Key result
Ticagrelor shows no benefit over clopidogrel for MACE in elderly coronary heart disease patients.
Why the study?
Ticagrelor is recommended in guidelines for CHD, but it was unknown whether it is more effective or safer than clopidogrel in elderly patients.
Does ticagrelor reduce major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and all-cause death compared to clopidogrel in elderly patients with coronary heart disease?
Meta-Analysis (n=21,827)
Does ticagrelor reduce major adverse cardiovascular events, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and all-cause death compared to clopidogrel in elderly patients with coronary heart disease?
Relative Risk: 0.95 (95% CI 0.7–1.28)
Absolute Event Rate: 9.23% vs 10.57%
p-value: p=0.72
In elderly patients with coronary heart disease, ticagrelor does not appear to be significantly more effective or safer than clopidogrel.
Ticagrelor does not reduce MACE versus clopidogrel in elderly CHD patients; confirms comparable efficacy and supports individualized P2Y12 selection.
Background: A new generation P2Y12 receptor inhibitor (ticagrelor) is recommended in current therapeutic guidelines to treat patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). However, it is unknown if ticagrelor is more effective than clopidogrel in elderly patients. Therefore, a systematic review was done to assess the effectiveness and safety of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in older patients with CHD to determine the appropriate antiplatelet treatment plan. Methodology: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effectiveness and safety of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in elderly patients with CHD. We selected eligible RCTs based on specified study criteria following a systematic search of PubMed and Scopus databases from January 2007 to May 2021. Primary efficacy outcomes assessed were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), and all-cause death. The secondary outcome assessed was major bleeding events. We used RevMan 5.3 software to conduct a random-effects meta-analysis and estimated the pooled incidence and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for ticagrelor and clopidogrel. Results: Data from 6 RCTs comprising 21,827 elderly patients were extracted according to the eligibility criteria. There was no significant difference in the MACE outcome (incidence: 9.23% vs. 10.57%; RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.70–1.28, p = 0.72), MI (incidence: 5.40% vs. 6.23%; RR = 0.94, 95% CI= 0.69–1.27, p = 0.67), ST (incidence: 2.33% vs. 3.17%; RR = 0.61, 95% CI= 0.32–1.17, p = 0.13), and all-cause death (4.29% vs. 5.33%; RR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.65–1.12, p = 0.25) for ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel, respectively. In addition, ticagrelor was not associated with a significant increase in the rate of major bleeding (incidence: 9.98% vs. 9.33%: RR = 1.37, 95% CI = 0.97–1.94, p = 0.07) vs. clopidogrel. Conclusions: This study did not find evidence that ticagrelor is significantly more effective or safer than clopidogrel in elderly patients with CHD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akkaif et al. (2021) conducted a meta-analysis in Coronary heart disease (n=21,827). Ticagrelor vs. Clopidogrel was evaluated on Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.70-1.28, p=0.72). Ticagrelor did not significantly reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events compared to clopidogrel in elderly patients with coronary heart disease (RR 0.95, p=0.72).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: