Dataset Information

Association between Platelet Count and Treatment Effect of Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel based dual antiplatelet therapy strategies according to the platelet count (PC) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have not been defined.

Methods

This is a posthoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial, in which patients presenting with ACS were randomized to treatment with ticagrelor versus prasugrel. Patients were divided into quartiles according to PC. The primary endpoint was incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and the safety endpoint was incidence of BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 12 months.

Results

A total of 3,943 patients with known PC (997 patients in quartile 1 (Q1), 1,003 in quartile 2 (Q2) [205 ± 10.3 × 10⁹/L], 961 patients in quartile 3 (Q3) [241 ± 11.7 × 10⁹/L], and 982 patients in quartile 4 (Q4) [317 ± 68.6 × 10⁹/L]). There was no significant interaction between treatment arm (ticagrelor vs. prasugrel) and PC group with respect to primary endpoint (Q1: 8.8 vs. 6.3%, hazard ratio [HR] =1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-2.23; p = 0.148; Q2: 9.9 vs. 5.8%, HR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.06-2.66; p = 0.027; Q3: 7.8 vs. 5.5%, HR = 1.43, 95% CI: 0.87-2.37; p = 0.159; Q4: 10.1 vs. 10.1%, HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.71-1.57; p = 0.799; p for interaction [p _int] = 0.482) and with respect to bleeding endpoint (Q1: 5.8 vs. 4.2%, HR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.76-2.63; p = 0.279; Q2: 6.4 vs. 3.7%, HR = 1.62, 95% CI: 0.85-2.06; p = 0.140; Q3: 4.4 vs. 3.0%, HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.73-3.18; p = 0.258; Q4: 5.6 vs. 8.5%, HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.40-1.14; p = 0.138, p _int= 0.102).

Conclusions

In this analysis, incidences of ischemic and bleeding events at 12 months are comparable across quartiles of platelet count.

SUBMITTER: Koch T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10060058 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Association between Platelet Count and Treatment Effect of Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Koch Tobias T Lahu Shqipdona S Coughlan J J JJ Cassese Salvatore S Voll Felix F Ndrepepa Gjin G Menichelli Maurizio M Valina Christian C Hemetsberger Rayyan R Witzenbichler Bernhard B Bernlochner Isabell I Joner Michael M Xhepa Erion E Mayer Katharina K Kessler Thorsten T Laugwitz Karl-Ludwig KL Richardt Gert G Schunkert Heribert H Angiolillo Dominick J DJ Sibbing Dirk D Kastrati Adnan A Kufner Sebastian S

Thrombosis and haemostasis 20221128 4

<h4>Background</h4> The relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel based dual antiplatelet therapy strategies according to the platelet count (PC) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have not been defined.<h4>Methods</h4> This is a posthoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial, in which patients presenting with ACS were randomized to treatment with ticagrelor versus prasugrel. Patients were divided into quartiles according to PC. The primary endpoint was incidence of death ...[more]

PMID: 36442805

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPotent P2Y12 inhibitors such as ticagrelor and prasugrel are superior to clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether this benefit extends to a patient population with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is unclear.AimsWe sought to compare the safety and efficacy of prasugrel and ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients undergoing PCI for CCS.MethodsConsecutive patients undergoing PCI for CCS at a tertiary centre between 2014 and 2019 who were discharged on prasugrel or ticagrelor were compared with those on clopidogrel. The primary endpoint was the composite of death and myocardial infarction (MI), with secondary outcomes including rates of bleeding, stroke, and target vessel revascularisation at 1 year.ResultsOverall, 11,508 patients were included in the study (ticagrelor/prasugrel n=2,860 [24.9%], clopidogrel n=8,648 [75.1%]) with an increasing frequency of potent P2Y12 inhibitor use over the study period (ptrend<0.001). Clopidogrel was used more frequently in patients with multimorbid risk factors, whereas anatomical or procedural complexity was associated with ticagrelor/prasugrel use (left main PCI, bifurcation PCI, number of lesions, rotational atherectomy). No difference in the incidence of death or MI was noted across the groups (ticagrelor/prasugrel vs clopidogrel: 2.7% vs 3.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [adjHR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-1.17; p=0.33) or secondary outcomes including bleeding (adjHR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.46-1.21; p=0.23) on propensity score stratification analysis. Additionally, no difference in the primary outcome was observed across subgroups, including those undergoing complex PCI.ConclusionsTicagrelor and prasugrel are increasingly used in patients with CCS undergoing PCI with similar 1-year efficacy and safety when compared to clopidogrel. Whether use of these agents can be beneficial in patients undergoing PCI for CCS with a high thrombotic and low bleeding risk warrants further study.

