Dataset Information

Randomized assessment of ticagrelor versus prasugrel antiplatelet effects in patients with diabetes.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

It has been postulated that prasugrel might be the preferred treatment option in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We aimed to compare the pharmacodynamic action of ticagrelor versus prasugrel.

Research design and methods

In a prospective, single-center, single-blind, crossover study, 30 consecutive ACS patients with DM who had been pretreated with clopidogrel were randomized to either 90 mg ticagrelor twice daily or 10 mg prasugrel once daily with a 15-day treatment period. Platelet reactivity (PR) was assessed with the VerifyNow P2Y12 function assay, measured in P2Y12 reaction units (PRU).

Results

PR was significantly lower after ticagrelor (45.2 PRU [95% CI 27.4-63.1]) compared with prasugrel (80.8 PRU [63.0-98.7]), with a least squares mean difference of -35.6 PRU (-55.2 to -15.9, P = 0.001). High PR rate was 0% for ticagrelor and 3.3% for prasugrel (P = 1.0).

Conclusions

In DM patients with ACS who had been pretreated with clopidogrel and who undergo PCI, ticagrelor achieves a significantly higher platelet inhibition than prasugrel. Both antiplatelet agents effectively treat high PR. The relevance of these findings to the clinical efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in DM patients needs further elucidation.

SUBMITTER: Alexopoulos D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3714492 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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 Management of patients with non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) is based on 2020 European Society of Cardiology guidelines, which recommend the preferential use of prasugrel over ticagrelor. Because the selection of the respective P2Y12 inhibitor has to consider label restrictions, we sought to evaluate the proportion of patients qualifying for either ticagrelor or prasugrel and reasons for noneligibility in an unselected cohort of patients with acute coronary syndrome. Methods and Results In this retrospective observational study, patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) or NSTE-ACS presenting consecutively during a 24-month period were enrolled. The eligibility of patients for a dual antiplatelet therapy option was assessed retrospectively. A total of 1502 patients had confirmed acute coronary syndrome (287 STEMI and 1215 NSTE-ACS). Eligibility for ticagrelor and full-dose prasugrel differed significantly for STEMI and NSTE-ACS (93% versus 51%, P<0.0001 versus 80% versus 31%, P<0.0001). Eligibility remained significantly lower (STEMI 78% versus NSTE-ACS 52%) if low-dose prasugrel was considered. Patients eligible for full-dose prasugrel had lower ischemic risk per GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) score (109 points [90-129 points] versus 121 points [98-146 points], P<0.0001) and lower bleeding risk (14 points [13-15 points] versus 20 points [12-29 points], P<0.0001) per PRECISE-DAPT (Predicting Bleeding Complications in Patients Undergoing Stent Implantation and Subsequent Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) score. Conclusions In real life, eligibility for prasugrel in patients requiring dual antiplatelet therapy is considerably lower than for ticagrelor, even in a cohort with high rates of coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions. The recommended use of prasugrel over ticagrelor in current acute coronary syndrome guidelines contrasts with our observations of a substantial disparity on the eligibility. This important aspect has not received appropriate attention yet. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT05774431.