcome after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), but prescription differences of P2Y12 inhibitor treatments exist. The aim of the present investigation was to study the long-term utilization and patient outcomes of clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor in patients with ACS from 2015 to 2017 in Austria. Methods: Data from 13 Austrian health insurance funds of patients with a hospital discharge diagnosis of ACS for the years 2015 to 2017 were analyzed. The primary end point was to investigate the recurrence of ACS or death. Results: Of 49,124 P2Y12 inhibitor-naive patients with a hospital discharge diagnosis of ACS, 25,147 subjects filled a P2Y12 inhibitor prescription within 30 days after the index event. Of these patients, 10,626 (42.9%) subjects had a prescription for clopidogrel, 4788 (19.3%) for prasugrel, and 9383 (37.8%) for ticagrelor. Ticagrelor was the most frequently prescribed P2Y12 inhibitor among patients below 70 years old, and clopidogrel in those aged ≥70 years. Occurrence of an endpoint was highest in elderly patients. After adjustment for age, sex, and pre-existing medication as proxy for comorbidity, the hazard ratio for ACS or death for prasugrel vs. clopidogrel of 0.70 (95% CI: 0.61; 0.79) was similar to that of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel (0.70; 95% CI: 0.64; 0.77). Conclusion: Prescription of ticagrelor or prasugrel after ACS were associated with a lower risk of ACS recurrence or death compared to clopidogrel.

Age- and Weight-Adapted Dose of Prasugrel Versus Standard Dose of Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes : Results From a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

The efficacy and safety of a reduced dose of prasugrel versus a standard dose of ticagrelor in elderly patients or those with a low body weight presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of an age- and weight-adapted dose of prasugrel versus a standard dose of ticagrelor in patients with ACS. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01944800).

DESIGN

Prespecified analysis of the multicenter, randomized ISAR-REACT 5 trial.

SETTING

23 centers in Germany and Italy.

PATIENTS

3997 patients with ACS planned for invasive management.

INTERVENTION

Participants were randomly assigned to receive a standard dose of ticagrelor or prasugrel (reduced dose in the elderly or low-weight group and standard dose in the neither elderly nor low-weight group).

MEASUREMENTS

The efficacy end point was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and the safety end point was bleeding, both at 12 months.

RESULTS

In the elderly or low-weight group, the efficacy end point occurred in 12.7% of patients assigned to receive prasugrel and 14.6% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.14]); in the neither elderly nor low-weight group, the efficacy end point occurred in 4.8% of patients assigned to receive prasugrel and 7.3% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (HR, 0.65 [CI, 0.48 to 0.88]; P for interaction > 0.2). In the elderly or low-weight group, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 8.1% of patients assigned to receive prasugrel and 10.6% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (HR, 0.72 [0.46 to 1.12]), and in 3.7% and 3.8%, respectively, of patients in the neither elderly nor low-weight group (HR, 0.98 [CI, 0.65 to 1.47]; P for interaction > 0.2).

LIMITATION

The study is a subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSION

In elderly or low-weight patients with ACS, a reduced dose of prasugrel compared with the standard dose of ticagrelor is associated with maintained anti-ischemic efficacy while protecting these patients against the excess risk for bleeding.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Deutsches Herzzentrum München.

Risk of bradyarrhythmia related to ticagrelor: A systematic review and meta-analysis

CONTEXT

Ticagrelor was related to bradycardia in DISPERSE-II trial. This risk has been integrated into the European risk-management plan, and its use is warned in at-risk patients. Nevertheless, this risk was not systematically assessed nor measured.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the risk of bradyarrhythmia associated with ticagrelor.

STUDY DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA-SOURCE

MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, ISI web of Science, clinicaltrial.gov, clinicaltrialsregister.eu.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies in patients treated with ticagrelor or comparator(s).

META-ANALYSIS

Risk of bias in each RCT was assessed using Cochrane tool. Relative Risks (RR) with 95 % confidence intervals (95 %CI) were calculated for each RCT, and pooled using fixed-effect or random-effects models, when appropriate. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were performed. A potential publication bias was searched.

