One-year post-discharge resource utilization and treatment patterns of patients with acute coronary syndrome managed with percutaneous coronary intervention and treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel

Duration and kind of dual antiplatelet therapy for acute coronary syndrome patients: a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

For acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the choice of the duration and kind of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) offering the most accurate balance between ischemic and bleeding risk remains unknown.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

A network meta-analysis was performed including all Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) comparing different DAPT regimens and duration in ACS patients undergoing PCI. Trial-defined MACE and major bleedings were the primary endpoints. Stroke, stent thrombosis (ST), all-cause and cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI) represented secondary endpoints.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

13 RCTs encompassing 46145 patients were included. Mean age was 62 (61-64) years old, 42% being admitted with STEMI, 33% with NSTEMI and 25% with UA. The competitive arms were: clopidogrel and aspirin for 12 months (6 arms/18183 patients), clopidogrel and aspirin for 6 months (4/3329), clopidogrel and aspirin >12 months (3/2238), ticagrelor and aspirin for 12 months (6/12942) and prasugrel and aspirin for 12 months (3/9453). Trial-defined MACE and major bleedings, stroke and death were similar among the different arms. DAPT with prasugrel and aspirin for 12 months reduced MI compared to aspirin and clopidogrel for 12 months (OR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.54.0.94) and reduced the risk of ST compared to ticagrelor (OR 0.66, 95% CI: 0.49-0.90). Both prasugrel and ticagrelor reduced ST as compared to clopidogrel and aspirin for 12 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Different DAPT strategies yield similar risk of MACE, major bleeding, death and stroke in ACS patients. Prasugrel and aspirin for 12 months proved to be the most effective strategy regarding ST and MI.

Bleeding risk in patients prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy and triple therapy after coronary interventions: the ADAPTT retrospective population-based cohort studies

Background

Bleeding among populations undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting and among conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome exposed to different dual antiplatelet therapy and triple therapy (i.e. dual antiplatelet therapy plus an anticoagulant) has not been previously quantified.

Objectives

The objectives were to estimate hazard ratios for bleeding for different antiplatelet and triple therapy regimens, estimate resources and the associated costs of treating bleeding events, and to extend existing economic models of the cost-effectiveness of dual antiplatelet therapy.

Design

The study was designed as three retrospective population-based cohort studies emulating target randomised controlled trials.

Setting

The study was set in primary and secondary care in England from 2010 to 2017.

Participants

Participants were patients aged ≥ 18 years undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting or emergency percutaneous coronary intervention (for acute coronary syndrome), or conservatively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Data sources

Data were sourced from linked Clinical Practice Research Datalink and Hospital Episode Statistics.

Interventions

Coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome: aspirin (reference) compared with aspirin and clopidogrel. Percutaneous coronary intervention: aspirin and clopidogrel (reference) compared with aspirin and prasugrel (ST elevation myocardial infarction only) or aspirin and ticagrelor.

Main outcome measures

Primary outcome: any bleeding events up to 12 months after the index event. Secondary outcomes: major or minor bleeding, all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, mortality from bleeding, myocardial infarction, stroke, additional coronary intervention and major adverse cardiovascular events.

Results

The incidence of any bleeding was 5% among coronary artery bypass graft patients, 10% among conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients and 9% among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, compared with 18% among patients prescribed triple therapy. Among coronary artery bypass grafting and conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients, dual antiplatelet therapy, compared with aspirin, increased the hazards of any bleeding (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 1.43, 95% confidence interval 1.21 to 1.69; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.72, 95% confidence interval 1.15 to 2.57) and major adverse cardiovascular events (coronary artery bypass grafting: hazard ratio 2.06, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 3.46; conservatively-managed acute coronary syndrome: hazard ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval 1.38 to 1.78). Among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.47, 95% confidence interval 1.19 to 1.82), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.06, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.27). Among ST elevation myocardial infarction percutaneous coronary intervention patients, dual antiplatelet therapy with prasugrel, compared with dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, increased the hazard of any bleeding (hazard ratio 1.48, 95% confidence interval 1.02 to 2.12), but did not reduce the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.80 to 1.51). Health-care costs in the first year did not differ between dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin monotherapy among either coronary artery bypass grafting patients (mean difference £94, 95% confidence interval -£155 to £763) or conservatively managed acute coronary syndrome patients (mean difference £610, 95% confidence interval -£626 to £1516), but among emergency percutaneous coronary intervention patients were higher for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor than for those receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel, although for only patients on concurrent proton pump inhibitors (mean difference £1145, 95% confidence interval £269 to £2195).

Conclusions

This study suggests that more potent dual antiplatelet therapy may increase the risk of bleeding without reducing the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events. These results should be carefully considered by clinicians and decision-makers alongside randomised controlled trial evidence when making recommendations about dual antiplatelet therapy.

Limitations

The estimates for bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events may be biased from unmeasured confounding and the exclusion of an eligible subgroup of patients who could not be assigned an intervention. Because of these limitations, a formal cost-effectiveness analysis could not be conducted.

Future work

Future work should explore the feasibility of using other UK data sets of routinely collected data, less susceptible to bias, to estimate the benefit and harm of antiplatelet interventions.

Trial registration

This trial is registered as ISRCTN76607611.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 27, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

PURPOSE

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and ticagrelor or prasugrel is the mainstay of treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We aimed to systematically perform a head-to-head comparison of ticagrelor vs prasugrel in terms of efficacy and safety.

METHODS

We searched PubMed/Medline, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) for relevant published randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcome was adverse cardiovascular events and secondary outcome was bleeding events. A random-effects meta-analysis was used to obtain the pooled estimate of each outcome.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs with a total number of 6990 patients (3550 treated with prasugrel and 3481 treated with ticagrelor) were included. No significant difference between prasugrel and ticagrelor was observed in terms of mortality (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.13, P = 0.28), major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.03, P = 0.10), non-fatal myocardial infarction (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.57 to 1.06, P = 0.11), stroke (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.72, P = 0.95), stent thrombosis (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.21, P = 0.25), thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) defined major (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.19 to 4.67, P = 0.94), minor (OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.62, P = 0.18) and minimal (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.18, P = 0.11) bleeding and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) defined bleeding (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.36, P = 0.68).

CONCLUSION

In patients with ACS undergoing PCI, both prasugrel and ticagrelor were associated with similar cardiovascular outcomes and adverse bleeding events.

Real-World Data of Prasugrel vs. Ticagrelor in Acute Myocardial Infarction: Results from the RENAMI Registry

BACKGROUND

Limited data are available concerning differences in clinical outcomes for real-life patients treated with ticagrelor versus prasugrel after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

OBJECTIVE

Our objective was to determine and compare the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in a real-world population.

METHODS

RENAMI was a retrospective, observational registry including the data and outcomes of consecutive patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) who underwent primary PCI and were discharged with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) between January 2012 and January 2016. The mean follow-up period was 17 ± 9 months. In total, 11 university hospitals from six European countries participated. After propensity-score matching, there were no substantial differences in the baseline clinical and interventional features. All patients were treated with acetylsalicylic acid plus prasugrel 10 mg once daily or acetylsalicylic acid plus ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily. Mean duration of DAPT was 12.04 ± 3.4 months with prasugrel and 11.90 ± 4.1 months with ticagrelor (p = 0.47). The primary and secondary endpoints were long-term net adverse clinical events (NACE) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), respectively, along with their single components. Subgroup analysis for freedom from NACE and MACE was performed according to length of DAPT and clinical presentation [ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI)-ACS versus non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI)-ACS].

