Dataset Information

Reduction in Osteoarthritis Risk After Treatment With Ticagrelor Compared to Clopidogrel: A Propensity Score-Matching Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a common cause of joint pain and disability, and effective treatments are lacking. Extracellular adenosine has antiinflammatory effects and can prevent and treat OA in animal models. Ticagrelor and clopidogrel are both used in patients with coronary artery disease, but only ticagrelor increases extracellular adenosine levels. This study was undertaken to determine whether treatment with ticagrelor was associated with a lower risk of OA.

Methods

We conducted a 1:2 propensity score-matching analysis using data from 2011-2017 in the Optum Clinformatics Data Mart. Patients who had received either ticagrelor or clopidogrel for ≥90 days were included in our study, and patients with a prior diagnosis of OA or inflammatory arthritis were excluded. OA was identified using International Classification of Diseases codes. The primary outcome was the time to diagnosis of OA after treatment with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel.

Results

Our propensity score-matched cohort consisted of 7,007 ticagrelor-treated patients and 14,014 clopidogrel-treated patients, with a median number of days receiving treatment of 287 and 284, respectively. For both groups, the mean age was 64 years, and 73% of the patients were male. Multivariate Cox regression analysis estimated a hazard ratio for developing OA of 0.71 (95% confidence interval 0.64-0.79) (P < 0.001) after treatment with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel.

Conclusion

Treatment with ticagrelor was associated with a 29% lower risk of developing OA compared to treatment with clopidogrel over 5 years of follow-up. We hypothesize that the reduction in OA seen in patients who received ticagrelor may in part be due to increased extracellular adenosine levels.

SUBMITTER: Baker MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7722213 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe effect of different dual antiplatelet therapies on thrombotic events on the background of intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) guidance is unclear. We investigated whether ticagrelor can provide any additional benefit to clopidogrel in reducing thrombotic events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with drug- eluting stent (DES), when guided by IVUS or not.MethodsA total of 5,666 ACS patients who underwent DES implantation and who were discharged on dual antiplatelet therapy were enrolled and grouped according to the use of IVUS or not. Each group was subdivided into two subgroups according to the type of P2Y12 inhibitor used after discharge. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used between the IVUS and no-IVUS groups. Covariate adjustment of Cox proportional hazards model was used between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups. Thrombotic event at 12 months was compared in groups separately.ResultsAfter PSM, 12-month follow-up data were available for 1,174 patients. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were less frequent in the IVUS-guided group (2.2% vs. 4.3%, P = 0.081) with a trend toward statistical significance. Comparison of antiplatelet regimens revealed significantly fewer major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) with ticagrelor in the entire PSM cohort and angiography-guided subgroup (2.9% vs. 5.7%, P = 0.035; 3.1% vs. 6.4%, P = 0.020, respectively). Among patients in the IVUS-guided group the outcome was comparable (2.5% vs. 4.4%, P = 0.312). Ticagrelor was associated with increasing bleeding incidence in the entire PSM cohort (1.3% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.030), mainly due to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 bleeding (0.7% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.010). The results were consistent after covariate adjustment of Cox proportional hazards model.ConclusionThe comparison of ischemic benefit between ticagrelor and clopidogrel was similar in patients receiving IVUS guidance during stent implantation, probably due to the precise implantation of IVUS. Multicenter, randomized studies should be performed to validate this conclusion.

Project description:BackgroundEuropean 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.MethodsTo 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.ResultsOf 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).ConclusionsIn 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.