"Real-World" Comparison of Prasugrel With Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States.

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). 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. 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. 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. 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.

Larmore C ，Effron MB ，Molife C ，DeKoven M ，Zhu Y ，Lu J ，Karkare S ，Lieu HD ，Lee WC ，Vetrovec GW ... -  《-》

One-Year Clinical Effectiveness Comparison of Prasugrel with Ticagrelor: Results from a Retrospective Observational Study using an Integrated Claims Database.

Effron MB ，Nair KV ，Molife C ，Keller SY ，Page RL 2nd ，Simeone JC ，Murphy B ，Nordstrom BL ，Zhu Y ，McCollam PL ，Vetrovec GW ... -  《-》

Comparison of healthcare resource utilization and costs in patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndrome managed with percutaneous coronary intervention and receiving prasugrel or ticagrelor.

Molife C ，Frech-Tamas F ，DeKoven M ，Effron MB ，Karkare S ，Zhu Y ，Larmore C ，Lu J ，McCollam P ，Marrett E ，Vetrovec GW ... -  《-》

Clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Guidelines recommend prasugrel or ticagrelor instead of clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). We sought to describe the trends in uptake of the newer agents and analyse the clinical characteristics and short-term outcomes of patients treated with clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor. We analysed the temporal trends of antiplatelet use since the availability of prasugrel (2009-2013) in patients with ACS from the Melbourne Interventional Group registry. To assess clinical characteristics and outcomes, we included 1850 patients from 2012 to 2013, corresponding to the time all three agents were available. The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). The safety end-point was in-hospital bleeding. For the period of 2009-2013, the majority of patients were treated with clopidogrel (72%) compared with prasugrel (14%) or ticagrelor (14%). There was a clear trend towards ticagrelor by the end of 2013. Patients treated with clopidogrel were more likely to present with non-ST-elevation ACS, be older, and have more comorbidities. There was no difference in unadjusted 30-day mortality (0.9 vs 0.5 vs 1.0%, P = 0.76), myocardial infarction (2 vs 1 vs 2%, P = 0.52) or MACE (3 vs 3 vs 4%, P = 0.57) between the three agents. There was no difference in in-hospital bleeding (3 vs 2 vs 2%, P = 0.64). Prasugrel and ticagrelor are increasingly used in ACS patients treated with PCI, predominantly in a younger cohort with less comorbidity. Although antiplatelet therapy should still be individualised based on the thrombotic and bleeding risk, our study highlights the safety of the new P2Y12 inhibitors in contemporary Australian practice.

Yudi MB ，Clark DJ ，Farouque O ，Eccleston D ，Andrianopoulos N ，Duffy SJ ，Brennan A ，Lefkovits J ，Ramchand J ，Yip T ，Oqueli E ，Reid CM ，Ajani AE ，Melbourne Interventional Group ... -  《-》

Associations Between Chronic Kidney Disease and Outcomes With Use of Prasugrel Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Report From the PROMETHEUS Study.

This study sought to compare clinical outcomes in a contemporary acute coronary syndrome (ACS) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) cohort stratified by chronic kidney disease (CKD) status. Patients with CKD exhibit high risks for both thrombotic and bleeding events, thus complicating decision making regarding antiplatelet therapy in the setting of ACS. The PROMETHEUS study was a multicenter observational study comparing outcomes with prasugrel versus clopidogrel in ACS PCI patients. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 90 days and at 1 year were defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization. Clinically significant bleeding was defined as bleeding requiring transfusion or hospitalization. Cox regression multivariable analysis was performed for adjusted associations between CKD status and clinical outcomes. Hazard ratios for prasugrel versus clopidogrel treatment were generated using propensity score stratification. The total cohort included 19,832 patients, 28.3% with and 71.7% without CKD. CKD patients were older with greater comorbidities including diabetes and multivessel disease. Prasugrel was less often prescribed to CKD versus non-CKD patients (11.0% vs. 24.0%, respectively; p < 0.001). At 1 year, CKD was associated with higher adjusted risk of MACE (1.27; 95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 1.37) and bleeding (1.46; 95% confidence interval: 1.24 to 1.73). Although unadjusted rates of 1-year MACE were lower with prasugrel versus clopidogrel in both CKD (18.3% vs. 26.5%; p < 0.001) and non-CKD (10.9% vs. 17.9%; p < 0.001) patients, associations were attenuated after propensity stratification. Similarly, unadjusted differences in 1-year bleeding with prasugrel versus clopidogrel (6.0% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.18 in CKD patients; 2.6% vs. 3.5%; p = 0.008 in non-CKD patients) were not significant after propensity score adjustment. Although risks for 1-year MACE were significantly higher in ACS PCI patients with versus without CKD, prasugrel use was 50% lower in patients with renal impairment. Irrespective of CKD status, outcomes associated with prasugrel use were not significant after propensity adjustment. These data highlight the need for randomized studies evaluating the optimal antiplatelet therapy in CKD patients with ACS.

Baber U ，Chandrasekhar J ，Sartori S ，Aquino M ，Kini AS ，Kapadia S ，Weintraub W ，Muhlestein JB ，Vogel B ，Faggioni M ，Farhan S ，Weiss S ，Strauss C ，Toma C ，DeFranco A ，Baker BA ，Keller S ，Effron MB ，Henry TD ，Rao S ，Pocock S ，Dangas G ，Mehran R ... -  《-》