Key result
Ticagrelor monotherapy reduces ischaemic events ~26% vs aspirin in the second year post-PCI.
Why the study?
The optimal antiplatelet strategy in the second year after PCI remains unclear.
Does ticagrelor monotherapy reduce ischaemic events compared to aspirin monotherapy in patients free from events at 1 year post-PCI?
RCT (n=11,121)
open-label
randomised
Does ticagrelor monotherapy reduce ischaemic events compared to aspirin monotherapy in patients free from events at 1 year post-PCI?
Ticagrelor monotherapy in the second year post-PCI reduces ischaemic events but increases major bleeding compared to aspirin monotherapy in patients who are event-free and adherent at 1 year.
Ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with fewer ischaemic events than aspirin in year 2 post-PCI; leaves open net benefit and requires randomized confirmation.
BACKGROUND: The optimal antiplatelet strategy in the second year after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains unclear. AIMS: We aimed to compare ticagrelor monotherapy with aspirin monotherapy on clinical outcomes beyond 1 year post-PCI. METHODS: This post hoc subanalysis of the open-label, all-comers, randomised GLOBAL LEADERS trial, which compared 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy following 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with 12-month aspirin monotherapy following 12-month DAPT, only included patients who, at 12 months, were free from ischaemic and bleeding events and were adherent to their assigned antiplatelet therapy. The incidences of ischaemic events (all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any stroke) and bleeding events (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] type 3 or 5 bleeding) during the second year (12-24 months) were compared between patients receiving either ticagrelor or aspirin monotherapy. RESULTS: The present analysis included 11,121 (ticagrelor monotherapy n=5,308, and aspirin monotherapy n=5,813) of the 15,991 patients enrolled in GLOBAL LEADERS. During the second year, the ischaemic composite endpoint was lower with ticagrelor monotherapy compared to aspirin monotherapy (1.9% vs 2.6%: log-rank p=0.014, adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.58-0.96; p=0.022), which was primarily driven by a reduced risk of myocardial infarction. In contrast, BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding was numerically higher with ticagrelor monotherapy (0.5% vs 0.3%: log-rank p=0.051, adjusted HR 1.89, 95% CI: 1.03-3.45; p=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: Patients free from events at the end of the first year post-PCI and who adhered to their prescribed regimen had a reduced risk of ischaemic events compared to aspirin monotherapy in the second year post-PCI. CLINICALTRIALS: gov: NCT01813435.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ono et al. (2022) conducted an RCT in post-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (n=11,121). Ticagrelor monotherapy vs. Aspirin monotherapy was evaluated on ischaemic composite endpoint (all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, or any stroke) (adjusted HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.96, p=0.022). Ticagrelor monotherapy reduced the risk of ischaemic events compared to aspirin monotherapy in the second year post-PCI (1.9% vs 2.6%; adjusted HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.96; p=0.022).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: