OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether clopidogrel is at least as efficacious as ticlopidine. BACKGROUND: Several trials have supported the enhanced safety and tolerability of clopidogrel compared with ticlopidine after coronary stent deployment. However, none of these individual trials were powered to detect possible differences in the efficacy for reducing ischemic end points. METHODS: Published data from trials and registries that compared clopidogrel with ticlopidine in patients receiving coronary stents were pooled, and a formal meta-analysis was performed. The rate of 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE), as defined in each trial, was used as the primary end point. RESULTS: There were a total of 13,955 patients. The pooled rate of major adverse cardiac events was 2.10% in the clopidogrel group and 4.04% in the ticlopidine group. After adjustment for heterogeneity in the trials, the odds ratio (OR) of having an ischemic event with clopidogrel, as compared with ticlopidine, was 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59 to 0.89, p = 0.002). Mortality was also lower in the clopidogrel group compared with the ticlopidine group-0.48% versus 1.09% (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.82; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Based on all available evidence from randomized clinical trials or registries, clopidogrel, in addition to better tolerability and fewer side effects, is at least as efficacious as ticlopidine in reducing MACE. This finding may be due to the more rapid onset of an antiplatelet effect seen with the loading dose of clopidogrel, which was used in most of these studies, or to better patient compliance with clopidogrel therapy. Therefore, clopidogrel plus aspirin should replace ticlopidine plus aspirin as the standard antiplatelet regimen after stent deployment.
OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine whether clopidogrel is at least as efficacious as ticlopidine. BACKGROUND: Several trials have supported the enhanced safety and tolerability of clopidogrel compared with ticlopidine after coronary stent deployment. However, none of these individual trials were powered to detect possible differences in the efficacy for reducing ischemic end points. METHODS: Published data from trials and registries that compared clopidogrel with ticlopidine in patients receiving coronary stents were pooled, and a formal meta-analysis was performed. The rate of 30-day major adverse cardiac events (MACE), as defined in each trial, was used as the primary end point. RESULTS: There were a total of 13,955 patients. The pooled rate of major adverse cardiac events was 2.10% in the clopidogrel group and 4.04% in the ticlopidine group. After adjustment for heterogeneity in the trials, the odds ratio (OR) of having an ischemic event with clopidogrel, as compared with ticlopidine, was 0.72 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.59 to 0.89, p = 0.002). Mortality was also lower in the clopidogrel group compared with the ticlopidine group-0.48% versus 1.09% (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.82; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: Based on all available evidence from randomized clinical trials or registries, clopidogrel, in addition to better tolerability and fewer side effects, is at least as efficacious as ticlopidine in reducing MACE. This finding may be due to the more rapid onset of an antiplatelet effect seen with the loading dose of clopidogrel, which was used in most of these studies, or to better patient compliance with clopidogrel therapy. Therefore, clopidogrel plus aspirin should replace ticlopidine plus aspirin as the standard antiplatelet regimen after stent deployment.
Authors: M Onizuka; K Kazekawa; S Nagata; M Tsutsumi; H Aikawa; M Tomokiyo; M Iko; T Kodama; K Nii; S Matsubara; A Tanaka Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 3.825
Authors: S Kohyama; K Kazekawa; M Iko; H Aikawa; M Tsutsumi; Y Go; S Nagata; T Kodama; K Nii; S Matsubara; A Tanaka Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 3.825