Antiplatelet effect of 600- and 300-mg loading doses of clopidogrel in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: an analysis of the ARMYDA-6 MI (Antiplatelet therapy for Reduction of MYocardial Damage during Angioplasty-Myocardial Infarction) Study

Ticagrelor vs clopidogrel followed by ticagrelor re-loading in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A randomized, pharmacodynamic comparison

Among patients allocated to ticagrelor in the primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) cohort of Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial, 40.7% had received pre-randomization 600 mg of clopidogrel. This scenario is frequently employed in real-world practice. In a prospective, three-center, single-blind, parallel design study, 74 P2Y12 inhibitor-naive patients undergoing primary PCI were randomized (Hour 0) to ticagrelor 180 mg loading dose (LD) vs clopidogrel 600 mg LD followed after 2 h by ticagrelor 180 mg re-LD. Platelet reactivity (VerifyNow, in PRU) was assessed at Hour 0, 2, 4, 6, and 24. The primary comparison was non-inferiority of ticagrelor to clopidogrel followed by ticagrelor re-LD regarding platelet reactivity at 24 h using a prespecified margin of <35 PRU for the upper bound of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval (CI). Ticagrelor was proven non-inferior to clopidogrel followed by ticagrelor re-LD with a difference between arms of 13.5 PRU (28.8 upper 97.5% CI), p = 0.001. At Hour 2, platelet reactivity was lower in ticagrelor only vs clopidogrel followed by ticagrelor re-LD groups with least square estimate mean difference (95% CI) -105.7 (-140.6 to -70.8), p < 0.001, without significant difference thereafter. In conclusion, in patients undergoing primary PCI, a strategy of ticagrelor LD only was proven non-inferior to clopidogrel LD followed by ticagrelor re-LD, in terms of antiplatelet efficacy at 24 h post-randomization and provided an earlier onset of platelet inhibition.

Cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor for dual antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndrome: a decision-analytic model

BACKGROUND

The use of prasugrel or ticagrelor as part of dual antiplatelet therapy with acetylsalicylic acid after acute coronary syndrome (ACS) improves clinical outcomes relative to clopidogrel. The relative cost-effectiveness of these agents are unknown. We conducted an economic analysis evaluating 12 months of treatment with clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor after ACS.

METHODS

We developed a fully probabilistic Markov cohort decision-analytic model using a lifetime horizon, from the perspective of the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. The model incorporated risks of death, recurrent ACS, heart failure, major bleeding and other adverse effects of treatment. Data on probabilities and utilities were obtained from the published literature where available. The primary outcome was quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs).

RESULTS

Treatment with clopidogrel was associated with the lowest effectiveness (7.41 QALYs, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-14.79) and the lowest cost ($39 601, 95% CI $8434-$111 186). Ticagrelor treatment had an effectiveness of 7.50 QALYs (95% CI 1.13-14.84) at a cost of $40 649 (95% CI $9327-$111 881). The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for ticagrelor relative to clopidogrel was $12 205 per QALY gained. Prasugrel had an ICER of $57 630 per QALY gained relative to clopidogrel. Ticagrelor was the preferred option in 90% of simulations at a willingness-to-pay threshold of $50 000 per QALY gained.

INTERPRETATION

Ticagrelor was the most cost-effective agent when used as part of dual antiplatelet therapy after ACS. This conclusion was robust to wide variations in model parameters.

Reappraisal of thienopyridine pretreatment in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of pretreatment with P2Y12 receptor inhibitors compared with no pretreatment on efficacy and safety of treatment of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

DATA SOURCES

Two reviewers independently searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials, and BioMed Central databases for randomized placebo controlled trials and observational studies from August 2001 to March 2014.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY

Studies must have reported both all-cause mortality (primary efficacy endpoint) and major bleeding (safety endpoint) outcomes.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data on sample size, characteristics, drug dose and delay of administration, and outcomes were independently extracted and analyzed.

DATA SYNTHESIS

A random-effect model was applied. The analysis was performed (i) in all patients independently of the management strategy and (ii) only in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

RESULTS

Of the 393 titles identified, seven (four randomized controlled trials, one observational analysis from a randomized controlled trial, and three observational studies) met the inclusion criteria. No study was identified for ticagrelor or cangrelor, and analyses were thus limited to thienopyridines. A total of 32,383 non-ST elevation ACS patients were included, 18,711 coming from randomized controlled trials. Of these, 55% underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Pretreatment was not associated with a significant lower risk of mortality in all patients (odds ratio 0.90 (95% confidence interval 0.75 to 1.07), P=0.24), in particular when considering only the randomized controlled trials (odds ratio 0.90 (0.71 to 1.14), P=0.39). Similar results were observed in the cohort of patients undergoing PCI. A significant 30-45% excess of major bleeding was consistently observed in all patients (odds ratio 1.32 (1.16 to 1.49), P<0.0001) and in those undergoing PCI, as well as in the subset analyses of randomized controlled trials of these two cohorts of patients. There was a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events in the analysis of all patients (odds ratio 0.84 (0.72 to 0.98), P=0.02), driven by the old clopidogrel studies (CURE and CREDO), but the difference was not significant for the cohort of patients undergoing PCI. Stent thrombosis, stroke, and urgent revascularization did not differ between groups (pretreatment v no pretreatment). The results were consistent for both thienopyridines and confirmed in sensitivity analyses.

LIMITATIONS

Analysis was not performed on individual patient's data.

CONCLUSION

In patients presenting with non-ST elevation ACS, pretreatment with thienopyridines is associated with no significant reduction of mortality but with a significant excess of major bleeding no matter the strategy adopted, invasive or not. Our results do not support a strategy of routine pretreatment in patients with non-ST elevation ACS.