| 2. |
- Kubica, Jacek, et al.
(author)
-
Prolonged antithrombotic therapy in patients after acute coronary syndrome : A critical appraisal of current European Society of Cardiology guidelines
- 2020
-
In: CARDIOLOGY JOURNAL. - : VM Media SP. zo.o VM Group SK. - 1897-5593 .- 1898-018X. ; 27:6, s. 661-676
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- The increased risk of non-cardiovascular death in patients receiving clopidogrel or prasugrel in comparison with the placebo group in the Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) trial in contrast to the decreased risk of cardiovascular death and all-cause death seen in patients treated with low-dose ticagrelor in the EU label population of the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial, resulted in inclusion in the 2020 ESC NSTE-ACS guidelines the recommendation for use of clopidogrel or prasugrel only if the patient is not eligible for treatment with ticagrelor. The prevalence of the primary outcome composed of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction was lower in the low-dose rivaroxaban and acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) group than in the ASA-alone group in the COMPASS trial. Moreover, all-cause mortality and cardiovascular mortality rates were lower in the rivaroxaban-plus-ASA group. Comparison of the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 and COMPASS trial patient characteristics clearly shows that each of these treatment strategies should be addressed at different groups of patients. A greater benefit in post-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with a high risk of ischemic events and without high bleeding risk may be expected with ASA and ticagrelor 60 mg b.i.d. when the therapy is continued without interruption or with short interruption only after ACS. On the other hand, ASA and rivaroxaban 2.5 mg b.i.d. seems to be a better option when indications for dual antithrombotic therapy (DATT) appear after a longer time from ACS (more than 2 years) and/or from cessation of DAPT (more than 1 year) and in patients with multiple vascular bed atherosclerosis. Thus, both options of DATTs complement each other rather than compete, as can be presumed from the recommendations. However, a direct comparison between these strategies should be tested in future clinical trials.
|
|
| 3. |
- Navarese, Eliano P., et al.
(author)
-
Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Oral P2Y12 Inhibitors in Acute Coronary Syndrome Network Meta-Analysis of 52 816 Patients From 12 Randomized Trials
- 2020
-
In: Circulation. - : Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health). - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 142:2, s. 150-160
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: New randomized, controlled trials have become available on oral P2Y(12)inhibitors in acute coronary syndrome. We aimed to evaluate current evidence comparing the efficacy and safety profile of prasugrel, ticagrelor, and clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome by a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Methods: We performed a network meta-analysis and direct pairwise comparison analysis of efficacy and safety outcomes from 12 randomized controlled trials including a total of 52 816 patients with acute coronary syndrome.Results: In comparison with clopidogrel, ticagrelor significantly reduced cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.72-0.92]) and all-cause mortality (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.75-0.92]), whereas there was no statistically significant mortality reduction with prasugrel (HR, 0.90 [95% CI, 0.80-1.01] and HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.84-1.02], respectively). In comparison with each other, there were no significant differences in mortality (HR prasugrel versus ticagrelor, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.94-1.29] and 1.12 [95% CI, 0.98-1.28]). In comparison with clopidogrel, prasugrel reduced myocardial infarction (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67-0.98]), whereas ticagrelor showed no risk reduction (HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.78-1.22]). Differences between prasugrel and ticagrelor were not statistically significant. Stent thrombosis risk was significantly reduced by both ticagrelor and prasugrel versus clopidogrel (28%-50% range of reduction). In comparison with clopidogrel, both prasugrel (HR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.01-1.56]) and ticagrelor (HR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.04-1.55]) significantly increased major bleeding. There were no significant differences between prasugrel and ticagrelor for all outcomes explored.Conclusions: Prasugrel and ticagrelor reduced ischemic events and increased bleeding in comparison with clopidogrel. A significant mortality reduction was observed with ticagrelor only. There was no efficacy and safety difference between prasugrel and ticagrelor.
|
|
