Mark B Effron1,2, Kavita V Nair3, Cliff Molife4, Stuart Y Keller4, Robert L Page3, Jason C Simeone5, Brian Murphy5, Beth L Nordstrom5, Yajun Zhu4, Patrick L McCollam4, George W Vetrovec6. 1. Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Ochsner Clinical School, John Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Queensland School of Medicine, 1514 Jefferson Highway, New Orleans, LA, 70121, USA. mark.effron@ochsner.org. 2. Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN, 46285, USA. mark.effron@ochsner.org. 3. Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, 80045, USA. 4. Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, IN, 46285, USA. 5. Evidera, 430 Bedford Street, Suite 300, Lexington, MA, 02420, USA. 6. Allied Health Professions School, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, 23219, USA.
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.
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.