RESULTS

Among 82 eligible studies, event data were missing for 56 studies, due to detected reporting bias (i.e. inability to confirm zero events). Fifteen RCTs were selected and the combined RR of bradyarrhythmia was 1.15 (95 %CI 1.05-1.26), and 1.29 (1.02-1.65) for severe bradyarrhythmia. The risk appeared to be dose dependent. Restricting the analysis only to RCTs performed in patients without previous bradyarrhythmia resulted in a non-increased risk.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis confirmed the risk of bradyarrhythmia or severe bradyarrhythmia related to ticagrelor, and its use in patients without previous bradycardia was effective in preventing it. The evidence coming from this meta-analysis was low to moderate due to missing outcome in 2/3 of eligible studies. Waiting for access to these data, the use of ticagrelor in patients with risk factors of bradycardias should be avoided.

Meta-Analysis Comparing P2Y12 Inhibitors in Acute Coronary Syndrome

Dual antiplatelet therapy combining aspirin with a P2Y₁₂-receptor inhibitor reduces atherothrombotic events following an acute coronary syndromes (ACS), but the relative merits of different P2Y₁₂ inhibitors remain unclear, despite several recent large-scale trials. We performed a network meta-analysis, representing the largest evidence to date to inform P2Y₁₂ inhibitor choice in patients with ACS. Fourteen studies were included, for a total population of 145,019 patients. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines were used in this systematic review. A network meta-analysis using a frequentist approach with surface under the cumulative ranking probability calculation was performed. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), definite stent thrombosis (ST) and major bleeding at 30-day and 1-year all-cause death and MI were the study endpoints. At 30-day, prasugrel was superior to both clopidogrel and ticagrelor in MACE, all-cause death and definite ST endpoints. Both prasugrel and ticagrelor were superior to clopidogrel in MI endpoint. Ticagrelor also reduced all-cause death compared with clopidogrel. Ticagrelor, prasugrel, and clopidogrel resulted equivalent in terms of the safety outcome of 30-day major bleeding. No significant difference was found among clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor with respect to 1-year MACE outcome. Both prasugrel and ticagrelor reduced the occurrence of 1-year all-cause death compared with clopidogrel. Prasugrel reduced 1-year MI rate as compared with clopidogrel, while ticagrelor did not. At probability analyses, prasugrel ranked best in all 30-day and 1-year efficacy and safety endpoints. In conclusion, in this network meta-analysis, prasugrel showed the highest efficacy in reducing adverse outcomes in ACS patients and had the highest probability of being the best P2Y₁₂ inhibitor to reduce hard adverse events both at 30-day and 1-year follow-up.

P2Y12 inhibitors in acute coronary syndrome patients with renal dysfunction: an analysis from the RENAMI and BleeMACS projects

Aims

The aim of the present study was to establish the safety and efficacy profile of prasugrel and ticagrelor in real-life acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with renal dysfunction.

Methods and results

All consecutive patients from RENAMI (REgistry of New Antiplatelets in patients with Myocardial Infarction) and BLEEMACS (Bleeding complications in a Multicenter registry of patients discharged with diagnosis of Acute Coronary Syndrome) registries were stratified according to estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) lower or greater than 60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Death and myocardial infarction (MI) were the primary efficacy endpoints. Major bleedings (MBs), defined as Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding types 3 to 5, constituted the safety endpoint. A total of 19 255 patients were enrolled. Mean age was 63 ± 12; 14 892 (77.3%) were males. A total of 2490 (12.9%) patients had chronic kidney disease (CKD), defined as eGFR &lt;60 mL/min/1.73 m2. Mean follow-up was 13 ± 5 months. Mortality was significantly higher in CKD patients (9.4% vs. 2.6%, P &lt; 0.0001), as well as the incidence of reinfarction (5.8% vs. 2.9%, P &lt; 0.0001) and MB (5.7% vs. 3%, P &lt; 0.0001). At Cox multivariable analysis, potent P2Y12 inhibitors significantly reduced the mortality rate [hazard ratio (HR) 0.82, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54–0.96; P = 0.006] and the risk of reinfarction (HR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30–0.95; P = 0.033) in CKD patients as compared to clopidogrel. The reduction of risk of reinfarction was confirmed in patients with preserved renal function. Potent P2Y12 inhibitors did not increase the risk of MB in CKD patients (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.59–1.68; P = 0.985).

Conclusion

In ACS patients with CKD, prasugrel and ticagrelor are associated with lower risk of death and recurrent MI without increasing the risk of MB.