Dataset Information

Hospitalization for Myocardial Infarction with Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: An On-Treatment Comparative Effectiveness Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Prescribing patterns and suboptimal adherence present methodological challenges for real-world head-to-head comparisons of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in intent-to-treat studies. The aim of this study was to compare ticagrelor and clopidogrel in an on-treatment population.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study used the Optum™ Clinformatics™ database to identify patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) discharged on ticagrelor or clopidogrel between January 1, 2012 and September 30, 2019. The primary end point was hospitalization for myocardial infarction (MI); the secondary end point was hospitalization for major bleeding. The ticagrelor and clopidogrel cohorts were balanced by propensity score matching (PSM) 1:3 for demographic and clinical characteristics. Outcomes were ascertained from day 31 until day 365 or end of follow-up.

Results

Of 339,387 patients with ACS, 14,110 ticagrelor- and 57,482 clopidogrel-treated patients met the study criteria. After PSM, 13,373 ticagrelor- and 29,656 clopidogrel-treated patients provided 4945 and 13,895 patient-years of data, respectively, for the primary end point. Hospitalization for MI was significantly lower in the ticagrelor compared to the clopidogrel cohort (2.22 vs. 3.52 per 100 patient-years; 36.8% relative risk reduction [RRR]; P < 0.0001). Hospitalization for major bleeding was similar in the ticagrelor and clopidogrel cohorts (2.04 vs. 2.06 per 100 patient-years; 1.1% RRR, P = 0.9214).

Conclusions

In this real-world on-treatment analysis, hospitalization for MI was significantly lower with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel, with similar rates of hospitalization for major bleeding. Study findings underscore the importance of being on the appropriate guideline-recommended therapy and support the use of ticagrelor over clopidogrel.

SUBMITTER: Olufade T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8555031 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe net clinical benefit of ticagrelor over clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has recently been questioned by observational studies which did not account for time-dependent confounders. We aimed to assess the comparative safety and effectiveness of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel accounting for non-adherence in a real-life setting.MethodsThis is a prospective, multicenter cohort study of patients with ACS discharged on ticagrelor or clopidogrel between 2015 and 2019. Major exclusions were previous intracranial bleeding, and the use of prasugrel or oral anticoagulation. Association of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy with 1-year risk of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium Type 3 or 5 bleeding; major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), a composite endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, or urgent target lesion revascularization; definite/probable stent thrombosis; vascular death; and net adverse clinical event (a composite endpoint of major bleeding and MACE) were analyzed according to the "on-treatment" principle, using fully adjusted Cox and Fine-Gray regression models with doubly robust inverse probability of censoring weighted estimators.ResultsAmong 2,070 patients (mean age 63 years, 27% women, 62.5% ST-elevation MI), 1,035 were discharged on ticagrelor and clopidogrel, respectively. Ticagrelor-treated patients were younger and had few comorbidities, but high rates of medication non-compliance, compared with clopidogrel users. After comprehensive multivariate adjustments, ticagrelor did not increase the risk of major bleeding compared with clopidogrel [subhazard ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.96-2.05], while proved superior in reducing MACE (hazard ratio 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.90), vascular death (subhazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.97) and definite/probable stent thrombosis (subhazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30-0.79); thereby resulting in a favorable net clinical benefit (hazard ratio 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60-0.98) compared with clopidogrel. Results from sensitivity analyses were consistent with those from the primary analysis, whereas those from the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis went in the opposite direction.ConclusionAmong all-comers with ACS, ticagrelor did not significantly increase the risk of major bleeding, while resulting in a net clinical benefit compared with clopidogrel. Further research is warranted to confirm these findings in high bleeding risk populations.Crea-ariam andalucía(ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02500290); Current pre-specified analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04630288).

Project description:BackgroundIt is still unknown whether diabetes mellitus (DM) affects the relative safety and efficacy of ticagrelor vs clopidogrel in East Asian patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).ObjectivesThe authors sought to assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor vs clopidogrel according to the diabetic status of East Asian patients with ACS undergoing invasive management.MethodsThis prespecified analysis of the TICA KOREA (Clinically Significant Bleeding With Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Korean Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Intended for Invasive Management) trial included 800 Korean patients. The primary safety endpoint was clinically significant bleeding (PLATO [Platelet Inhibition and Clinical Outcomes] major or minor bleeding) at 12 months; the efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke).ResultsOf 800 patients, 216 (27.0%) had DM. The incidence of clinically significant bleeding within 12 months was significantly higher with ticagrelor than clopidogrel in the nondiabetic group (10.2% vs 4.3%; HR: 2.45; 95% CI: 1.27-4.70; P = 0.007) and tended to be higher in the diabetic group (13.8% vs 8.0%; HR: 1.87; 95% CI: 0.54-4.36; P = 0.15); there was no significant interaction between treatment-arm and DM (P for interaction = 0.64). The incidences of major adverse cardiovascular events were not significantly different after ticagrelor or clopidogrel both in the diabetic group (10.8% vs 6.0%; HR: 1.90; 95% CI: 0.71-5.07; P = 0.20) and in the nondiabetic group (8.5% vs 5.7%; HR: 1.51; 95% CI: 0.81-2.81; P = 0.19) without significant interaction (P-for-interaction = 0.71).ConclusionsIn Korean ACS patients undergoing early invasive management, diabetes status did not affect the relative safety and efficacy of ticagrelor and clopidogrel. (Safety and Efficacy of Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Asian/Korean Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Intended for Invasive Management [TICA KOREA]; NCT02094963).

Project description:BACKGROUND:The dose and time point for switching from clopidogrel to ticagrelor remain controversial, especially for Chinese acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with complicated coronary artery disease (CAD). Hence, the purpose of this study was to further explore the optimal dose and time point for the switching strategy to balance the increase in platelet inhibition and the decrease in adverse events in Chinese ACS patients with complicated CAD managed by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS:From July 2017 to December 2017, the prospective, randomized, open-label study (the SwitcHIng from clopidogrel to ticagrelor study) assigned the eligible Chinese ACS patients with complicated CAD managed by PCI (n = 102) for 90 mg of ticagrelor at 12 h (T-90 mg-12 h), 90 mg of ticagrelor at 24 h (T-90 mg-24h) or 180 mg ticagrelor at 24 h (T-180 mg-24 h) after the last dose of clopidogrel. The primary endpoint was the comparison of maximal platelet aggregation (MPA) values at 2 h after switching strategies among the three groups. In addition, the MPA values at baseline, 8 h and before discharge and the rates of high on-treatment platelet reactivity were evaluated, the incidences of bleeding episodes and dyspnea during hospitalization and at 30-day follow-up in our study were also recorded. The MPA was measured by light transmittance aggregometry in our study. A repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) model and one-way ANOVA were used to compare data for the primary endpoint. RESULTS:The MPA values were significantly decreased in the T-180 mg-24 h group compared with the T-90 mg-12 h group (P = 0.017) and decreased numerically compared with the T-90 mg-24 h group (P = 0.072) at 2 h. In particular, the MPA values were markedly reduced in the T-90 mg-24 h group compared with the T-90 mg-12 h group at 8 h after switching treatment (P = 0.002). There was no significant difference among the three groups in all bleedings and dyspnea events. CONCLUSIONS:The optimal treatment strategy recommended in this study for Chinese ACS patients with complicated CAD managed by PCI is 180 or 90 mg of ticagrelor at 24 h after the last dose of clopidogrel. In addition, a negative interaction was detected in this study between the overlap for clopidogrel and ticagrelor at 12 h after the last dose of clopidogrel. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03577652; http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03577652.