Key result
In patients with acute coronary syndrome, ticagrelor showed no significant difference in myocardial infarction (OR 0.87), stroke, or bleeding compared to clopidogrel, but significantly increased the risk of dyspnea (OR 1.87).
Why the study?
The clinical benefit of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in treating acute coronary syndrome patients remained controversial.
Does ticagrelor reduce stroke, MI, bleeding, and dyspnea compared to clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome?
Meta-Analysis (n=56,395)
Does ticagrelor reduce stroke, MI, bleeding, and dyspnea compared to clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome?
Odds Ratio: 0.87 (95% CI 0.72–1.05)
p-value: p=0.14
In this meta-analysis, ticagrelor showed similar efficacy and bleeding risk to clopidogrel in ACS patients, but was associated with a significantly higher incidence of dyspnea.
Ticagrelor matches clopidogrel on ischemic and bleeding outcomes in ACS; confirms lack of superiority while highlighting dyspnea as the main trade-off.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Ticagrelor has been acknowledged as a new oral antagonist of P2Y12-adenosine diphosphate receptor, as a strategy with more rapid onset as well as more significant platelet inhibition function in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. The clinical benefit of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel remains controversial. The current meta-analysis was conducted to better evaluate the role of ticagrelor in comparison of clopidogrel in treating ACS patients. METHODS: The publications involving the safety as well as the efficacy of clopidogrel versus ticagrelor were screened and identified updated to June 2018. After rigorous review, eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were extracted and propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was conducted. To analyze the summary odds ratios (ORs) of the endpoints of interest, we applied Meta-analysis Revman 5.3 software. RESULTS: There were a total of 10 studies that met our inclusion criteria, of which the risk of bleeding rate (P = 0.43), MI (P = 0.14), and stroke (P = 0.70) had no association with significant differences between patients receiving ticagrelor or clopidogrel. Nonetheless, higher rate of dyspnea was observed in ticagrelor group (OR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.70-2.05, P<0.00001 = . CONCLUSIONS: Our present findings suggest similar efficacy and safety profiles for clopidogrel and ticagrelor Ticagrelor should be considered as a valuable option to reduce the risk of bleeding, MI and stroke, whereas potentially increases the incidence of dyspnea. Given the metabolic process, ticagrelor may be a valid and even more potent antiplatelet drug than clopidogrel, as an alternative strategy in treating patients with clopidogrel intolerance or resistance.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wang et al. (2018) conducted a meta-analysis in Acute coronary syndrome (n=56,395). Ticagrelor vs. Clopidogrel was evaluated on Myocardial infarction (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.72-1.05, p=0.14). In patients with acute coronary syndrome, ticagrelor showed no significant difference in myocardial infarction (OR 0.87), stroke, or bleeding compared to clopidogrel, but significantly increased the risk of dyspnea (OR 1.87).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: