Why the study?
Do new P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel and ticagrelor) improve ischemic outcomes compared with clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes?
Do new P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel and ticagrelor) improve ischemic outcomes compared with clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Prasugrel and ticagrelor offer superior ischemic protection and better net clinical benefit compared to clopidogrel for secondary prevention in patients with acute coronary syndromes, despite a higher bleeding risk.
Current guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy, a combination of aspirin and a P2Y(12) inhibitor, for 6?12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation in all patients and for 1 year in all patients after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), irrespective of revascularization strategy. Clopidogrel has a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile that results in a delayed and/or subtherapeutic antiplatelet effect, and wide variability in antiplatelet response. New P2Y(12) inhibitors, such as prasugrel and ticagrelor, have favorable pharmacodynamics and clinical efficacy over clopidogrel and offer an alternative antiplatelet treatment strategy in specific patients. Prasugrel has more potent, rapid, and consistent effects on inhibiting ADP-induced platelet aggregation than clopidogrel. Ticagrelor also appears to have more rapid and consistent antiplatelet effects than clopidogrel. The higher levels of antiplatelet inhibition provided by prasugrel and ticagrelor compared with standard-dose clopidogrel result in improved ischemic outcomes in patients with ACS. Despite an increase in bleeding risk, prasugrel and ticagrelor appear to have a better net clinical benefit, especially in higher-risk patients with ACS.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Silvain et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: