| 1. |
- Cannon, Christopher P., et al.
(author)
-
Comparison of ticagrelor with clopidogrel in patients with a planned invasive strategy for acute coronary syndromes (PLATO) : a randomised double-blind study
- 2010
-
In: The Lancet. - 0140-6736 .- 1474-547X. ; 375:9711, s. 283-293
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)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. |
- Steg, Philippe Gabriel, et al.
(author)
-
Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes Intended for Reperfusion With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention A Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) Trial Subgroup Analysis
- 2010
-
In: Circulation. - 0009-7322 .- 1524-4539. ; 122:21, s. 2131-2141
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background-Aspirin and clopidogrel are recommended for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or undergoing coronary stenting. Ticagrelor, a reversible oral P2Y12-receptor antagonist, provides faster, greater, and more consistent platelet inhibition than clopidogrel and may be useful for patients with acute ST-segment elevation (STE) ACS and planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods and Result-Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO), a randomized, double-blind trial, compared ticagrelor with clopidogrel for the prevention of vascular events in 18 624 ACS patients. This report concerns the 7544 ACS patients with STE or left bundle-branch block allocated to either ticagrelor 180-mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice daily or clopidogrel 300-mg loading dose (with provision for 300 mg clopidogrel at percutaneous coronary intervention) followed by 75 mg daily for 6 to 12 months. The reduction of the primary end point (myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death) with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel (10.8% versus 9.4%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.75 to 1.01; P=0.07) was consistent with the overall PLATO results. There was no interaction between presentation with STE/left bundle-branch block and randomized treatment (interaction P=0.29). Ticagrelor reduced several secondary end points, including myocardial infarction alone (HR, 0.80; P=0.03), total mortality (HR, 0.82; P=0.05), and definite stent thrombosis (HR, 0.66; P=0.03). The risk of stroke, low in both groups, was higher with ticagrelor (1.7% versus 1.0%; HR, 1.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 2.48; P=0.02). Ticagrelor did not affect major bleeding (HR, 0.98; P=0.76). Conclusion-In patients with STE-ACS and planned primary percutaneous coronary intervention, the effects of ticagrelor were consistent with those observed in the overall PLATO trial.
|
|
