RESUMO
Background: The net clinical benefit of ticagrelor over clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has recently been questioned by observational studies which did not account for time-dependent confounders. We aimed to assess the comparative safety and effectiveness of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel accounting for non-adherence in a real-life setting. Methods: This is a prospective, multicenter cohort study of patients with ACS discharged on ticagrelor or clopidogrel between 2015 and 2019. Major exclusions were previous intracranial bleeding, and the use of prasugrel or oral anticoagulation. Association of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy with 1-year risk of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium Type 3 or 5 bleeding; major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), a composite endpoint of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), nonfatal stroke, or urgent target lesion revascularization; definite/probable stent thrombosis; vascular death; and net adverse clinical event (a composite endpoint of major bleeding and MACE) were analyzed according to the "on-treatment" principle, using fully adjusted Cox and Fine-Gray regression models with doubly robust inverse probability of censoring weighted estimators. Results: Among 2,070 patients (mean age 63 years, 27% women, 62.5% ST-elevation MI), 1,035 were discharged on ticagrelor and clopidogrel, respectively. Ticagrelor-treated patients were younger and had few comorbidities, but high rates of medication non-compliance, compared with clopidogrel users. After comprehensive multivariate adjustments, ticagrelor did not increase the risk of major bleeding compared with clopidogrel [subhazard ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.96-2.05], while proved superior in reducing MACE (hazard ratio 0.62; 95% CI, 0.43-0.90), vascular death (subhazard ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52-0.97) and definite/probable stent thrombosis (subhazard ratio, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.30-0.79); thereby resulting in a favorable net clinical benefit (hazard ratio 0.78; 95% CI, 0.60-0.98) compared with clopidogrel. Results from sensitivity analyses were consistent with those from the primary analysis, whereas those from the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis went in the opposite direction. Conclusion: Among all-comers with ACS, ticagrelor did not significantly increase the risk of major bleeding, while resulting in a net clinical benefit compared with clopidogrel. Further research is warranted to confirm these findings in high bleeding risk populations. CREA-ARIAM Andalucía: (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02500290); Current pre-specified analysis (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04630288).
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Fondaparinux is thought to have the most favorable risk-benefit profile among all anticoagulants in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). However, conflicting findings exist whether this holds true in current clinical practice. We aimed to assess the net clinical benefit of fondaparinux versus enoxaparin in the contemporary management of NSTE-ACS. METHODS: Analysis of prospective multicenter registry data of NSTE-ACS patients who received fondaparinux or enoxaparin from February 2015, through December 2017. Survival models within a competing risks framework including site-specific random effects, were used to assess the composite of clinically relevant bleedings and major adverse cardiovascular events at 30 days. RESULTS: Of 2094 patients, 1724 (82%) received enoxaparin and 370 (18%) fondaparinux. Both groups were comparable except for a lower prevalence of diabetes and renal impairment, and greater use of transradial approach in the fondaparinux group. Multivariate analysis revealed a net clinical benefit in favour of fondaparinux versus enoxaparin (Subhazard Ratio [SHR] 0.59; 95%CI 0.37-0.92), mainly driven by a reduction in bleeding (SHR 0.57; 95%CI 0.37-0.89). Exploratory analysis suggested greater reductions in bleeding with fondaparinux among patients undergoing transradial approach, revealing a significant interaction between treatment and vascular access on the multiplicative scale (Pinteraction = 0.0056), but not on an additive scale (P = 0.457). Propensity-score-matching analysis yielded similar results. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary management of NSTE-ACS, fondaparinux seems to provide a favorable net clinical benefit compared with enoxaparin, primarily driven by a bleeding reduction. Effect modification on the safety profile of fondaparinux by the vascular access approach warrants further investigation.