| 1. |
- Cannon, Christopher P., et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of ticagrelor with clopidogrel in patients with a planned invasive strategy for acute coronary syndromes (PLATO) : a randomised double-blind study
- 2010
-
Ingår i: The Lancet. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 375:9711, s. 283-293
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND: Variation in and irreversibility of platelet inhibition with clopidogrel has led to controversy about its optimum dose and timing of administration in patients with acute coronary syndromes. We compared ticagrelor, a more potent reversible P2Y12 inhibitor with clopidogrel in such patients. METHODS: At randomisation, an invasive strategy was planned for 13 408 (72.0%) of 18 624 patients hospitalised for acute coronary syndromes (with or without ST elevation). In a double-blind, double-dummy study, patients were randomly assigned in a one-to-one ratio to ticagrelor and placebo (180 mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice a day), or to clopidogrel and placebo (300-600 mg loading dose or continuation with maintenance dose followed by 75 mg per day) for 6-12 months. All patients were given aspirin. The primary composite endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00391872. FINDINGS: 6732 patients were assigned to ticagrelor and 6676 to clopidogrel. The primary composite endpoint occurred in fewer patients in the ticagrelor group than in the clopidogrel group (569 [event rate at 360 days 9.0%] vs 668 [10.7%], hazard ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.94; p=0.0025). There was no difference between clopidogrel and ticagrelor groups in the rates of total major bleeding (691 [11.6%] vs 689 [11.5%], 0.99 [0.89-1.10]; p=0.8803) or severe bleeding, as defined according to the Global Use of Strategies To Open occluded coronary arteries, (198 [3.2%] vs 185 [2.9%], 0.91 [0.74-1.12]; p=0.3785). INTERPRETATION: Ticagrelor seems to be a better option than clopidogrel for patients with acute coronary syndromes for whom an early invasive strategy is planned.
|
|
| 2. |
- James, Stefan, et al.
(författare)
-
Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Acute Coronary Syndromes in Relation to Renal Function Results From the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) Trial
- 2010
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 122:11, s. 1056-1067
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background-Reduced renal function is associated with a poorer prognosis and increased bleeding risk in patients with acute coronary syndromes and may therefore alter the risk-benefit ratio with antiplatelet therapies. In the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial, ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel reduced the primary composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke at 12 months but with similar major bleeding rates. Methods and Results-Central laboratory serum creatinine levels were available in 15 202 (81.9%) acute coronary syndrome patients at baseline, and creatinine clearance, estimated by the Cockcroft Gault equation, was calculated. In patients with chronic kidney disease (creatinine clearance <60 mL/min; n = 3237), ticagrelor versus clopidogrel significantly reduced the primary end point to 17.3% from 22.0% (hazard ratio [HR], 0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.65 to 0.90) with an absolute risk reduction greater than that of patients with normal renal function (n = 11 965): 7.9% versus 8.9% (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.02). In patients with chronic kidney disease, ticagrelor reduced total mortality (10.0% versus 14.0%; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.89). Major bleeding rates, fatal bleedings, and non-coronary bypass-related major bleedings were not significantly different between the 2 randomized groups (15.1% versus 14.3%; HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.30; 0.34% versus 0.77%; HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.15 to 1.54; and 8.5% versus 7.3%; HR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.68). The interactions between creatinine clearance and randomized treatment on any of the outcome variables were nonsignificant. Conclusions-In acute coronary syndrome patients with chronic kidney disease, ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel significantly reduces ischemic end points and mortality without a significant increase in major bleeding but with numerically more non-procedure-related bleeding.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
- Steg, P. Gabriel, et al.
(författare)
-
Stent Thrombosis With Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes : An Analysis From the Prospective, Randomized PLATO Trial
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Circulation. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 128:10, s. 1055-1065
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background We aimed to describe the effects of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel on stent thrombosis in the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Methods and Results Of 18624 patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndromes, 11289 (61%) had at least 1 intracoronary stent. Ticagrelor reduced stent thrombosis compared with clopidogrel across all definitions: definite, 1.37% (n=71) versus 1.93% (n=105; hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.90; P=0.0091); definite or probable, 2.21% (n=118) versus 2.87% (n=157; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95; P=0.017); and definite, probable, and possible, 2.94% (n=154) versus 3.77 (n=201; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.95). The reduction in definite stent thrombosis was consistent regardless of acute coronary syndrome type, presence of diabetes mellitus, stent type (drug-eluting or bare metal stent), CYP2C19 genetic status, loading dose of aspirin, dose of clopidogrel before randomization, and use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors at randomization. The reduction in stent thrombosis with ticagrelor was numerically greater for late (>30 days; HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24-0.96) and subacute (4 hours-30 days; HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.93) compared with acute (<24 hours; HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.43-2.05) stent thrombosis or for patients compliant to therapy (ie, taking blinded study treatment 80% of the time) compared with less compliant patients. Randomization to ticagrelor was a strong independent inverse predictor of definite stent thrombosis (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48-0.88). Conclusion Ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel reduces the incidence of stent thrombosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes, with consistent benefit across a broad range of patient, stent, and treatment characteristics. Clinical Trial Registration URL: . Unique identifier: NCT00391872.
|
|
| 5. |
- Tricoci, Pierluigi, et al.
(författare)
-
Thrombin-receptor antagonist vorapaxar in acute coronary syndromes
- 2012
-
Ingår i: New England Journal of Medicine. - 0028-4793 .- 1533-4406. ; 366:1, s. 20-33
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BACKGROUND:Vorapaxar is a new oral protease-activated-receptor 1 (PAR-1) antagonist that inhibits thrombin-induced platelet activation.METHODS:In this multinational, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared vorapaxar with placebo in 12,944 patients who had acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, or urgent coronary revascularization.RESULTS:Follow-up in the trial was terminated early after a safety review. After a median follow-up of 502 days (interquartile range, 349 to 667), the primary end point occurred in 1031 of 6473 patients receiving vorapaxar versus 1102 of 6471 patients receiving placebo (Kaplan-Meier 2-year rate, 18.5% vs. 19.9%; hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.01; P=0.07). A composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 822 patients in the vorapaxar group versus 910 in the placebo group (14.7% and 16.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98; P=0.02). Rates of moderate and severe bleeding were 7.2% in the vorapaxar group and 5.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.58; P<0.001). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 1.1% and 0.2%, respectively (hazard ratio, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.78 to 6.45; P<0.001). Rates of nonhemorrhagic adverse events were similar in the two groups.CONCLUSIONS:In patients with acute coronary syndromes, the addition of vorapaxar to standard therapy did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point but significantly increased the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRACER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00527943.).
|
|
