Comparison of effectiveness and safety between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome and on dialysis in Taiwan

Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel as Antiplatelet Agents in Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease and Cardiovascular Disease: A Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

The worldwide prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) has significantly increased in the past decades. Scientific reports have shown CKD to be an enhancing risk factor for the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD), which is the leading cause of premature death in patients with CKD. Clinical practice guidelines are ambiguous in view of the use of antiplatelet drugs in patients with CKD because patients with moderate-to-severe CKD were often excluded from clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of anticoagulants and antiplatelet agents. In this analysis, we aimed to systematically assess the adverse cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes that were observed with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel use in patients with CKD and cardiovascular disease.

METHODS

Electronic databases including Web of Science, Google Scholar, http://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov , Cochrane database, EMBASE, and MEDLINE were carefully searched for English-based articles comparing ticagrelor with clopidogrel in patients with CKD. Adverse cardiovascular outcomes and bleeding events were the endpoints in this study. The latest version of the RevMan software (version 5.4) was used to analyze the data. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent the data post analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 15,664 participants were included in this analysis, whereby 2456 CKD participants were assigned to ticagrelor and 13,208 CKD participants were assigned to clopidogrel. Our current analysis showed that major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) (RR: 0.85, 95% CI: 0.71-1.03; P = 0.09), all-cause mortality (RR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.57- 1.18; P = 0.29), cardiovascular death (RR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.56-1.23; P = 0.35), myocardial infarction (RR: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.70-1.07; P = 0.19), ischemic stroke (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.58-1.11; P = 0.18), and hemorrhagic stroke (RR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.38-2.99; P = 0.91) were not significantly different in CKD patients who were treated with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel. Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI)-defined minor (RR: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.52-1.53; P = 0.68) and TIMI major bleeding (RR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.69-1.76; P = 0.67) were also not significantly different. However, bleeding defined according to the academic research consortium (BARC) bleeding type 1 or 2 (RR: 1.95, 95% CI: 1.13-3.37; P = 0.02) and BARC bleeding type 3 or 5 (RR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.17-2.48; P = 0.006) were significantly higher with ticagrelor.

CONCLUSIONS

When compared with clopidogrel, even though ticagrelor was not associated with higher risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes in these patients with CKD, it was associated with significantly higher BARC bleeding. Therefore, the safety outcomes of ticagrelor still require further evaluation in patients with CKD. Nevertheless, this hypothesis should only be confirmed with more powerful results that could usually only be achieved using large-scale randomized trials.

Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in Dialysis Patients with Coronary Syndromes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

(1) Background: The optimal antiplatelet therapy for end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients on chronic dialysis presenting with acute or chronic coronary syndromes (ACS or CCS) remains uncertain. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy and safety endpoints of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in ESKD patients requiring dialysis and presenting with ACS or CCS. (2) Methods: Studies were included comparing ticagrelor and clopidogrel in ESKD patients on chronic dialysis with ACS or CCS. The primary composite efficacy outcome was a combination of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, recurrent myocardial infarction or coronary revascularization, and ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke. The primary safety outcome was major and non-major bleeding events. (3) Results: Five observational studies met the eligibility criteria. The pooled analysis showed no significant difference in the primary composite efficacy outcome between ticagrelor and clopidogrel (p = 0.40). Similarly, the 2 groups had no significant differences in all-cause mortality (p = 0.82) or cardiovascular mortality (p = 0.79). Ticagrelor did not show a significantly different risk of coronary revascularization (p = 0.35) or recurrent myocardial infarction (p = 0.41) compared to clopidogrel. Also, the risk of stroke was similar (p = 0.21). The 2 groups had no significant difference in the primary composite safety outcome (p = 0.22) or major bleeding events (p = 0.27). (4) Conclusions: In ESKD patients on chronic dialysis with ACS or CCS, there was no significant difference in efficacy or safety outcomes between ticagrelor and clopidogrel. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to establish the optimal antiplatelet therapy in this population.

Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and on Dialysis: A Meta-Analysis

This study aims to compare the safety and efficacy of clopidogrel and ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and undergoing dialysis. This study was conducted per the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A comprehensive search was performed using electronic databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science, to identify relevant studies comparing clopidogrel and ticagrelor in patients undergoing dialysis. To ensure the inclusion of all relevant articles, a combination of the following keywords, along with medical subject heading (MeSH) terms, was used: "clopidogrel," "ticagrelor," "acute coronary syndrome," and "dialysis." The primary endpoint of this meta-analysis was the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which consisted of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularization. The secondary endpoint was all-cause mortality. The occurrence of any bleeding events (including major and nonmajor bleeding events) and major bleeding events was chosen as the safety endpoints. A total of four studies were included in the pooled analysis. The pooled sample size was 5,417 patients, including 892 in the ticagrelor group and 4525 in the clopidogrel group. The findings indicate that ticagrelor, compared to clopidogrel, is associated with a significantly higher risk of MACEs, all-cause death, and major bleeding events. The findings suggest that clopidogrel may be a better choice for individuals with ACS undergoing dialysis due to its lower risk of MACE, all-cause death, and major bleeding events compared to ticagrelor.

Real-world evidence of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with chronic osteomyelitis

BACKGROUND

The effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy for chronic osteomyelitis remains inconclusive. In particular, recent studies have shown that chronic osteomyelitis is a crucial risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. However, the preventive effect of HBO on cardiovascular events has not been reported in patients with chronic osteomyelitis.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based cohort study to evaluate the impact of HBO on patients with chronic osteomyelitis. Overall, 5312 patients with chronic osteomyelitis were selected from the Taiwan National Health Insurance Database to evaluate the impact of HBO in patients with chronic osteomyelitis. Propensity-score (PS) matching and inverse probability weighting (IPTW) were employed to balance covariates between the HBO and non-HBO groups. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. The secondary outcomes were myocardial infarction (MI) and stroke hospitalisation. Furthermore, we evaluated the appropriate timing for HBO intervention by the restricted cubic spline (RCS) functions.

RESULTS

After 1:4 PS-matching, the HBO group (n = 265) was associated with lower 1-year mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95 % confidence interval [CI], 0.25-0.95) than the non-HBO group (n = 994); this was consistent with the IPTW weighting results (HR, 0.25; 95 % CI, 0.20-0.33). The risk of stroke was lower in the HBO group (HR, 0.46; 95 % CI, 0.34-0.63) than that in the non-HBO group. However, HBO therapy failed to reduce the risk of MI. Using the RCS model, patients with intervals within 90 days (HR, 1.38; 95 % CI, 1.04-1.84) presented a significant risk of 1-year mortality. After 90 days, as the length of interval increased, the risk gradually decreased and became insignificant.

CONCLUSION

The present study revealed that adjunctive HBO could benefit the 1-year mortality and stroke hospitalisation in patients with chronic osteomyelitis. HBO was recommended to be initiated within 90 days of chronic osteomyelitis hospitalisation.

Outcomes after ticagrelor versus clopidogrel treatment in end-stage renal disease patients with acute myocardial infarction: a nationwide cohort study

Clinical outcomes are unknown after ticagrelor treatment in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) who are diagnosed with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). ESRD patients who were on hemodialysis and received dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for AMI between July 2013 and December 2016 were identified in Taiwan's National Health Insurance Research Database. Using stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighting, patients receiving aspirin plus ticagrelor (n = 530) were compared with those receiving aspirin plus clopidogrel (n = 2462) for the primary efficacy endpoint, a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, and bleeding, defined according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium. Study outcomes were compared between the two groups using Cox proportional hazards model or competing risk model for the hazard ratio or subdistribution hazard ratio (SHR). During 9 months of follow-up, ticagrelor was comparable to clopidogrel with respect to the risks of primary efficacy endpoint [11.69 vs. 9.28/100 patient-months; SHR, 1.16; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97–1.4] and bleeding (5.55 vs. 4.36/100 patient-months; SHR 1.14; 95% CI 0.88–1.47). In conclusion, among hemodialysis patients receiving DAPT for AMI, ticagrelor was comparable to clopidogrel with regard to the composite efficacy endpoint and bleeding.