RESULTS

In total, 4424 patients (2725 ticagrelor, 1699 prasugrel) were enrolled. After propensity-score matching, 1290 patients in each cohort were included in the analysis. At 12 months, the incidence of both NACE and MACE was lower with prasugrel (NACE: 5.3% vs. 8.5% [p = 0.001]; MACE: 5% vs. 8.1% [p =  0.001]) mainly driven by a reduction in recurrent myocardial infarction (MI) (2.4 vs. 4.0%; p = 0.029) and a lower rate of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3-5 bleeding (1.5 vs. 2.9%; p = 0.011). The benefit of prasugrel was confirmed for patients with NSTEMI and for those discharged with a DAPT regimen of ≤ 12 months. Only a trend in the reduction of NACE and MACE was noted for STEMI or for those treated with longer DAPT.

CONCLUSIONS

Comparison of these drugs suggested that prasugrel is safer and more efficacious than ticagrelor in combination with aspirin after NSTEMI but not STEMI. No differences were found for events occurring after 12 months. The nonrandomized design of the present research means further studies are required to support these findings.

De-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

De-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) may occur for a variety of reasons, including side effects (bleeding and non-bleeding) and costs. This study sought to assess the prevalence of de-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel and the occurrence of adverse clinical outcomes following de-escalation. We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials and real-world studies in ACS patients treated with ticagrelor. Real-world data on the prevalence of de-escalation during hospitalization or at discharge, after hospital discharge, and during the whole study period were included for meta-analysis. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and bleeding events occurring after de-escalation were also assessed. A total of 12 studies were eligible for meta-analysis of the prevalence of de-escalation. De-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel therapy occurred with a mean prevalence of 19.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.2-28.4%]. De-escalation occurred more frequently in-hospital or at discharge than after hospital discharge (23.7% vs. 15.8%). For assessment of clinical outcomes, a total of six studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Mean rate of MACE for patients with de-escalation was 2.1% (95% CI 1.1-4.1%) and the rate of major bleeding events was 1.3% (95% CI 0.4-4.5%). In conclusion, de-escalation commonly occurs in real-world practice. Although rates of major cardiovascular and bleeding events in this analysis were generally low, the profile of patients suitable for de-escalation, the impact of de-escalation on adverse clinical outcomes and how this is affected by the timing after index ACS warrants further large-scale investigation.

Ticagrelor-related late-onset dyspnea as cause of emergency department visit: a 3-year outpatient study

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the current study was to define the rate of emergency department visits for late-onset dyspnea in acute coronary syndrome patients treated with ticagrelor.

METHODS

We conducted a population-based study on about 850 000 residents of Florence metropolitan area, by using data from healthcare records.

RESULTS

Between 2012 and 2014, 1073 subjects in Florence metropolitan area had at least one prescription of ticagrelor. Two-hundred and thirty-four patients were diagnosed with 'respiratory system or other chest symptoms' or 'other diseases of lung', and among them we identified 20 subjects with ticagrelor-related late-onset dyspnea. These, and the 979 nonevent subjects (receiving ticagrelor but not developing dyspnea), contributed to 413 person-years overall. The dyspnea rate was 4.84 per 100 person-years (95% confidence interval: 3.12-7.51).

CONCLUSION

Late-onset dyspnea rate is notably lower than early-onset one; nevertheless prescribing clinicians should be aware that about one in 20 outpatients with a stabilized ticagrelor treatment might develop a dyspnea leading to an emergency department visit, and they should consider ticagrelor replacement only in patients who cannot tolerate dyspnea.

Barriers to Healthcare Access and Long-Term Survival After an Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Barriers to healthcare are common in the USA and may result in worse outcomes among hospital survivors of an acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

OBJECTIVE

To examine the relationship between barriers to healthcare and 2-year mortality after hospital discharge for an ACS.

DESIGN

Longitudinal study.

SETTING

Survivors of an ACS hospitalization were recruited from 6 medical centers in central Massachusetts and Georgia in 2011-2013.

PATIENTS

Study participants with a confirmed ACS reported whether they had a financial-related healthcare barrier, no usual source of care, or a transportation-related healthcare barrier around the time of hospital admission.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS

Cox regression analyses calculated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for 2-year all-cause mortality for the three healthcare barriers while controlling for several demographic, clinical, and psychosocial characteristics.

RESULTS

The mean age of study participants (n = 2008) was 62 years, 33% were women, and 77% were non-Hispanic white. One third of patients reported a financial barrier, 17% lacked a usual source of care, and 12% had a transportation barrier. Five percent (n = 100) died within 2 years after hospital discharge. Compared to patients without these barriers, those lacking a usual source of care and with barriers to transportation experienced significantly higher mortality (aHRs 1.40, 95% CI 1.30 to 1.51 and 1.46, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.89, respectively). Financial barriers were not associated with all-cause mortality (aHR 0.79, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.06).

LIMITATIONS

Observational study with other unmeasured potentially confounding prognostic factors.

CONCLUSIONS

Absence of an established usual source of care and inconsistent transportation availability were associated with a higher risk for dying after an ACS. Patients with these barriers to follow-up care may benefit from more intensive follow-up and support.

Comparison of 6-Month Costs Between Oral Antiplatelet Agents Following Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), newer antiplatelet agents prasugrel and ticagrelor have lower rates of cardiovascular events when compared with clopidogrel. However, it is unclear whether there are differences in economic outcomes when comparing these agents in ACS-PCI patients.

OBJECTIVE

To assess aggregated costs and medical resource utilization among ACS-PCI patients prescribed prasugrel, ticagrelor, or generic clopidogrel, using a large commercial insurance claims database.

METHODS

Costs attributable to any medical and pharmacy service and resource utilization including number of admissions, length of hospital stay, emergency room visits, and office visits over the 180-day postdischarge period were compared. All-cause and cardiovascular health care costs and resource utilization were separately analyzed for patients enrolled in the data over the continuous follow-up (CFU) period, and for patients continuously taking their initial treatment for 6 months (CTX). Potential confounders collected over a 6-month baseline assessment period were controlled for, using a generalized linear model.

RESULTS

Over the 180-day follow-up, prasugrel and ticagrelor patients underwent fewer admissions (rate ratio [RR] = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.80-0.95) from CFU and RR = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.71-0.89 from CTX) compared with clopidogrel patients. The newer agent cohort incurred more overall health care costs than the generic clopidogrel group, with added costs of $957 (95% CI = $236-$1,725) in the CFU group and $1,122 (95% CI = $455-$1,865) in the CTX group, which were smaller than the increase in all-cause outpatient pharmacy costs associated with the newer agents versus clopidogrel (CFU: $1,175, 95% CI = $1,079-$1,278 and CTX: $1,360, 95% CI = $1,256-$1,487). Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in the economic outcomes associated with prasugrel and ticagrelor. There were, however, significant correlations between all-cause and cardiovascular-related outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

The higher price of prasugrel and ticagrelor was partially offset by a decrease in hospital admission compared with generic clopidogrel over a 6-month postdischarge period. Aggregated medical costs and resource utilization were not significantly different between prasugrel and ticagrelor patients.

DISCLOSURES

No funding was received for this study. DiDomenico has received an honorarium from Amgen for preparation of a heart failure drug monograph for Pharmacy Practice News and serves as an advisory board member for a heart failure program at Otsuka America Pharmaceuticals and for Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Touchette has received unrestricted grant funding from Cardinal Health, Sunovion Pharmaceuticals, and Takeda and has served as a consultant to and director of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Practice-Based Research Network on a study funded by Pfizer. Walton has served as a paid consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Baxter, Merck, Genentech, Primus, Takeda, and Abbott. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

One-Year Clinical Effectiveness Comparison of Prasugrel with Ticagrelor: Results from a Retrospective Observational Study using an Integrated Claims Database

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.

Real world insights on the initiation and treatment duration of oral antiplatelets in acute coronary syndromes: a retrospective cohort study

Aims

This study is a real world, observational study evaluating the treatment persistence of oral antiplatelet (OAP) therapy during a one-year follow-up in patients after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Methods and results

Data on diagnosis, comorbidities, follow-up, OAP treatment, reasons, and decision maker for treatment discontinuation in patients who were discharged from a hospital in Belgium after an ACS between 1 July 2012 and 1 June 2013 were collected by cardiologists from 18 centres, up to 360 days from discharge. Out of the 671 patients surveyed, 295 patients were included in the persistence analysis. The remainder was excluded from the analysis due to the lack of precise information on OAP stopping date. The proportion of patients still using OAPs after 90, 180, 270, and 360 days was 92, 89, 83, and 73%, respectively. OAP persistence was higher for patients treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor. At 360 days, 79% of patients with a ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) and 66% of patients with a non-STEMI were still adhering to the prescribed course of treatment. Among the 79 patients with early treatment discontinuation, the mean treatment duration was 197.0 ± 125.18 days. The main decision taker in premature treatment cessation was the cardiologist (31% of cases), while the most frequently cited reasons included surgery (25%) and perceived high bleeding risk (19%).

Conclusion

Treatment persistence with OAPs after ACS in Belgium is high throughout the recommended period. Discontinuation was observed more often in patients treated with clopidogrel and was mainly initiated by the cardiologist.

Changes in Treatment Patterns and Incremental Health Care Utilization Due to P2Y12-Associated Complications in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUND

P2Y12 antiplatelet therapy (APT) is highly efficacious in reducing the incidence of ischemic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS); however, it is associated with several adverse complications. Data on P2Y12-associated complications and adherence to APT are sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the characteristics, frequency of P2Y12-associated complications, adherence and persistence to P2Y12 APT, and health care utilization among ACS patients on P2Y12 APT.

METHODS

This retrospective observational study of the MarketScan Commercial Claims and Encounters Database identified patients aged ≥ 18 years who were discharged from an ACS hospitalization in 2012-2014 and initiated P2Y12 APT (ticagrelor, prasugrel, or clopidogrel). The proportion of patients within each treatment group who experienced P2Y12-associated complications within 1 year and who were adherent to APT were determined. Frequencies of all-cause health care utilization (i.e., hospitalization, length of stay, emergency room [ER] visits, outpatient visits, cardiac events, and transfusions) were evaluated for each treatment group. Poisson regressions were conducted to evaluate the association between nonad-herence with P2Y12 APT and health care utilization, after adjusting for demographics (age and gender), health insurance type, and comorbidities.

RESULTS

Among 11,629 ACS patients, most were male; 44.6% had hypertension; 20.6% had diabetes; and 53.4% had hyperlipidemia. Clopidogrel use was common (62.6%), with ticagrelor use less common (9.0%). Among all groups, approximately one third experienced P2Y12-associated complications. One-year adherence to APT was suboptimal (68% overall), with 73.3% adherence among prasugrel users, followed by 71.4% adherence among ticagrelor users and 65.6% adherence among clopidogrel users. Switching was most common with ticagrelor users. Inpatient hospitalizations, cardiac events, and transfusions were more common in clopidogrel users compared with prasugrel and ticagrelor users. Nonadherent patients experienced significantly more hospitalizations, ER visits, and transfusions (1.34, 1.09, and 1.85 [P < 0.05], respectively) compared with adherent patients. These trends of association remained consistent across all treatment groups. Also, patients not adherent to ticagrelor experienced 1.9 times as many cardiac events as adherent patients. However, this association was not significant for clopidogrel and prasugrel users. Patients not adherent to P2Y12 APT experienced significantly lower outpatient visits compared with adherent patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Complications associated with P2Y12 in ACS patients treated with P2Y12 APT were common, with dyspnea, heart block, and major or life-threatening bleeding as the most common. Adherence was significantly associated with lower health care utilization. Increased adherence to secondary prevention therapy among these very high-risk patients is crucial. Disease management strategies to improve adherence and reduce treatment-associated adverse events through individualized patient care, alternative secondary treatment options, and physician awareness should be designed, implemented, and sustained.

DISCLOSURES

Data analysis was conducted by Merck & Co., the manufacturer of vorapaxar (ZONTIVITY). At the time of this study, Vyas was an employee of Rutgers University, which received grant funding from Merck & Co. for this study, and is now employed with the University of Rhode Island. Patel was employed by Symphony Solutions and the University of North Carolina during the drafting and revising of the manuscript. Bash is employed by Merck & Co. Simpson received consulting fees from Merck & Co. for work on this study and has received fees for research from Amgen and Pfizer. Study concept and design were contributed by Vyas, Bash, Patel, and Simpson. Patel took the lead in data collection, assisted by the other authors. All the authors contributed equally to data analysis and manuscript preparation. The abstract for this study was presented as a poster at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions 2016; November 12-16, 2016; New Orleans, Louisiana.

Contemporary Trends in Oral Antiplatelet Agent Use in Patients Treated with Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for Acute Coronary Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Recent trials demonstrated the efficacy of prasugrel and ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in the reduction of cardiovascular complications in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, it is unclear how use of the 3 antiplatelet medications has changed in commercially insured patients since the advent of the new agents.

OBJECTIVES

To (a) describe the adoption of prasugrel and ticagrelor in patients who received percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for the onset of ACS and (b) explore patient factors associated with the selection of the drug to provide insight into utilization patterns of these antiplatelet agents.

METHODS

Patients who received a new dispensing of an antiplatelet agent following a hospitalization for a PCI administered for ACS were identified from insurance claims between 2009 and 2013. Demographics and comorbid conditions were determined based on a 6-month period before the ACS event. Longitudinal trends in antiplatelet agent selection were illustrated using descriptive statistics segmented by month and quarter. Using logistic regressions with stepwise model selection, factors associated with use of the newer medications, as well as with the selection between ticagrelor and prasugrel, were identified.

RESULTS

The analysis included 66,335 subjects. The use of clopidogrel decreased from 100% to roughly 65% of total antiplatelet agent use by the end of 2011 and leveled off thereafter. The introduction of ticagrelor in 2011 coincided with a drop in prasugrel initiation from 35%-18% by December 2013. The use of new agents as opposed to use of clopidogrel was associated with younger age (< 65 years), male gender, and a diagnosis of ST-elevation myocardial infarction. In addition, conditions increasing mortality and risk of cardiovascular complication were associated with higher odds of using clopidogrel. The odds of using ticagrelor over prasugrel increased with older age and history of a cerebrovascular event.

CONCLUSIONS

In 2013, clopidogrel remained the most prescribed agent. Meanwhile, ticagrelor had gradually replaced a substantial portion of prasugrel initiation. Further investigation into outcomes associated with the newer agents, as well as reasons behind the conservative use of the antiplatelet agents, is warranted.

DISCLOSURES

No funding was received for the conduct of this study. DiDomenico received an honorarium from Amgen for the preparation of a heart failure drug monograph for Pharmacy Practice News and was a co-investigator on funded research for the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute. DiDomenico also serves as an advisory board member for a heart failure program at Otsuka America Pharmaceuticals and as an advisory board member at Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Touchette has received unrestricted grant funding from Cardinal Health and Sunovion Pharmaceuticals and has also served as a consultant to and director of the American College of Clinical Pharmacy Practice-Based Research Network on a study funded by Pfizer. None of the authors of this study are involved in financial or personal relationships with agencies, institutions, or organizations that inappropriately influenced the statistical analysis plan or interpretation of the results. Study concept and design were contributed by Kim, Lee, Touchette, and Walton, with assistance from DiDomenico and Ardati. Kim and Lee collected the data, and data interpretation was performed by Lee, DiDomenico, and Ardati, along with Kim and Walton and assisted by Touchette. The manuscript was written by Kim and Walton, with assistance from the other authors, and revised by Kim, Walton, and Lee, with assistance from the other authors.

Dyspnea in patients treated with P2Y12 receptor antagonists: insights from the GReek AntiPlatElet (GRAPE) registry

In 'real life' acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and receiving contemporary antiplatelet treatment, data on dyspnea occurrence and impact on persistence with treatment are scarce. In a prospective, multicenter, cohort study, ACS patients undergoing PCI were recruited into the GReekAntiPlatElet (GRAPE) registry. During 1-year follow up, overall, 249/1989 (12.5%) patients reported dyspnea, more frequently at 1-month and decreasing thereafter. Multivariate analysis showed that ticagrelor administration (n = 738) at discharge was associated with the occurrence of dyspnea: Odds ratio 2.46 (95% confidence interval, CI, 1.87-3.25), p < 0.001. Older age, lower hematocrit, and prior bleeding event were also associated with dyspnea reports. Persistence, switching, and cessation rates were 68.3%, 20.9%, and 10.8% vs 76.7%, 12.5%, and 10.9% among patients reporting dyspnea compared with those who did not, p for trend = 0.002. In conclusion, in ACS patients undergoing PCI and treated with a P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist, dyspnea occurs commonly, particularly when ticagrelor is administered. Non-persistence with antiplatelet agents at discharge is more frequently observed among dyspnea-reporters.

Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Multicenter Randomized PRAGUE-18 Study

BACKGROUND

No randomized head-to-head comparison of the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel has been published in the 7 years since the higher efficacy of these newer P2Y₁₂ inhibitors were first demonstrated relative to clopidogrel.

METHODS

This academic study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of prasugrel and ticagrelor in acute myocardial infarction treated with primary or immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 1230 patients were randomly assigned across 14 sites to either prasugrel or ticagrelor, which was initiated before percutaneous coronary intervention. Nearly 4% were in cardiogenic shock, and 5.2% were on mechanical ventilation. The primary end point was defined as death, reinfarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, stroke, or serious bleeding requiring transfusion or prolonging hospitalization at 7 days (to reflect primarily the in-hospital phase). This analysis presents data from the first 30 days (key secondary end point). The total follow-up will be 1 year for all patients and will be completed in 2017.

RESULTS

The study was prematurely terminated for futility. The occurrence of the primary end point did not differ between groups receiving prasugrel and ticagrelor (4.0% and 4.1%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.73; P=0.939). No significant difference was found in any of the components of the primary end point. The occurrence of key secondary end point within 30 days, composed of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke, did not show any significant difference between prasugrel and ticagrelor (2.7% and 2.5%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-2.15; P=0.864).

CONCLUSIONS

This head-to-head comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor does not support the hypothesis that one is more effective or safer than the other in preventing ischemic and bleeding events in the acute phase of myocardial infarction treated with a primary percutaneous coronary intervention strategy. The observed rates of major outcomes were similar but with broad confidence intervals around the estimates. These interesting observations need to be confirmed in a larger trial.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02808767.

Adherence to antiplatelet treatment with P2Y12 receptor inhibitors. Is there anything we can do to improve it? A systematic review of randomized trials

Antiplatelet therapy is the cornerstone of treatment for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and/or undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. Non-adherence to medication after ACS may lead to increased morbidity, mortality, and costs to the healthcare system due to elevated risk of stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction or death. Medication adherence is an issue of growing concern regarding the improvement of health system performance. Promoting medication adherence offers a rare opportunity to simultaneously improve health outcomes while reducing costs of treatment in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). The aim of this systematic review was to critically discuss adherence to antiplatelet treatment with P2Y12 receptor inhibitors in CAD patients. After a systematic investigation of the literature in databases including PubMed, CENTRAL and Google Scholar, using appropriate keywords, and considering clinical randomized, prospective observational and retrospective studies, reporting on adherence to treatment with inhibitors of P2Y12 platelet receptors or educational interventions aimed to improve medication adherence in patients with CAD, seven articles were considered eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Reported adherence to clopidogrel, despite catastrophic consequences of its premature discontinuation, is low. We identified several determinants of low adherence and early discontinuation of clopidogrel. We also present data on the usefulness, utilization and credibility of different methods of medication adherence assessment, and suggest and critically discuss available interventions aimed at improvement of adherence to clopidogrel, still showing the need for innovative approaches to achieve enhanced medication adherence and improve health outcomes after acute myocardial infarction.