When to Believe Unexpected Results for Ticagrelor or Prasugrel

Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor for Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

There has been inconsistent data on the direct comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor. This meta-analysis was conducted to summarise the current available evidence.

METHODS

We performed a meta-analysis (PROSPERO-registered CRD42020166810) of randomized trials up to Feb 2020 that compared prasugrel and ticagrelor in acute coronary syndrome with respect to the composite endpoint of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke or cardiovascular death, and secondary endpoints including MI, stroke, cardiovascular death, major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2 or above), stent thrombosis, all-cause death and other safety outcomes.

RESULTS

Of the 11 eligible RCTs with 6098 patients randomized to prasugrel (n=3050) or ticagrelor (n=3048), 180 and 207 had the composite endpoint events in the prasugrel arm and the ticagrelor arm respectively over a weighted mean follow up period of 11±2 months. Compared with prasugrel, the ticagrelor group had similar risk in the primary composite endpoint (Risk Ratio (RR)= 1.17; 95% CI=0.96-1.42; p=0.12, I2=0%). Compared to prasugrel, there was no significant difference associated with the use of ticagrelor groups with respect to stroke (RR=1.05; 95% CI=0.66-1.67; p=0.84, I2=0%); cardiovascular death (RR=1.01; 95% CI=0.75-1.36; p=0.95, I2=0%); BARC type 2 or above bleeding (RR=1.16; 95% CI =0.89-1.52; p=0.26, I2=0%); stent thrombosis (RR=1.58; 95% CI =0.90-2.76; p=0.11, I2=0%); all cause death (RR=1.10; 95% CI =0.86-1.43; p=0.45, I2=0%) except MI (RR=1.38; 95% CI=1.05-1.81; p=0.02, I2=0%) Conclusion: Compared with prasugrel, ticagrelor did not reduce the primary composite endpoint of MI, stroke and cardiovascular death at a weighted mean follow up of 11 months. There was no significant difference between the secondary outcomes except myocardial infarction.