Why the study?
The net clinical benefit of ticagrelor over clopidogrel in ACS was questioned by observational studies not accounting for time-dependent confounders, prompting an evaluation accounting for non-adherence in real-life practice.
Does ticagrelor reduce MACE without increasing major bleeding compared to clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome?
Does ticagrelor reduce MACE without increasing major bleeding compared to clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome?
In a real-world ACS registry, ticagrelor was associated with a lower risk of MACE and a favorable net clinical benefit compared to clopidogrel, without a significant increase in major bleeding.
Supports ticagrelor signals in real-world ACS; leaves open randomized confirmation before practice change.
Background: The 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. Methods: 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. Results: Among 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. Conclusion: Among 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).
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Almendro‐Delia et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: