Real-world observations with prasugrel compared to clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States

Rates of 30-Day and 90-Day Readmission Between Genotype-Optimal and Genotype-Suboptimal Antiplatelet Therapy Prescribing After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Current evidence increasingly supports CYP2C19 genotype-guided P2Y12 inhibitor selection. Clopidogrel remains the most prescribed P2Y12 inhibitor despite higher readmission rates than those of more efficacious third-generation P2Y12 inhibitors. It remains unclear whether pharmacogenetically (PGx)-guided antiplatelet therapy directly reduces readmissions after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). A single-center retrospective observational cohort study at a tertiary academic medical center was conducted. Patients receiving CYP2C19 genotyping after PCI were included and stratified into 2 groups (PGx-optimal vs PGx-suboptimal P2Y12 inhibitor prescribed) on the basis of CPIC (Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium) recommendations. Primary outcomes included 30-day and 90-day readmissions after index PCI. Most patients (78%) were of non-European ancestry. Among patients receiving PGx-optimal therapy, 50% had acute coronary syndromes whereas 61% receiving PGx-suboptimal therapy had stable coronary artery disease. Comparable 30-day (12% vs 10%, p = 0.481) and 90-day readmission rates (24% vs 28%, p = 0.323) were observed between patients receiving PGx-optimal or PGx-suboptimal therapies. PGx-optimal therapy was associated with fewer emergency department visits (3.4% vs 4.0%, p = 0.021) within 30 days, and patients initially prescribed PGx-suboptimal therapy were switched more often to PGx-optimal therapy during a readmission than were patients prescribed PGx-suboptimal antiplatelet therapy (p <0.001). In conclusion, CYP2C19 genotype-guided P2Y12 inhibitor therapy did not improve 30- and 90-day all-cause readmission rates in a predominantly non-European population. However, P2Y12 inhibitor therapy became concordant with CYP2C19 genotype in approximately half of patients during the first readmission after PCI, which may present further opportunities to revisit and optimize dual antiplatelet therapy in patients who undergo PCI.

Comparative Risk of Hospitalized Bleeding of P2Y12 Inhibitors for Secondary Prophylaxis in Acute Coronary Syndrome After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

In closely monitored randomized controlled trials (RCTs), newer P2Y12 agents (ticagrelor and prasugrel) reduced cardiovascular outcomes compared with clopidogrel following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in acute coronary syndrome. However, these RCTs indicated a higher bleeding risk with these newer agents. This study evaluated the comparative safety of each P2Y12 inhibitor on hospitalizations due to major bleeding in a real-world population. This retrospective, propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort study utilized the IBM MarketScan database over 6 years (2013-2018) to identify incident users of P2Y12 inhibitors with age ≥18 years. The primary safety outcome was hospitalization due to any major bleeding event including gastrointestinal, intracranial, and other serious forms of bleeding. In pairwise comparisons using Cox-proportional hazards models, ticagrelor, prasugrel, and clopidogrel users were compared for the primary safety outcome at 30, 90, and 180 days following the first prescription of P2Y12 inhibitor after PCI. There were 21,719 (ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel), 11,513 (prasugrel vs. clopidogrel), and 11,065 (prasugrel vs. ticagrelor) PSM pairs. Overall, the risk of major bleeding was similar for all P2Y12 inhibitors. Hospitalization for major bleeding was generally lower among ticagrelor users vs. clopidogrel and higher among prasugrel users compared with clopidogrel. Importantly, a 66% higher risk of major bleeding at 90 days is suggested with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel (hazard ratio 1.66; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-2.48). This study indicated a higher short-term bleeding risk with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel, which concurs with the results of RCTs.

Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor vs. Clopidogrel in East Asian Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Ticagrelor improves clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in East Asian patients with AMI. Between July 2013 and December 2015, patients with AMI prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy were identified from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. Using propensity score weighting, ticagrelor was compared with clopidogrel for the primary efficacy end point (a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke) and bleeding. A total of 32,442 patients with AMI (ticagrelor: 10,057; clopidogrel: 22,385) were eligible for analysis. After propensity score weighting, ticagrelor was comparable to clopidogrel in the incidence rate of the primary efficacy end point (23.6 vs. 22.76/100 patient-years; hazard ratio (HR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.06; P = 0.513). Ticagrelor was associated with a lower risk of stroke (1.78 vs. 2.66/100 patient-years; HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.49-0.85; P = 0.002) and higher risks of overall (21.59 vs. 18.35/100 patient-years; HR 1.16; 95% CI 1.06-1.27; P = 0.002) and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2 bleeding (18.67 vs. 15.08/100 patient-years; HR 1.22; 95% CI 1.11-1.36; P < 0.001). The risks of death, MI, and BARC 3 or 5 bleeding were comparable between ticagrelor and clopidogrel. In the present study, ticagrelor was comparable to clopidogrel in the composite of death, MI, and stroke, but had an increased risk of BARC type 2 bleeding. Ticagrelor may be beneficial in preventing post-MI stroke in East Asian patients.

The Role of Clopidogrel in 2020: A Reappraisal

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of treatment and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD), including acute coronary syndrome (ACS), transient ischemic attack (TIA) or minor stroke, and peripheral artery disease (PAD). The P2Y₁₂ inhibitors, of which clopidogrel was the first, play an integral role in antiplatelet therapy and therefore in the treatment and secondary prevention of CVD. This review discusses the available evidence concerning antiplatelet therapy in patients with CVD, with a focus on the role of clopidogrel. In combination with aspirin, clopidogrel is often used as part of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for the secondary prevention of ACS. Although newer, more potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitors (prasugrel and ticagrelor) show a greater reduction in ischemic risk compared with clopidogrel in randomized trials of ACS patients, these newer P2Y₁₂ inhibitors are often associated with an increased risk of bleeding. Deescalation of DAPT by switching from prasugrel or ticagrelor to clopidogrel may be required in some patients with ACS. Furthermore, real-world studies of ACS patients have not confirmed the benefits of the newer P2Y₁₂ inhibitors over clopidogrel. In patients with very high-risk TIA or stroke, short-term DAPT with clopidogrel plus aspirin for 21-28 days, followed by clopidogrel monotherapy for up to 90 days, is recommended. Clopidogrel monotherapy may also be used in patients with symptomatic PAD. In conclusion, there is strong evidence supporting the use of clopidogrel antiplatelet therapy in several clinical settings, which emphasizes the importance of this medication in clinical practice.

Comparison of 6-Month Costs Between Oral Antiplatelet Agents Following Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), newer antiplatelet agents prasugrel and ticagrelor have lower rates of cardiovascular events when compared with clopidogrel. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in economic outcomes when comparing these agents in ACS-PCI patients.

OBJECTIVE

To assess aggregated costs and medical resource utilization among ACS-PCI patients prescribed prasugrel, ticagrelor, or generic clopidogrel, using a large commercial insurance claims database.

METHODS

Costs attributable to any medical and pharmacy service and resource utilization including number of admissions, length of hospital stay, emergency room visits, and office visits over the 180-day postdischarge period were compared. All-cause and cardiovascular health care costs and resource utilization were separately analyzed for patients enrolled in the data over the continuous follow-up (CFU) period, and for patients continuously taking their initial treatment for 6 months (CTX). Potential confounders collected over a 6-month baseline assessment period were controlled for, using a generalized linear model.

RESULTS

Over the 180-day follow-up, prasugrel and ticagrelor patients underwent fewer admissions (rate ratio [RR] = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80-0.95) from CFU and RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.71-0.89 from CTX) compared with clopidogrel patients. The newer agent cohort incurred more overall health care costs than the generic clopidogrel group, with added costs of $957 (95% CI = $236-$1,725) in the CFU group and $1,122 (95% CI = $455-$1,865) in the CTX group, which were smaller than the increase in all-cause outpatient pharmacy costs associated with the newer agents versus clopidogrel (CFU: $1,175, 95% CI = $1,079-$1,278 and CTX: $1,360, 95% CI = $1,256-$1,487). Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in the economic outcomes associated with prasugrel and ticagrelor. There were, however, significant correlations between all-cause and cardiovascular-related outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The higher price of prasugrel and ticagrelor was partially offset by a decrease in hospital admission compared with generic clopidogrel over a 6-month postdischarge period. Aggregated medical costs and resource utilization were not significantly different between prasugrel and ticagrelor patients.

DISCLOSURES

No funding was received for this study. DiDomenico has received an honorarium from Amgen for preparation of a heart failure drug monograph for Pharmacy Practice News and serves as an advisory board member for a heart failure program at Otsuka America Pharmaceuticals and for Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Touchette has received unrestricted grant funding from Cardinal Health, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda and has served as a consultant to and director of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Practice-Based Research Network on a study funded by Pfizer. Walton has served as a paid consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Baxter, Merck, Genentech, Primus, Takeda, and Abbott. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

One-Year Clinical Effectiveness Comparison of Prasugrel with Ticagrelor: Results from a Retrospective Observational Study using an Integrated Claims Database

BACKGROUND

No direct comparisons of ticagrelor and prasugrel with 1-year clinical follow-up have been reported.

OBJECTIVES

Our objective was to compare 1-year clinical outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and treated with either ticagrelor or prasugrel in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This retrospective study included patients from a payer database who were aged ≥18 years and had ACS managed with PCI with no history of transient ischemic attack (TIA)/stroke. Data were propensity matched for prasugrel use with a 3:1 prasugrel:ticagrelor ratio. Post-discharge net adverse clinical event (NACE) rate at 1 year was evaluated for noninferiority using a pre-defined 20% margin. NACE was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or rehospitalization for bleeding.

RESULTS

In total, 15,788 ACS-PCI patients were included (prasugrel 12,797; ticagrelor 2991). Prasugrel-treated patients were younger; less likely to be female, have prior myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes, or non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI); and more likely to have unstable angina (UA) than ticagrelor-treated patients. Prior to matching, NACE and MACE (P < 0.01) were lower, with no difference in bleeding with prasugrel compared with ticagrelor. After matching, there was no significant difference in baseline characteristics. Noninferiority was demonstrated for NACE, MACE, and bleeding between prasugrel and ticagrelor. NACE and MACE were significantly lower with prasugrel use, primarily driven by heart failure, with no significant difference in all-cause death, MI, UA, revascularization, TIA/stroke, or bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

In this retrospective study, physicians preferentially used prasugrel rather than ticagrelor in younger ACS-PCI patients with lower risk of bleeding or comorbidities. After propensity matching, clinical outcomes associated with prasugrel were noninferior to those with ticagrelor.

Prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in contemporary Western European patients with acute coronary syndromes receiving drug-eluting stents: Comparative cost-effectiveness analysis from the BASKET-PROVE cohorts

BACKGROUND

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) was only evaluated using TRITON-TIMI 38 event rates. A comparative analysis of both drugs in contemporary European ACS patients is lacking.

METHODS

To address this issue, cardiac and bleeding events of 2 "sister" multicenter stent trials, BASKET-PROVE (BP) I with clopidogrel and BPII with prasugrel (for 12months each) were used in a hybrid analysis. Medication costs were 2015 sales prices, event costs modelled for Denmark (DNK), Germany (GER) and Switzerland (SUI) and quality adjusted life years (QALY) by EQ-5D-3L questionnaire.

RESULTS

In BPI and II, 1012 and 985 ACS-patients received drug eluting stents, respectively, followed-up for 2years. Compared to clopidogrel, prasugrel-treated patients had no more major cardiac events (5.2% vs. 6.4%, p=0.422) nor cardiac deaths (1.6% vs. 1.0%, p=0.255), but more major bleedings (4.0% vs. 1.7%, p<0.001) and altogether no difference in QALYs (-0.027 (95%CI: -0.064/0.011)). Prasugrel caused higher total expenditures per patient: 1116.3 (DNK), 1063.5 (GER) and 880.8 (SUI) EURO, respectively. Accordingly, incremental cost-effectiveness was negative for prasugrel vs. clopidogrel with ratios of -45,907 (DNK), -39,909 (GER) and -33,435 (SUI) EURO/QALY gained, making clopidogrel an economically dominant strategy, even after accounting for the non-randomized comparison.

CONCLUSION

Findings of this contemporary European ACS-cohort showed markedly lower cardiac event rates than TRITON-TIMI 38 and no significant difference in 2-year QALYs between prasugrel and clopidogrel-treated patients. At current drug prices, clopidogrel use resulted in an economically dominant treatment strategy in Western European patients.

Safety and Efficacy of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in Acute Coronary Syndrome. Results of a "Real World" Multicenter Registry

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

The incorporation of the new antiplatelet agents (NAA) prasugrel and ticagrelor into routine clinical practice is irregular and data from the "real world" remain scarce. We aimed to assess the time trend of NAA use and the clinical safety and efficacy of these drugs compared with those of clopidogrel in a contemporary cohort of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS).

METHODS

A multicenter retrospective observational study was conducted in patients with ACS admitted to coronary care units and prospectively included in the ARIAM-Andalusia registry between 2013 and 2015. In-hospital rates of major cardiovascular events and bleeding with NAA vs clopidogrel were analyzed using propensity score matching and multivariate regression models.

RESULTS

The study included 2906 patients: 55% received clopidogrel and 45% NAA. A total of 60% had ST-segment elevation ACS. Use of NAA significantly increased throughout the study. Patients receiving clopidogrel were older and were more likely to have comorbidities. Total mortality, ischemic stroke, and stent thrombosis were lower with NAA (2% vs 9%, P < .0001; 0.1% vs 0.5%, P = .025; 0.07% vs 0.5%, P = .025, respectively). There were no differences in the rate of total bleeding (3% vs 4%; P = NS). After propensity score matching, the mortality reduction with NAA persisted (OR, 0.37; 95%CI, 0.13 to 0.60; P < .0001) with no increase in total bleeding (OR, 1.07; 95%CI, 0.18 to 2.37; P = .094).

CONCLUSIONS

In a "real world" setting, NAA are selectively used in younger patients with less comorbidity and are associated with a reduction in major cardiac events, including mortality, without increasing bleeding compared with clopidogrel.

Contemporary Trends in Oral Antiplatelet Agent Use in Patients Treated with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Recent trials demonstrated the efficacy of prasugrel and ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in the reduction of cardiovascular complications in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, it is unclear how use of the 3 antiplatelet medications has changed in commercially insured patients since the advent of the new agents.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) describe the adoption of prasugrel and ticagrelor in patients who received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the onset of ACS and (b) explore patient factors associated with the selection of the drug to provide insight into utilization patterns of these antiplatelet agents.

METHODS

Patients who received a new dispensing of an antiplatelet agent following a hospitalization for a PCI administered for ACS were identified from insurance claims between 2009 and 2013. Demographics and comorbid conditions were determined based on a 6-month period before the ACS event. Longitudinal trends in antiplatelet agent selection were illustrated using descriptive statistics segmented by month and quarter. Using logistic regressions with stepwise model selection, factors associated with use of the newer medications, as well as with the selection between ticagrelor and prasugrel, were identified.

RESULTS

The analysis included 66,335 subjects. The use of clopidogrel decreased from 100% to roughly 65% of total antiplatelet agent use by the end of 2011 and leveled off thereafter. The introduction of ticagrelor in 2011 coincided with a drop in prasugrel initiation from 35%-18% by December 2013. The use of new agents as opposed to use of clopidogrel was associated with younger age (< 65 years), male gender, and a diagnosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. In addition, conditions increasing mortality and risk of cardiovascular complication were associated with higher odds of using clopidogrel. The odds of using ticagrelor over prasugrel increased with older age and history of a cerebrovascular event.

CONCLUSIONS

In 2013, clopidogrel remained the most prescribed agent. Meanwhile, ticagrelor had gradually replaced a substantial portion of prasugrel initiation. Further investigation into outcomes associated with the newer agents, as well as reasons behind the conservative use of the antiplatelet agents, is warranted.

DISCLOSURES

No funding was received for the conduct of this study. DiDomenico received an honorarium from Amgen for the preparation of a heart failure drug monograph for Pharmacy Practice News and was a co-investigator on funded research for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. DiDomenico also serves as an advisory board member for a heart failure program at Otsuka America Pharmaceuticals and as an advisory board member at Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Touchette has received unrestricted grant funding from Cardinal Health and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals and has also served as a consultant to and director of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Practice-Based Research Network on a study funded by Pfizer. None of the authors of this study are involved in financial or personal relationships with agencies, institutions, or organizations that inappropriately influenced the statistical analysis plan or interpretation of the results. Study concept and design were contributed by Kim, Lee, Touchette, and Walton, with assistance from DiDomenico and Ardati. Kim and Lee collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by Lee, DiDomenico, and Ardati, along with Kim and Walton and assisted by Touchette. The manuscript was written by Kim and Walton, with assistance from the other authors, and revised by Kim, Walton, and Lee, with assistance from the other authors.

Letter--The Authors Respond

DISCLOSURES

None of the authors of this study are involved in financial or personal relationships with agencies, institutions, or organizations that inappropriately influenced the statistical analysis plan or interpretation of the study results. DiDomenico received an honorarium from Amgen for the preparation of a heart failure drug monograph for Pharmacy Practice News and was a coinvestigator on funded research for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. DiDomenico also serves as an advisory board member for a heart failure program at Otsuka America Pharmaceuticals and as an advisory board member at Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Touchette has received unrestricted grant funding from Cardinal Health and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals and has also served as a consultant to, and director of, the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Practice-Based Research Network on a study funded by Pfizer.

Comparative Effectiveness and Safety Analysis of Dual Antiplatelet Therapies Within an Integrated Delivery System

BACKGROUND

Dual antiplatelet therapy is a mainstay of care for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients; however, uncertainty exists in real-world practice about comparative effectiveness and safety outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate outcomes of different oral P2Y12 inhibitors in PCI patients.

METHODS

We retrospectively studied patients treated between July 1, 2010, and December 31, 2013. Patients received clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, or more than 1 antiplatelet (switch) during PCI. Outcomes were evaluated for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and bleeding at 1 year. Propensity score matching with Cox proportional hazards analysis was used to determine predictors of MACE and bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 8127 patients were included: clopidogrel (n = 6872), prasugrel (n = 605), ticagrelor (n = 181), and switch (n = 469). Treatment with prasugrel was associated with the lowest risk of MACE using multivariate regression (odds ratio [OR] = 0.57; 95% CI = 0.36-0.92; P = 0.02). In the propensity score-matched analysis, only the prasugrel group was associated with a lower risk of MACE compared with the clopidogrel group. Clopidogrel was associated with the lowest risk of major bleeding using multivariate regression (OR = 0.64; 95% CI = 0.42-0.98; P = 0.042). Both ticagrelor (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.00; 95% CI = 1.11-3.59) and the switch groups (HR = 1.65; 95% CI = 1.09-2.50) were associated with a greater risk of major bleeding compared with clopidogrel. However, no differences were found in the propensity score-matched analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Dual antiplatelet therapies differed in both MACE and bleeds in a real-world setting of PCI. Prasugrel was associated with fewer MACE, whereas clopidogrel had fewer major bleeding events.

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in real-world patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction: 1-year results by propensity score analysis

Background

European guidelines recommend the use of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). This recommendation is based on inconclusive results and subanalyses from clinical trials. Few data are available on the effects of ticagrelor in a real-world population.

Methods

To compare the effects of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in a real-world STEMI population, we conducted a pre-post case-control study examining all patients with STEMI included in the Cardio-STEMI Sanremo registry between February 2011 and June 2013. Cases and controls were defined according to P2Y₁₂ inhibitors, correcting the bias due to lack of randomization by propensity score analysis. Ticagrelor was introduced in 2012 in both in-hospital and pre-hospital settings independently of this study.

Results

Of the 416 patients enrolled in the Cardio-STEMI registry, 401 with a definite diagnosis of STEMI were included in this study. One hundred forty-two patients received ticagrelor and 259 received clopidogrel. Regarding clinical presentation and procedural data, those in the ticagrelor group had lower CRUSADE scores (23 [14–36] vs 27 [18–38]; p = 0.015] but a higher proportion of radial access (33% vs 14%; p < 0.001), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; 92% vs 81 %; p = 0.002) and primary PCI ≤ 12 h (82% vs 66%; p = 0.001). The patients in the ticagrelor group had a higher procedural success rate (100% vs. 96%; p = 0.044). There was no difference in Bleeding Academic Research Consortium bleeding and in unadjusted incidence of hospital major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) but there was a significant reduction in unadjusted cardiac hospital death in the ticagrelor group (0.7% vs 5.4%; p = 0.024). After correcting for propensity score, hospital death (p = 0.22) and hospital MACE (p = 0.96) did not differ in both groups. The unadjusted survival at 1 year after STEMI was higher in the ticagrelor group (97.8% vs 87.8%; p = 0.024), and this result was confirmed by propensity score analysis (hazard ratio = 0.29 [0.08–0.99]; p = 0.048).

Conclusions

In this real-word propensity score analysis, ticagrelor did not affect the risk of MACE during the hospital phase, or the incidence of hospital bleeding in patients with STEMI. However, in this mono-centric experience, ticagrelor resulted in improved 1-year survival, even after correction by propensity score.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-017-0524-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Prasugrel hydrochloride for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome patients

INTRODUCTION

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin combined with either a thienopyridine (clopidogrel or prasugrel) or acyclopentyl-triazolo-pyrimidine (ticagrelor) plays a vital role in the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) especially in those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) but even those being managed medically. Observational studies and some formal studies have shown patients on the standard dual antiplatelet regimen (clopidogrel and aspirin) continue to have further ischemic events and can suffer stent thrombosis. It has been demonstrated that clopidogrel is associated with a delayed onset of action with a considerable inter-individual variation to treatment thus making it difficult to achieve an optimal level of platelet inhibition. Areas covered: This article will review the current evidence that is available regarding the effectiveness and safety of prasugrel in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Expert commentary: Prasugrel is an oral third-generation inhibitor of platelet activation and aggregation. Laboratory studies and early phase clinical trials show prasugrel has a faster onset of action, is more potent and has reduced inter-patient response variability compared to clopidogrel. The published studies so far demonstrated that prasugrel when compared to clopidogrel also shows a higher degree of effectiveness in the prevention of platelet-initiated thrombotic events in patients with ACS undergoing PCI, however these benefits are offset somewhat by an increased bleeding risk.

Baseline characteristics, adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitor treatment patterns, and in-hospital outcomes of myocardial infarction patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the prospective Canadian Observational AntiPlatelet sTudy (COAPT)

BACKGROUND

Contemporary use of dual antiplatelet therapy and consistency with guideline recommendations in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have not been well characterized.

METHODS

The COAPT was a prospective, observational, multicenter, longitudinal study of patients with myocardial infarction (MI) undergoing PCI. Baseline characteristics, treatment patterns, processes of care, factors associated with switching to and from novel adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitors (ADPris), and in-hospital outcomes are described.

RESULTS

Among 2,179 MI patients undergoing PCI during their index hospitalization, 1,328 (60.9%) had ST elevation. Initial ADPri use included clopidogrel in 1,812 (83.2%), prasugrel in 125 (5.7%), and ticagrelor in 242 (11.1%). At discharge, 1,597 patients (73.4%) were prescribed clopidogrel, 220 (10.1%) prasugrel, and 358 (16.5%) ticagrelor. Switching between ADPri therapies during the index hospitalization occurred in 15.3%, 22.4%, and 25.2% of patients initially started on clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor, respectively. Most switches over the 15-month study period occurred during the index admission (16.8% of patients vs 4.4% switches postdischarge). Major adverse cardiovascular events occurred in 7.5% of patients during the index hospitalization. In-hospital bleeding events occurred in 6.0% of patients and most were mild.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite randomized trial evidence and guideline recommendations, only a minority of Canadian MI patients undergoing PCI initially received or were discharged on one of the newer ADPri agents. These findings suggest an opportunity to improve upon the appropriate selection of the ADPris at index hospitalization and discharge in Canadian MI patients undergoing PCI.

Real-World Use of Novel P2Y12 Inhibitors in Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Treatment Paradox

OBJECTIVE

To assess the real-world use, clinical outcomes, and adherence to novel P2Y12 inhibitors.

METHODS

We evaluated 1,093 consecutive acute myocardial infarction patients undergoing a percutaneous intervention. Patients were derived from a prospective, multicenter, nationwide registry and were followed for 30 days; 381 patients (35%) received clopidogrel, 468 (43%) received prasugrel, and 244 (22%) received ticagrelor. Patients treated with clopidogrel were older and more likely to suffer from chronic renal failure and stroke and/or present with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) (p < 0.01 for all). Independent predictors of undertreatment with novel P2Y12 inhibitors included: older age (OR 0.17; 95% CI 0.1-0.27, p < 0.0001), a prior stroke (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.2-0.68, p = 0.008), and NSTEMI (OR 0.37; 95% CI 0.26-0.54, p < 0.0001).

RESULTS

Novel P2Y12 inhibitors were associated with a lower incidence of cardiovascular events, major bleeding, and/or death (7.6 vs.11%, HR 0.67; 95% CI 0.43-1, p = 0.05). However, after a multivariate analysis this trend was not statistically significant. Patients discharged with ticagrelor versus thienopyridines demonstrated a higher rate of crossover to other P2Y12 inhibitors (11 vs. 5%, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-world cohort, there was an underutilization of novel P2Y12 inhibitors which was more pronounced in higher-risk subsets that might benefit from novel P2Y12 inhibitors at least as much as other patients.

Contemporary antiplatelet treatment in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: 1-year outcomes from the GReek AntiPlatElet (GRAPE) Registry

Essentials The comparative efficacy and safety of antiplatelet agents in 'real life' is not clear. We recruited acute coronary syndrome patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention. At 1-year follow-up, prasugrel offers better anti-ischemic protection than clopidogrel. Prasugrel and ticagrelor are accompanied by more frequent bleeding events.

SUMMARY

Background The comparative efficacy and safety of antiplatelet treatment outside randomized trials is not clear. Objectives To investigate long-term efficacy and safety in 'real-life' acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with contemporary use of clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor. Methods In a prospective, observational, multicenter cohort study, 2047 patients were recruited into the GReek AntiPlatElet (GRAPE) Registry and were followed-up for 1 year for major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE, a composite of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization and stroke) and bleeding events (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] classification). Results Exposure to clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor by PCI occurred in 959, 363 and 717 patients, respectively. After adjustment, the rate of MACE (primary outcome endpoint) was lower in prasugrel-treated patients (4.4%) than in clopidogrel-treated patients (10.1%) (hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.30-0.91), although not significantly different between ticagrelor (6.8%) and clopidogrel groups (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.54-1.12). Any type of BARC-classified bleeding (secondary outcome endpoint) was more frequent in prasugrel-treated patients (51.2%) than in clopidogrel-treated patients (37.6%) (HR, 1.61; 95% CI, 1.33-1.95) and more frequent in ticagrelor-treated patients (56.9%) than in clopidogrel-treated patients (HR, 1.81; 95% CI, 1.55-2.10). An adjusted comparison between prasugrel and ticagrelor-treated groups did not reveal differences in any outcome measure. After adjustment, the death rate was more reduced by novel agents in comparison with clopidogrel (2.9% vs. 6.2%). Conclusions In ACS/PCI patients, prasugrel offered better anti-ischemic protection than clopidogrel, whereas use of both novel agents is accompanied by more frequent bleeding events.

Comparative resource utilization and costs for patients with acute coronary syndrome managed with percutaneous coronary intervention and treated with clopidogrel or prasugrel

PURPOSE

Results of a study of bleeding events and other inhospital outcomes with the use of clopidogrel versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are reported.

METHODS

Demographic and clinical data on adults hospitalized for ACS, managed with PCI, and treated with clopidogrel or prasugrel during a two-year period were extracted from a large hospital claims database. Bleeding rates, hospital length of stay (LOS), and total hospital costs during the index hospitalization were evaluated.

RESULTS

The study sample consisted of 75,297 patients who received clopidogrel and 9,477 who received prasugrel. The unadjusted bleeding rates were 5.7% with clopidogrel use and 3.2% with prasugrel use (p < 0.0001). After propensity score stratification to adjust for selection bias, rates of bleeding events were not significantly different between clopidogrel- and prasugrel-treated patients (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.02; p = 0.0949). The adjusted mean ± S.D. hospital LOS was 0.22 day lower (95% CI, 0.15-0.28; p < 0.001) with the use of prasugrel versus clopidogrel, and adjusted total mean hospital costs were $375 less for prasugrel-treated patients (p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

After adjustments for demographic and clinical characteristics, rates of inhospital bleeding in patients who received prasugrel and those who received clopidogrel were not significantly different. The adjusted analyses showed that the mean hospital LOS was shorter and total mean hospital costs were lower for patients treated with prasugrel.

One-year post-discharge resource utilization and treatment patterns of patients with acute coronary syndrome managed with percutaneous coronary intervention and treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to compare 1-year real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU), associated charges, and antiplatelet treatment patterns among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel.

METHODS

Using the ProMetis-Lx database, adult ACS-PCI patients treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel post-discharge were identified between 1 August 2011 and 31 May 2013 and propensity matched to adjust for baseline differences.

RESULTS

Before matching, ticagrelor-treated patients (n = 2991) were older with increased baseline ischemic and bleeding risks compared with prasugrel-treated patients (n = 12,797). After matching, ticagrelor patients had higher all-cause HRU (2.5 vs. 2.4 per patient per month; P = 0.012) and cardiovascular (CV) HRU (0.4 vs. 0.3 per patient per month; P = 0.026), with the difference in CV rehospitalizations (17.7 vs. 15.7 %; P = 0.011) primarily driven by congestive heart failure (CHF) (4.9 vs. 3.8 %; P = 0.02). All-cause charges within 1 year did not significantly differ between groups ($US5456 vs. 4844 per patient per month; P = 0.37), but dyspnea-related total charges were significantly higher with ticagrelor ($US139 vs. 95 per patient per month; P = 0.005). Although infrequent, switching was slightly higher with ticagrelor (8.3 vs. 6.0 %; P < 0.001) at 1 year, and mean persistence was slightly longer with prasugrel (150 vs. 159 days; P = 0.002), with no significant difference in mean adherence (61 vs. 63 %; P = 0.17).

CONCLUSION

Overall monthly HRU was slightly lower with prasugrel than with ticagrelor, with no significant difference in bleeding HRU. Prasugrel was associated with slightly higher pharmacy charges, but lower dyspnea charges, resulting in no significant difference in total charges. Patients receiving prasugrel tended to use it for longer than those receiving ticagrelor as less switching occurred. These findings may aid decision making, but must be tempered due to inherent study limitations.