Premium
“Real‐World” Comparison of Prasugrel With Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States
Author(s) -
Larmore Cynthia,
Effron Mark B.,
Molife Cliff,
DeKoven Mitch,
Zhu Yajun,
Lu Jingsong,
Karkare Swapna,
Lieu Hsiao D.,
Lee Won Chan,
Vetrovec George W.
Publication year - 2016
Publication title -
catheterization and cardiovascular interventions
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.988
H-Index - 116
eISSN - 1522-726X
pISSN - 1522-1946
DOI - 10.1002/ccd.26279
Subject(s) - prasugrel , ticagrelor , medicine , acute coronary syndrome , percutaneous coronary intervention , mace , clopidogrel , cardiology , conventional pci , myocardial infarction
Objectives The 30‐day clinical outcomes with prasugrel or ticagrelor were compared using a US payer database in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Background Prasugrel and ticagrelor demonstrated superior efficacy with increased non‐coronary artery bypass graft major bleeding compared with clopidogrel in randomized clinical trials. No direct randomized or observational studies have compared clinical outcomes between prasugrel and ticagrelor. Methods Patients hospitalized for ACS‐PCI between August 1, 2011 and April 30, 2013 and prescribed prasugrel or ticagrelor were selected. Drug treatment cohorts were propensity matched based upon demographic and clinical characteristics. The primary objective compared 30‐day net adverse clinical events (NACE) in prasugrel‐ and ticagrelor‐treated patients using a prespecified 20% noninferiority margin. Secondary objectives included comparisons of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major bleeding. Results Data were available for 16,098 patients (prasugrel, n = 13,134; ticagrelor, n = 2,964). In unmatched cohorts, prasugrel‐treated patients were younger with fewer comorbidities than ticagrelor‐treated patients, and 30‐day NACE rates were 5.6 and 9.3%, respectively ( P < 0.001). Following propensity matching, NACE was noninferior ( P < 0.001) and 22% lower in prasugrel‐treated than in ticagrelor‐treated patients (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64–0.94). A 30‐day adjusted MACE (RR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.64–0.98) and major bleeding (RR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.45–0.95) were also lower in prasugrel‐treated patients compared with ticagrelor‐treated patients. Conclusions In this “real‐world,” retrospective, observational study, physicians appear to preferentially use prasugrel in younger patients with lower risk of bleeding or comorbidities compared with ticagrelor. Following adjustment, clinical outcomes associated with prasugrel use appear as good, if not better, than those associated with ticagrelor in ACS‐PCI patients. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.