Anders Sahlén1,2,3, Christoph Varenhorst4, Bo Lagerqvist4, Henrik Renlund4, Elmir Omerovic5, David Erlinge6, Lars Wallentin4, Stefan K James4, Tomas Jernberg7,2. 1. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden anders.sahlen@ki.se. 2. Department of Cardiology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. National Heart Centre Singapore, 5 Hospital Drive, Singapore, Singapore 169609. 4. Department of Medical Sciences, Uppsala Clinical Research Center, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden. 5. Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 6. Department of Cardiology, Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. 7. Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
AIMS: Ticagrelor reduces ischaemic events and mortality in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) vs. clopidogrel. We wished to study clinical outcomes in a large real-world population post-ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a prospective cohort study in 45 073 ACS patients enrolled into Swedish Web system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies who were discharged on ticagrelor (N = 11 954) or clopidogrel (N = 33 119) between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, re-admission with myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, secondary outcomes as the individual components of the primary outcome, and re-admission with bleeding. The risk of the primary outcome with ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel was 11.7 vs. 22.3% (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.85 [95% confidence interval: 0.78-0.93]), risk of death 5.8 vs. 12.9% (adjusted HR 0.83 [0.75-0.92]), and risk of MI 6.1 vs. 10.8% (adjusted HR 0.89 [0.78-1.01]) at 24 months. Re-admission with bleeding with ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel occurred in 5.5 vs. 5.2% (adjusted HR 1.20 [1.04-1.40]). In a subset of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel the PCI-related in-hospital bleeding was 3.7 vs. 2.7% (adjusted odds ratio, OR, 1.57 [1.30-1.90]). CONCLUSION: Ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel post-ACS was associated with a lower risk of death, MI, or stroke, as well as death alone. Risk of bleeding was higher with ticagrelor. These real-world outcomes are consistent with randomized trial results. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
AIMS: Ticagrelor reduces ischaemic events and mortality in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) vs. clopidogrel. We wished to study clinical outcomes in a large real-world population post-ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a prospective cohort study in 45 073 ACS patients enrolled into Swedish Web system for Enhancement and Development of Evidence-based care in Heart Disease Evaluated According to Recommended Therapies who were discharged on ticagrelor (N = 11 954) or clopidogrel (N = 33 119) between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, re-admission with myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, secondary outcomes as the individual components of the primary outcome, and re-admission with bleeding. The risk of the primary outcome with ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel was 11.7 vs. 22.3% (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.85 [95% confidence interval: 0.78-0.93]), risk of death 5.8 vs. 12.9% (adjusted HR 0.83 [0.75-0.92]), and risk of MI 6.1 vs. 10.8% (adjusted HR 0.89 [0.78-1.01]) at 24 months. Re-admission with bleeding with ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel occurred in 5.5 vs. 5.2% (adjusted HR 1.20 [1.04-1.40]). In a subset of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel the PCI-related in-hospital bleeding was 3.7 vs. 2.7% (adjusted odds ratio, OR, 1.57 [1.30-1.90]). CONCLUSION:Ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel post-ACS was associated with a lower risk of death, MI, or stroke, as well as death alone. Risk of bleeding was higher with ticagrelor. These real-world outcomes are consistent with randomized trial results. Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
Authors: Ricky D Turgeon; Sheri L Koshman; Erik Youngson; Bryan Har; Stephen B Wilton; Matthew T James; Michelle M Graham Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Mie Micheelsen Jensen; Stine Munk Hald; Line Marie Buch Kristensen; Nils Jensen Boe; Frederik Severin Gråe Harbo; David Gaist Journal: Clin Epidemiol Date: 2021-10-09 Impact factor: 4.790
Authors: Neena S Abraham; Eric H Yang; Peter A Noseworthy; Jonathan Inselman; Xiaoxi Yao; Jeph Herrin; Lindsey R Sangaralingham; Che Ngufor; Nilay D Shah Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Seng Chan You; Yeunsook Rho; Behnood Bikdeli; Jiwoo Kim; Anastasios Siapos; James Weaver; Ajit Londhe; Jaehyeong Cho; Jimyung Park; Martijn Schuemie; Marc A Suchard; David Madigan; George Hripcsak; Aakriti Gupta; Christian G Reich; Patrick B Ryan; Rae Woong Park; Harlan M Krumholz Journal: JAMA Date: 2020-10-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Juan Miguel Ruiz-Nodar; María Asunción Esteve-Pastor; Jose Miguel Rivera-Caravaca; Miriam Sandín; Teresa Lozano; Nuria Vicente-Ibarra; Esteban Orenes-Piñero; Manuel Jesús Macías; Vicente Pernías; Luna Carrillo; Elena Candela; Andrea Veliz; Antonio Tello-Montoliu; Juan Gabriel Martínez Martínez; Francisco Marín Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2020-02-03 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Michał J Kubisa; Mateusz P Jezewski; Aleksandra Gasecka; Jolanta M Siller-Matula; Marek Postuła Journal: Ther Clin Risk Manag Date: 2018-01-17 Impact factor: 2.423