Jaya Chandrasekhar1,2, Benjamin Hibbert3, Michael Froeschl3, Derek So3, Roxana Mehran3, Michel Le May3. 1. Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, CAPITAL Research Group, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. jayachandrasekhar@hotmail.co.uk. 2. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, PO Box 1030, 1 Gustave L Levy place, New York, NY, 10029, USA. jayachandrasekhar@hotmail.co.uk. 3. Division of Cardiology, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, CAPITAL Research Group, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: With the availability of novel P2Y12 receptor inhibitors, patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) may receive more than one type of this drug during index hospitalization. We sought to determine the effect of switching from clopidogrel to a novel P2Y12 receptor inhibitor on the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on SCOPUS for English language entries until 7 March 2015. Out of 188 citations, seven studies encompassing 16,431 patients were selected for analysis of (i) switching to a novel P2Y12 agent (switching group) versus continued clopidogrel or (ii) switching to a novel P2Y12 agent (switching group) versus upfront novel agent initiation during index hospitalization RESULTS: MACE was significantly lower in the switching group (odds ratio (OR) 0.77, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.96, p = 0.02), whereas bleeding was higher (OR 1.55, 1.29-1.85, p < 0.01) compared with continued clopidogrel. Conversely, MACE was similar with switching to a novel agent and upfront novel therapy initiation (OR 1.01, 95 % CI 0.8-1.29, p = 0.90), but bleeding was higher in the switching group (OR 1.24, 95 % CI 1.03-1.48, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggests that switching to a novel P2Y12 agent in patients with ACS and/or patients undergoing coronary stenting is more efficacious than continuing clopidogrel. In this cohort, switching to a novel agent did not result in worse ischemic outcomes than upfront initiation of novel therapies. However, switching was associated with greater bleeding compared with both continued clopidogrel as well as upfront use of novel P2Y12 agents.
PURPOSE: With the availability of novel P2Y12 receptor inhibitors, patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) may receive more than one type of this drug during index hospitalization. We sought to determine the effect of switching from clopidogrel to a novel P2Y12 receptor inhibitor on the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a literature search on SCOPUS for English language entries until 7 March 2015. Out of 188 citations, seven studies encompassing 16,431 patients were selected for analysis of (i) switching to a novel P2Y12 agent (switching group) versus continued clopidogrel or (ii) switching to a novel P2Y12 agent (switching group) versus upfront novel agent initiation during index hospitalization RESULTS: MACE was significantly lower in the switching group (odds ratio (OR) 0.77, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.96, p = 0.02), whereas bleeding was higher (OR 1.55, 1.29-1.85, p < 0.01) compared with continued clopidogrel. Conversely, MACE was similar with switching to a novel agent and upfront novel therapy initiation (OR 1.01, 95 % CI 0.8-1.29, p = 0.90), but bleeding was higher in the switching group (OR 1.24, 95 % CI 1.03-1.48, p = 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The current study suggests that switching to a novel P2Y12 agent in patients with ACS and/or patients undergoing coronary stenting is more efficacious than continuing clopidogrel. In this cohort, switching to a novel agent did not result in worse ischemic outcomes than upfront initiation of novel therapies. However, switching was associated with greater bleeding compared with both continued clopidogrel as well as upfront use of novel P2Y12 agents.
Authors: Glenn N Levine; Eric R Bates; James C Blankenship; Steven R Bailey; John A Bittl; Bojan Cercek; Charles E Chambers; Stephen G Ellis; Robert A Guyton; Steven M Hollenberg; Umesh N Khot; Richard A Lange; Laura Mauri; Roxana Mehran; Issam D Moussa; Debabrata Mukherjee; Brahmajee K Nallamothu; Henry H Ting Journal: Circulation Date: 2011-11-07 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Manuel Almendro-Delia; Emilia Blanco Ponce; Rocío Gomez-Domínguez; Carlos Gonzalez-Matos; Manuel Lobo-Gonzalez; Auxiliadora Caballero-Garcia; Rafael Hidalgo-Urbano; Maria Jose Cruz-Fernandez; Juan C Garcia-Rubira Journal: J Thromb Thrombolysis Date: 2015-05 Impact factor: 2.300
Authors: Peter Clemmensen; Niccolò Grieco; Hüseyin Ince; Nicolas Danchin; Jochen Goedicke; Yvonne Ramos; Josef Schmitt; Patrick Goldstein Journal: Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care Date: 2014-09-02
Authors: Amit P Amin; Alok Bachuwar; Kimberly J Reid; Adnan K Chhatriwalla; Adam C Salisbury; Robert W Yeh; Mikhail Kosiborod; Tracy Y Wang; Karen P Alexander; Kensey Gosch; David J Cohen; John A Spertus; Richard G Bach Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-03-26 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Dominick J Angiolillo; Jorge F Saucedo; Roger Deraad; Andrew L Frelinger; Paul A Gurbel; Timothy M Costigan; Joseph A Jakubowski; Clement K Ojeh; Mark B Effron Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2010-09-21 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jessica L Mega; Sandra L Close; Stephen D Wiviott; Lei Shen; Richard D Hockett; John T Brandt; Joseph R Walker; Elliott M Antman; William Macias; Eugene Braunwald; Marc S Sabatine Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2008-12-22 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Stephen D Wiviott; Eugene Braunwald; Dominick J Angiolillo; Simha Meisel; Anthony J Dalby; Freek W A Verheugt; Shaun G Goodman; Ramon Corbalan; Drew A Purdy; Sabina A Murphy; Carolyn H McCabe; Elliott M Antman Journal: Circulation Date: 2008-08-31 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Benjamin Hibbert; Ronnen Maze; Ali Pourdjabbar; Trevor Simard; F Daniel Ramirez; Rohit Moudgil; Melissa Blondeau; Marino Labinaz; Alexander Dick; Christopher Glover; Michael Froeschl; Jean-François Marquis; Derek Y F So; Michel R Le May Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 3.240