Project description:Background The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome and prior myocardial infarction (MI) remain unstudied. We aimed to assess the treatment effect of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to prior MI status in patients with ACS. Methods and Results Patients with acute coronary syndrome planned for an invasive strategy and randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment) 5 trial were included. The primary end point was the composite of 1-year all-cause death, MI, or stroke; the secondary safety end point was the composite of 1-year Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding. The study included 4015 patients (prior MI=631 patients; no prior MI=3384 patients). As compared with patients without prior MI, the primary end point occurred more frequently in patients with prior MI (12.6% versus 7.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.78 [95% CI, 1.38-2.29]); the secondary safety end point appears to differ little between patients with and without prior MI (5.8% versus 5.7%, respectively; HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.71-1.45]). With regard to the primary end point, ticagrelor versus prasugrel was associated with an HR of 1.62 (95% CI, 1.03-2.55) in patients with prior MI and an HR of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.99-1.65) in patients without prior MI (Pint=0.37). With regard to the secondary safety end point, ticagrelor versus prasugrel was associated with an HR of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.56-2.91) in patients with prior MI and an HR of 1.13 (95% CI, 0.82-1.55) in patients without prior MI (Pint=0.79). Conclusions Patients with acute coronary syndrome and prior MI are at higher risk for recurrent ischemic but not bleeding events. Prasugrel is superior to ticagrelor in reducing the risk of ischemic events without a tradeoff in bleeding regardless of prior MI status. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Project description:BackgroundThis meta-analysis mainly aimed to compare the impact of prasugrel and ticagrelor on platelet reactivity (PR) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).MethodsWe searched four electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing the impact of prasugrel and ticagrelor on PR in patients with ACS. We performed group analyses according to three detection methods, drug dose [loading dose (LD) and maintenance dose (MTD)] and LD effect time, and assessed the robustness of the results through sensitivity analysis.ResultsTwenty-five studies with 5,098 patients were eligible. After LD, the incidence of high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) of ticagrelor was significantly lower than that of prasugrel within 6-18 h based on vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) test [RR = 0.25 (0.07, 0.85), P = 0.03], there was no significant difference between ticagrelor and prasugrel in the following results: platelets inhibitory effect within 24-48 h based on VerifyNow P2Y12 (VN) assay (P = 0.11) and VASP test (P = 0.20), and the incidence of HTPR within 2-6 h based on VN assay (P = 0.57) and within 24-48 h based on VN assay (P = 0.46) and VASP test (P = 0.72), the incidence of low on-treatment platelet reactivity (LTPR) within 6-18 h based on VASP test (P = 0.46) and 48 h based on VN assay (P = 0.97) and VASP test (P = 0.73). After MTD, the platelet inhibitory effect of ticagrelor was stronger than that of prasugrel based on VN assay [WMD = -41.64 (-47.16, -36.11), P < 0.00001]and VASP test [WMD = -9.10 (-13.88, -4.32), P = 0.0002], the incidence of HTPR of ticagrelor was significantly lower than that of prasugrel based on VN assay [RR = 0.05 (0.02, 0.16), P < 0.00001], the incidence of LTPR of ticagrelor was significantly higher than prasugrel based on VN assay [RR = 6.54 (4.21, 10.14), P < 0.00001] and VASP test [RR = 2.65 (1.78, 3.96), P < 0.00001], the results of Multiple Electrode Aggregometry (MEA) test was inconsistent with the other two detection methods in platelet inhibitory effect and the incidence of HTPR and LTPR. There was no significant difference between ticagrelor and prasugrel in the following clinical outcomes: all-cause death (P = 0.86), cardiovascular death (P = 0.49), myocardial infarction (P = 0.67), stroke (P = 0.51), target vessel revascularization (P = 0.51), stent thrombosis (P = 0.90), TIMI major bleeding (P = 0.86) and bleeding BARC type ≥ 2 (P = 0.77). The risk of bleeding BARC type 1 of ticagrelor was significantly higher than prasugrel [RR = 1.44 (1.03, 2.02), P = 0.03].ConclusionsCompared with prasugrel, ticagrelor might have a stronger platelet inhibition effect, with a lower incidence of HTPR and a higher incidence of LTPR and bleeding BARC type 1, while there might be no significant difference in the risk of thrombosis/ischemic, bleeding BARC Type ≥ 2 and TIMI major bleeding. A higher incidence of LTPR might indicate a higher risk of bleeding BARC type 1. The results of VN assay were consistent with that of VASP test, and not with the MEA test.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022304205, identifier: CRD42022304205.

Project description:ImportanceIn patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing invasive treatment, ticagrelor and prasugrel are guideline-recommended P2Y12 receptor inhibitors. The ISAR-REACT5 randomized clinical trial demonstrated superiority for prasugrel, although concerns were raised about the generalizability of some underpowered subgroup analyses.ObjectivesTo emulate a randomized clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of ticagrelor vs prasugrel under the conditions of routine care in individuals with ACS planned to undergo an invasive treatment strategy.Design, setting, and participantsThis new-user cohort study included secondary data from a German statutory health insurance claims database between January 2012 and December 2021, using 1:1 propensity score nearest-neighbor matching to emulate ISAR-REACT5. Individuals with ACS receiving either ticagrelor or prasugrel treatment after hospital discharge were followed up for 1 year. Eligibility criteria closely emulated those of ISAR-REACT5 and included age of 18 years or older and cardiovascular risk factors. Data were analyzed from May 2023 to May 2024.ExposureOutpatient prescription of ticagrelor or prasugrel.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke within 1 year of outpatient treatment initiation. Secondary end points included individual components of the primary end point and stent thrombosis. The safety end point was major bleeding. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was fitted to the overall cohort.ResultsOf 17 642 propensity score-matched individuals (mean [SD] age, 63.1 [10.9] years; 73.9% male), 8821 received ticagrelor and 8821 received prasugrel. Agreement was met in 11 of 12 predefined agreement metrics when comparing the results with ISAR-REACT5. The primary composite end point of all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke occurred in 815 individuals (9.2%) receiving ticagrelor and 663 (7.5%) receiving prasugrel (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.37). Myocardial infarction (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.06-1.36) and stroke (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.74) each occurred significantly more often in the ticagrelor group. Analysis of all-cause mortality (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.99-1.64), stent thrombosis (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.30), and major bleeding (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.96-1.32) revealed no significant differences between treatment groups. Subgroup analysis showed that prasugrel was associated with the primary composite end point in fewer individuals with ST-segment elevation MI (338 of 4941 [6.8%] vs 451 of 4852 [9.3%]).Conclusions and relevanceThis cohort study found that prasugrel was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke compared with ticagrelor in individuals with ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy in routine care, particularly in individuals with ST-segment elevation MI. The findings suggest that carefully designed database studies can complement and extend findings from randomized clinical trials, informing guidelines and clinical decision-making.

Dataset Information

Association between Platelet Count and Treatment Effect of Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Association between Platelet Count and Treatment Effect of Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets