P3841Real world outcomes for clopidogrel versus ticagrelor treated patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Introduction

The ischemic benefit of ticagrelor over clopidogrel seen in randomized trials has not been fully reproduced in real world cohorts. The discrepancy between these two treatments may be influenced by differences in prescribing.

Purpose

To provide insights in patient care for patients with high levels of comorbidities.

Methods

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis were conducted to compare clinical outcomes for clopidogrel vs. ticagrelor in real-world populations with acute coronary syndrome. MEDLINE and Embase were searched from inception to January 2018. Pairwise meta-analyses were performed using unadjusted random-effects models for both outcomes and patient characteristics to test for differences. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic.

Results

The search identified 17 studies for analysis from 1,771 publications (TOTAL N=66,198; CLO N=54,175; TIC N=12,023). Clopidogrel-treated patients were more likely to have diabetes (33% vs. 24%), hypertension (59% vs. 47%), hyperlipidaemia/dyslipidaemia (45% vs. 39%), and prior stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) (8% vs. 5%). A slightly higher risk of myocardial infarction (MI) was observed for clopidogrel (4.5% vs. 3.5%; OR 1.29 [1.15–1.46]) and included clopidogrel patients had significantly more comorbidities (Figure 1). No statistical difference between clopidogrel and ticagrelor was found for risk of MACE, defined as the composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI or stroke, (13.6% vs. 10.1%; OR 1.41 [95% confidence interval 0.93–2.14]), despite clopidogrel patients having significantly more diabetes and hypertension (p≤0.01). Similarly, the risks of CV death (2.3% vs. 2.1%; OR 1.11 [0.58–2.13]), stroke (1.2% vs. 1.1%; OR 1.11 [0.56–2.17]), and stent thrombosis (1.3% vs. 1.0%; OR 1.34 [0.88–2.06]) were not statistically differentiable, despite clopidogrel patients having significantly more hyperlipidaemia in studies analysed for CV death (p<0.05); significantly more diabetes, hypertension, peripheral arterial disease (PAD), hyperlipidaemia, and prior stroke/TIA in studies analysed for stroke (p<0.05); and significantly more hyperlipidaemia and prior stroke/TIA in studies analysed for stent thrombosis (p<0.01). There were no significant differences in all bleeding events (major or minor, as defined by study) (2.0% vs. 2.7%; OR 0.74 [0.54–1.00]) or major bleeding (2.9% vs. 2.7%; OR 1.07 [0.85–1.33]). Included clopidogrel patients had significantly more diabetes, hypertension, PAD, and prior stroke/TIA (p<0.05). Significant heterogeneity (I2 >60%) was observed for MACE, CV death, stroke and bleeding.

Figure 1. Comorbidities in MI

Conclusion

This analysis suggests clopidogrel-treated patients had more comorbidities than ticagrelor-treated patients, which may introduce a bias with negative impact on their outcomes. Despite this circumstance, with the exception of MI, this analysis showed no statistical difference in efficacy and safety between clopidogrel and ticagrelor.

Acknowledgement/Funding

This analysis was funded by Sanofi.

A comparison of the intubating and standard laryngeal mask airways for airway management by inexperienced personnel

Twenty-four inexperienced participants were timed inserting the intubating laryngeal mask airway and the laryngeal mask airway in 75 anaesthetised subjects. Adequacy of ventilation was assessed on a three-point scale. The pressure at which a leak first developed around the device's cuff was also measured. There was no significant difference in insertion time or the likelihood of achieving adequate ventilation between devices. However, the intubating laryngeal mask airway was better at providing adequate ventilation without audible leak (58/75 (77%) vs. 42/75 (56%); p = 0.009). The median (range [IQR]) pressure at which an audible leak developed was higher for the intubating laryngeal mask airway, 34.5 (14-40 [29-40]) cmH2O, than for the laryngeal mask airway, 27.5 (14-40 [22-33]) cmH2O (p < 0.001). The intubating laryngeal mask airway is worthy of further consideration as a tool for emergency airway management for inexperienced personnel.

Third-party reimbursement and use of fluoride varnish in adults among general dentists in Washington State

BACKGROUND

Studies have indicated that a minority of dentists regularly use fluoride varnish to control caries. To increase the use of this new technology, Washington Dental Service, or WDS, began reimbursing dentists for providing fluoride varnish in January 1996. The aim of the authors' study was to determine whether reimbursement increased dentists' use of fluoride varnish.

METHODS

In the fall of 1995, the authors asked a random sample of 532 general dentists in Washington state to complete a mail questionnaire on their use of caries control services. The survey was conducted before the institution of payment for fluoride varnish use, and dentists were unaware that fluoride varnish use would be a paid service in January 1996. In the fall of 1997 the same dentists were asked to complete a second questionnaire on the same topic.

RESULTS

About 32 percent of dentists used fluoride varnish regularly before WDS started reimbursement for the service. Two years after reimbursement began, about 44 percent of dentists regularly used fluoride varnish (P = .004). Dentists' rates of use of other caries-control services (chlorhexidine rinses for caries control and adult pit-and-fissure sealants) did not change. Dentists' reasons for not using fluoride varnish included lack of awareness, lack of convincing evidence of a favorable cost:benefit ratio, patients' rejection of the service and low caries risk among adult patients.

CONCLUSIONS

After fluoride varnish became a covered benefit, the use of fluoride varnish among general dentists increased after two years, but a majority of dentists still had not adopted the technology. The increase in use may be due to reimbursement, as well as other factors.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Reimbursement by itself cannot increase dentists' use of caries control services.