Trends in cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes in acute coronary syndrome patients treated with or without proton-pump inhibitors during the introduction of novel P2Y12 inhibitors: a five-year experience from a single-centre observational registry
Niels HoedemakerPeter DammanJan Paul OttervangerJ. H. E. DambrinkA.T. Marcel GosselinkElvin KedhiEvelien KolkmanRobbert J. de WinterArnoud W.J. van ’t Hof
22
Citation
44
Reference
10
Related Paper
Citation Trend
Abstract:
Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are commonly prescribed in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients on antiplatelet therapy. We studied PPI prescription in ACS patients in the era of novel P2Y12 inhibitors and assessed the association between PPI use and clinical outcomes. Between 2010 and 2014, we included all consecutive ACS patients admitted to a Dutch tertiary hospital. The main outcome was PPI prescription at discharge. Additionally, we present 1-year mortality and 30-day cardiovascular and bleeding outcomes. Of 4595 ACS patients with known discharge medication, 63.9% received a PPI. PPI-treated patients were older (67.1 ± 12.5 vs. 63.0 ± 13.3, P < 0.001). PPI treatment at discharge increased from 34.7% in 2010 to 88.7% in 2014 (P < 0.001). Concurrently, ticagrelor prescription at discharge increased from 0.0% to 48.6% in 2014 (P < 0.001), while clopidogrel prescription decreased from 78.6% in 2010 to 28.7% in 2014 (P < 0.001). PPI treatment was associated with reductions in death or myocardial infarction (MI) [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10–0.76] and death, MI or stroke (adjusted HR 0.33, 95% CI 0.14–0.81) at 30-days post-discharge. However, this association was not present in subgroup analyses of patients treated with clopidogrel or ticagrelor. In this single-centre registry, PPI prescription in ACS patients doubled between 2010 and 2014. PPI treatment at discharge was associated with a reduction in death, MI, or stroke at 30-days post-discharge, mainly driven by a reduction in MI. There were no differences gastrointestinal bleeding between patients treated with or without a PPI. PPI treatment may serve as a marker of improved therapies and outcome, rather than causing a reduction in cardiovascular events.Keywords:
Stroke
Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
Cite
Citations (2)
Prescribing patterns and suboptimal adherence present methodological challenges for real-world head-to-head comparisons of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in intent-to-treat studies. The aim of this study was to compare ticagrelor and clopidogrel in an on-treatment population.This retrospective cohort study used the Optum™ Clinformatics™ database to identify patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) discharged on ticagrelor or clopidogrel between January 1, 2012 and September 30, 2019. The primary end point was hospitalization for myocardial infarction (MI); the secondary end point was hospitalization for major bleeding. The ticagrelor and clopidogrel cohorts were balanced by propensity score matching (PSM) 1:3 for demographic and clinical characteristics. Outcomes were ascertained from day 31 until day 365 or end of follow-up.Of 339,387 patients with ACS, 14,110 ticagrelor- and 57,482 clopidogrel-treated patients met the study criteria. After PSM, 13,373 ticagrelor- and 29,656 clopidogrel-treated patients provided 4945 and 13,895 patient-years of data, respectively, for the primary end point. Hospitalization for MI was significantly lower in the ticagrelor compared to the clopidogrel cohort (2.22 vs. 3.52 per 100 patient-years; 36.8% relative risk reduction [RRR]; P < 0.0001). Hospitalization for major bleeding was similar in the ticagrelor and clopidogrel cohorts (2.04 vs. 2.06 per 100 patient-years; 1.1% RRR, P = 0.9214).In this real-world on-treatment analysis, hospitalization for MI was significantly lower with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel, with similar rates of hospitalization for major bleeding. Study findings underscore the importance of being on the appropriate guideline-recommended therapy and support the use of ticagrelor over clopidogrel.
Clinical endpoint
Cite
Citations (2)
Advances in antiplatelet technologies to improve cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality: a review of ticagrelor Estella M Davis, Jon T Knezevich, Robyn M Teply Department of Pharmacy Practice, Creighton University School of Pharmacy and Health Professions, Omaha, NE, USA Abstract: Antiplatelet therapy is widely used with proven benefit for the prevention of further ischemic cardiac complications in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Treatment guidelines for acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary intervention now recommend the use of oral antiplatelet agents including ticagrelor, prasugrel, or clopidogrel in combination with aspirin to comprise dual antiplatelet therapy for the prevention of recurrent ischemic events. The limitations of conventional antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel or prasugrel include the potential for low response to clopidogrel identified through platelet reactivity or genetic testing, increased risk of bleeding with prasugrel, or slower return to normal platelet activity in patients who received either prasugrel or clopidogrel prior to emergent or planned surgical procedures. This review will discuss the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of ticagrelor in comparison to conventional P2Y12 receptor inhibitors and its utility in patients identified as low responders to clopidogrel. Completed clinical studies and substudies comparing ticagrelor to clopidogrel and ongoing clinical trials evaluating ticagrelor in acute coronary syndrome patients will also be reviewed. Keywords: ticagrelor, antiplatelet, acute coronary syndrome, ST elevation myocardial infarction, non-ST elevation MI, percutaneous coronary intervention
Cite
Citations (6)
Background— Ticagrelor outperforms clopidogrel in preventing cardiovascular events in acute coronary syndrome. Despite the inclusion of a loading dose in the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial for all patients randomized to ticagrelor, it may not be necessary in patients receiving ongoing clopidogrel therapy. The aim of the present study was to assess whether a ticagrelor loading dose is associated with a further platelet inhibition during the switch from clopidogrel to ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving ongoing antiplatelet treatment. Methods and Results— Fifty patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving aspirin and clopidogrel treatment were randomly assigned to a starting dose of ticagrelor (group 1, 90 mg; group 2, 180 mg). Platelet aggregation was measured using multiple electrode aggregometry and standard light transmission aggregometry just before the switch and at 2, 6, 24, and 72 hours. No relevant difference in platelet aggregation was observed between the 2 study arms at baseline ( P =0.256). Residual platelet aggregation was significantly reduced in both arms 2 hours after the first administration of ticagrelor ( P <0.001 for both), with no difference in aggregation between groups (multiple electrode aggregometry, 17.6±7.2 versus 18.1±6 U; P =0.281). Similar results were observed with LTA. Conclusions— Switching from clopidogrel to ticagrelor without a reloading dose is feasible, and it does not hinder platelet aggregation inhibition in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Further prospective studies are needed to assess the clinical relevance of our findings. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01795820.
Loading dose
Platelet inhibition
Cite
Citations (32)
QUESTION UNDER STUDY: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor and generic clopidogrel as add-on therapy to acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), from a Swiss perspective.
Cite
Citations (10)
The optimal platelet inhibition strategy for ACS patients managed without revascularization is unknown. We aimed to evaluate efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in the non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) subgroup of the PLATO trial, in the total cohort, and in the subgroups managed with and without revascularization within 10 days of randomization. We performed a retrospective analysis of the primary endpoint of cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction/stroke. Among 18 624 PLATO patients, 11 080 (59%) were categorized as NSTE-ACS at randomization. During the initial 10 days, 74% had angiography, 46% PCI, and 5% CABG. In NSTE-ACS patients, the primary endpoint was reduced with ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel [10.0 vs. 12.3%; hazard ratio (HR) 0.83; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.74–0.93], as was myocardial infarction (6.6 vs. 7.7%; HR 0.86; 95% CI = 0.74–0.99), cardiovascular death (3.7 vs. 4.9%; HR 0.77; 95% CI = 0.64–0.93), and all-cause death (4.3 vs. 5.8%; HR 0.76; 95% CI = 0.64–0.90). Major bleeding rate was similar between treatment groups (13.4 vs. 12.6%; HR 1.07; 95% CI = 0.95–1.19), but ticagrelor was associated with an increase in non-CABG major bleeding (4.8 vs. 3.8%; HR 1.28; 95% CI = 1.05–1.56). Within the first 10 days, 5366 (48.4%) patients were managed without revascularization. Regardless of revascularization or not, ticagrelor consistently reduced the primary outcome (HR 0.86 vs. 0.85, interaction P = 0.93), and all-cause death (HR 0.75 vs. 0.73, interaction P = 0.89) with no significant increase in overall major bleeding. In patients with NSTE-ACS, benefit of ticagrelor over clopidogrel in reducing ischaemic events and total mortality was consistent with the overall PLATO trial, independent of actually performed revascularization during the initial 10 days.
Clinical endpoint
Stroke
Cite
Citations (194)
Cite
Citations (0)
Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue
Cite
Citations (3)
Review of: Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Eng J Med 2009; 361(11): 1045-1057. For acute coronary syndrome (ACS), a dual antiplatelet regimen comprised of treatment with aspirin and either P2Y12 adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonists, clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor is usually employed. This article compares clopidogrel with ticagrelor for the prevention of vascular events and death in broad population of ACS patients ranging from UA, NSTEMI to STEMI, utilizing planned strategies of medical or invasive treatment strategy.
Cite
Citations (5)
Background— Elderly patients with acute coronary syndrome are at high risk of recurrent ischemic events and death, and for both antithrombotic therapy and catheter-based complications. This prespecified analysis investigates the effect and treatment-related complications of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in elderly patients (≥75 years of age) with acute coronary syndrome compared with those <75 years of age. Methods and Results— The association between age and the primary composite outcome, as well as major bleeding were evaluated in the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial using Cox proportional hazards. Similar models were used to evaluate the interaction of age with treatment effects. Hazard ratios were adjusted for baseline characteristics. The clinical benefit of ticagrelor over clopidogrel was not significantly different between patients aged ≥75 years of age (n=2878) and those <75 years of age (n=15 744) with respect to the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (interaction P =0.56), myocardial infarction ( P =0.33), cardiovascular death ( P =0.47), definite stent thrombosis ( P =0.81), or all-cause mortality ( P =0.76). No increase in PLATO-defined overall major bleeding with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel was observed in patients aged ≥75 years (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval, 0.82–1.27) or patients aged <75 years (hazard ratio, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.94–1.15). Dyspnea and ventricular pauses were more common during ticagrelor than clopidogrel treatment, with no evidence of an age-by-treatment interaction. Conclusions— The significant clinical benefit and overall safety of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome patients in the PLATO cohort were not found to depend on age. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00391872.
Stroke
Cite
Citations (219)