Key result
Ticagrelor did not demonstrate superiority over clopidogrel for reducing major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RR 0.95).
Why the study?
DAPT is standard of care for acute coronary syndromes, but the optimal regimen for North American patients remains uncertain.
Does ticagrelor reduce the composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke compared to clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes?
RCT (n=1,005)
Open-label
Cluster randomized time-crossover
No
Does ticagrelor reduce the composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke compared to clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes?
In a Bayesian pragmatic cluster-randomized trial of North American ACS patients, ticagrelor did not demonstrate strong evidence of superiority over clopidogrel for reducing major adverse cardiovascular events.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Ticagrelor shows no MACE superiority over clopidogrel in ACS; challenges routine preference and extends trial data to pragmatic North American settings.
Background Dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the standard of care for acute coronary syndromes, but uncertainty exists regarding the optimal regime for North American patients. Methods This pragmatic, open-label, time clustered, randomized trial ( ClinicalTrials.Gov ( NCT04057300 ) compared the effectiveness and safety of DAPT with ticagrelor or clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome patients from a single tertiary academic center in Montreal, Canada. The primary effectiveness endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. The primary safety endpoint were bleeding hospitalizations. Twelve-month outcomes were ascertained from the Québec universal electronic health databases. The study was designed and analyzed within a Bayesian paradigm to supplement existing knowledge. The primary analysis was a Bayesian logistic regression models with an informed focused prior from previously randomized North American patients. Robustness was evaluated with vague and other pre-specified informative priors, spanning reasonable pre-existing beliefs. Clinically significant benefits and harms were defined as risk reductions exceeding a 10% difference. Results 1,005 ACS patients were randomized to ticagrelor (n = 450) or clopidogrel (n = 555). MACE occurred in 50 (11.1%) ticagrelor and 64 (11.5%) clopidogrel patients (relative risk (RR), 0.95; 95% credible interval [95% CrI]: 0.67, 1.35 with a vague prior). The primary analysis with an informed focused prior resulted in probabilities of a clinically meaningful ticagrelor benefit (RR<0.9), equivalence (0.9 ≦ RR ≧, 1.1) or harm (RR ≧, 1.1) of 2%, 41% and 57%, respectively. For the safety endpoint, there was no consistent signal of benefit or harm with ticagrelor. Sensitivity analyses with a range of prior beliefs gave generally consistent results. Conclusions Whether this trial was analysed with a vague, or a range of reasonable informed priors, no strong evidence for the superiority of ticagrelor over clopidogrel was found.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kutcher et al. (2024) conducted an RCT in Acute coronary syndromes (n=1,005). Ticagrelor vs. Clopidogrel was evaluated on Composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.67-1.35). Ticagrelor did not demonstrate superiority over clopidogrel for reducing major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RR 0.95).
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: