File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1159/000520673
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85123901250
- WOS: WOS:000848173800001
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor for Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Title | Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor for Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Antiplatelet therapy Meta-analysis Percutaneous coronary intervention Prasugrel Ticagrelor |
Issue Date | 5-Nov-2021 |
Publisher | Karger Publishers |
Citation | Cardiology, 2021, v. 147, n. 1, p. 1-13 How to Cite? |
Abstract | Introduction: There have been inconsistent data on the direct comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor. This meta-analysis was conducted to summarize the current available evidence. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis (PROSPERO-registered CRD42020166810) of randomized trials up to February 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 6,098 patients randomized to prasugrel (n = 3,050) or ticagrelor (n = 3,048), 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 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%), and 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 MI. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/336450 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.9 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.547 |
ISI Accession Number ID |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Fong, Lucas Chun Wah | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lee, Nicholas Ho Cheung | - |
dc.contributor.author | Yan, Andrew T | - |
dc.contributor.author | Ng, Ming-Yen | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-01-31T06:23:41Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-01-31T06:23:41Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2021-11-05 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Cardiology, 2021, v. 147, n. 1, p. 1-13 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0008-6312 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/336450 | - |
dc.description.abstract | <p><strong><em>Introduction:</em></strong> There have been inconsistent data on the direct comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor. This meta-analysis was conducted to summarize the current available evidence. <strong><em>Methods:</em></strong> We performed a meta-analysis (PROSPERO-registered CRD42020166810) of randomized trials up to February 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. <strong><em>Results:</em></strong> Of the 11 eligible RCTs with 6,098 patients randomized to prasugrel (<em>n</em> = 3,050) or ticagrelor (<em>n</em> = 3,048), 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; <em>p</em> = 0.12, <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 0%). Compared to prasugrel, there was no significant difference associated with the ticagrelor groups with respect to stroke (RR = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.66–1.67; <em>p</em> = 0.84, <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 0%), cardiovascular death (RR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.75–1.36; <em>p</em> = 0.95, <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 0%), BARC type 2 or above bleeding (RR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.89–1.52; <em>p</em> = 0.26, <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 0%), stent thrombosis (RR = 1.58; 95% CI = 0.90–2.76; <em>p</em> = 0.11, <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 0%), and all-cause death (RR = 1.10; 95% CI = 0.86–1.43; <em>p</em> = 0.45, <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 0%) except MI (RR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.05–1.81; <em>p</em> = 0.02, <em>I</em><sup>2</sup> = 0%) <strong><em>Conclusion:</em></strong> 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 MI.<br></p> | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | Karger Publishers | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Cardiology | - |
dc.rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. | - |
dc.subject | Antiplatelet therapy | - |
dc.subject | Meta-analysis | - |
dc.subject | Percutaneous coronary intervention | - |
dc.subject | Prasugrel | - |
dc.subject | Ticagrelor | - |
dc.title | Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor for Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1159/000520673 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85123901250 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 147 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 1 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 1 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 13 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1421-9751 | - |
dc.identifier.isi | WOS:000848173800001 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0008-6312 | - |