Key result
Ticagrelor was associated with a 34% reduction in gastrointestinal bleeding risk (HR 0.66) compared with clopidogrel in the first year following percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome.
Why the study?
Comparative gastrointestinal bleeding rates among clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor remain poorly understood.
Does ticagrelor or prasugrel reduce gastrointestinal bleeding compared to clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome following percutaneous coronary intervention?
Observational (n=37,019)
Does ticagrelor or prasugrel reduce gastrointestinal bleeding compared to clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome following percutaneous coronary intervention?
Hazard Ratio: 0.66 (95% CI 0.54–0.81)
Number Needed to Treat: 62
In real-world practice, ticagrelor and prasugrel are associated with a significantly lower risk of gastrointestinal bleeding compared to clopidogrel in the first year following PCI for ACS.
Ticagrelor and prasugrel were associated with fewer post-PCI GIB events than clopidogrel; leaves open whether findings should alter P2Y12 selection.
BACKGROUND: inhibitors lower major adverse cardiac events with similar or possibly higher major bleeding events. The comparative GIB rates of these medications remain poorly understood. AIM: To compare GIB rates associated with clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor using national medical and pharmacy claims data from privately insured and Medicare Advantage enrollees . METHODS: Propensity score and inverse probability treatment weighting were used to balance baseline characteristics among treatment groups. The 1-year GIB risk was calculated using weighted Cox proportional hazard models and expressed as hazard ratios (HR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and number needed to harm (NNH). RESULTS: We identified 37 019 patients with ACS (non-ST elevation ACS [NSTE-ACS] and ST-elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI]) within 14 days of a PCI (mean age 63 years and 70% male). Clopidogrel prescription was most common (69%) with prasugrel (16%) and ticagrelor (14%) prescribed less frequently. When compared with clopidogrel, ticagrelor was associated with a 34% risk reduction (HR 0.66; 95% CI: 0.54-0.81) in GIB overall and with NSTE-ACS, and a 37% GIB risk reduction (HR 0.63; 95% CI: 0.42-0.93) in STEMI patients. When compared with clopidogrel, prasugrel was associated with a 21% risk reduction (HR 0.79; 95% CI: 0.64-0.97) overall, a 36% GIB risk reduction (HR 0.64; 95% CI: 0.49-0.85) in STEMI patients but no reduction of GIB risk in NSTE-ACS patients. CONCLUSIONS: In the first year following PCI, ticagrelor or prasugrel are associated with fewer GIB events than clopidogrel.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Abraham et al. (2020) conducted an observational in Acute coronary syndrome following percutaneous coronary intervention (n=37,019). Ticagrelor vs. Clopidogrel was evaluated on Total gastrointestinal bleeding at 1 year (HR 0.66, 95% CI 0.54-0.81). Ticagrelor was associated with a 34% reduction in gastrointestinal bleeding risk (HR 0.66) compared with clopidogrel in the first year following percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: