Dataset Information

Assessment of Impact of Patient Recruitment Volume on Risk Profile, Outcomes, and Treatment Effect in a Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Acute Coronary Syndromes.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND Whether there are differences in the risk profile and treatment effect in patients recruited in a low recruitment center (LRC) versus patients recruited in a high recruitment center (HRC) in a randomized multicenter trial remains unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS This study included 4018 patients with acute coronary syndrome recruited in the ISAR-REACT 5 (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5) trial. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Overall, 3011 patients (75%) were recruited in the HRCs (7 centers recruiting 258 to 628 patients; median, 413 patients) and 1007 patients (25%) were recruited in the LRCs (16 centers recruiting 5 to 201 patients; median, 52 patients). Patients recruited in the LRCs had more favorable cardiovascular risk profiles than patients recruited in the HRCs. The primary end point occurred in 72 patients in the LRCs and 249 patients in the HRCs (cumulative incidence, 7.3% and 8.4%; P=0.267). All-cause mortality was lower among patients recruited in the LRCs (n=29) than among patients recruited in the HRCs (n=134; cumulative incidence 2.9% versus 4.5%; P=0.031). There was no significant interaction between the treatment effect of ticagrelor versus prasugrel and patient recruitment category (LRC versus HRC) regarding the primary efficacy end point (LRC: hazard ratio [HR], 1.42 [95% CI, 0.89-2.28]; HRC: HR, 1.33 [95% CI, 1.04-1.72]; P for interaction=0.800). CONCLUSIONS Patients with acute coronary syndrome recruited in a LRC appear to have more favorable cardiovascular risk profiles and lower 1-year mortality rates compared with patients recruited in a HRC. The recruitment volume did not interact with the treatment effect of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. REGISTRATION URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

SUBMITTER: Ndrepepa G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8751942 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundPrasugrel and ticagrelor have demonstrated higher efficacy than clopidogrel in their main clinical trials for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, the long-term prognosis and different clinical characteristics related to the type of antiplatelet prescription in current clinical practice ACS patients have not been analysed in depth. The objective of this study was to analyse the clinical profile of ACS and the efficacy and safety of novel oral P2Y12 inhibitors in current clinical practice patients discharged afterACS.MethodsWe collected data from the ACHILLES registry, and an observational, prospective and multicentre registry of patients discharged after ACS. We analysed baseline characteristics, clinical profile and therapy during ACS admission and compared with the different treatments at discharge. After 1 year of follow-up, ischaemic and major bleeding events were analysed. Multivariate Cox regression analysis and Kaplan Meier curves were also plotted.ResultsOf 1717 consecutive patients, 1294 (75.4%) were discharged with a P2Y12 inhibitor without oral anticoagulation. Novel oral P2Y12 inhibitors were indicated in 47%. Patients treated with clopidogrel were elderly (69.1 ± 13.4 vs 60.4 ± 11.5 years; P < .001) and had a higher prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors. GRACE and CRUSADE scores were higher in the clopidogrel than in novel oral P2Y12 inhibitors group (P < .001). After 1 year of follow-up, 64(5.0%/year) patients had a new myocardial infarction, 127(10.0%/year) had a major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) and 78(6.1%/year) died. Patients treated with clopidogrel had a significantly higher annual rate of cardiovascular mortality, MACE and all-cause mortality (allP < .001) without differences in major bleeding (P = .587) compared with novel oral P2Y12 inhibitors. After multivariate adjustment for the main clinical variables related to adverse prognosis in ACS patients, the discharge with novel oral P2Y12 inhibitors therapy was independently associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR0.49, 95% CI [0.24-0.98], P = .044) and lower risk of MACE (HR0.64, 95% CI [0.41-0.98], P = .044).ConclusionsIn this prospective, observational and current clinical practice ACS registry, the use of novel oral P2Y12 inhibitors was associated with a reduction in adverse events compared with clopidogrel in patients with ACS. Novel oral P2Y12 inhibitors prescription at discharge was independently associated with lower all-cause mortality and MACE without differences in bleeding events. However, clopidogrel remained the most common P2Y12 inhibitor employed for ACS, especially in older and high-risk patients.

Dataset Information

Assessment of Impact of Patient Recruitment Volume on Risk Profile, Outcomes, and Treatment Effect in a Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Acute Coronary Syndromes.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets