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

Effron, Mark B Nair, Kavita V Molife, Cliff Keller, Stuart Y Page, Robert L Simeone, Jason C Murphy, Brian Nordstrom, Beth L Zhu, Yajun McCollam, Patrick L Vetrovec, George W

REVIEW


01 July 2018

There is a lot of evidence in this area but most outcomes investigated are MACE outcomes. In cardiometabolic medicine, a lot of subgroups would benefit from a choice of drugs. In this case, prasugrel may be favourable for patients at risk of heart failure.


RELEVANCE 4
INNOVATIVENESS 4
APPLICABILITY 4
OVERALL 4

PAPER DETAILS


TITLE

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

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND
No direct comparisons of ticagrelor and prasugrel with 1-year clinical follow-up have been reported.

OBJECTIVES
Our objective was to compare 1-year clinical outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and treated with either ticagrelor or prasugrel in a real-world setting.

METHODS
This retrospective study included patients from a payer database who were aged ≥18 years and had ACS managed with PCI with no history of transient ischemic attack (TIA)/stroke. Data were propensity matched for prasugrel use with a 3:1 prasugrel:ticagrelor ratio. Post-discharge net adverse clinical event (NACE) rate at 1 year was evaluated for noninferiority using a pre-defined 20% margin. NACE was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or rehospitalization for bleeding.

RESULTS
In total, 15,788 ACS-PCI patients were included (prasugrel 12,797; ticagrelor 2991). Prasugrel-treated patients were younger; less likely to be female, have prior myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes, or non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI); and more likely to have unstable angina (UA) than ticagrelor-treated patients. Prior to matching, NACE and MACE (P < 0.01) were lower, with no difference in bleeding with prasugrel compared with ticagrelor. After matching, there was no significant difference in baseline characteristics. Noninferiority was demonstrated for NACE, MACE, and bleeding between prasugrel and ticagrelor. NACE and MACE were significantly lower with prasugrel use, primarily driven by heart failure, with no significant difference in all-cause death, MI, UA, revascularization, TIA/stroke, or bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS
In this retrospective study, physicians preferentially used prasugrel rather than ticagrelor in younger ACS-PCI patients with lower risk of bleeding or comorbidities. After propensity matching, clinical outcomes associated with prasugrel were noninferior to those with ticagrelor.



AUTHOR(S)

Effron, Mark B Nair, Kavita V Molife, Cliff Keller, Stuart Y Page, Robert L Simeone, Jason C Murphy, Brian Nordstrom, Beth L Zhu, Yajun McCollam, Patrick L Vetrovec, George W

JOURNAL

American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions

PLACE

New Zealand