Cargando…

“Real‐World” Comparison of Prasugrel With Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Treated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the United States

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‐cor...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Larmore, Cynthia, Effron, Mark B., Molife, Cliff, DeKoven, Mitch, Zhu, Yajun, Lu, Jingsong, Karkare, Swapna, Lieu, Hsiao D., Lee, Won Chan, Vetrovec, George W.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5215531/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26577386
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ccd.26279
Descripción
Sumario: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.