Use of prasugrel and clinical outcomes in African-American patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of prasugrel after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in African American (AA) patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). BACKGROUND: AA patients are at higher risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes after PCI and may derive greater benefit from the use of potent antiplatelet therapy. METHODS: Using the multicenter PROMETHEUS observational registry of ACS patients treated with PCI, we grouped patients by self-reported AA or other races. Clinical outcomes at 90-day and 1-year included non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse cardiac events (composite of death, MI, stroke, or unplanned revascularization) and major bleeding. RESULTS: The study population included 2,125 (11%) AA and 17,707 (89%) non-AA patients. AA patients were younger, more often female (46% vs. 30%) with a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and prior coronary intervention than non-AA patients. Although AA patients more often presented with troponin (+) ACS, prasugrel use was much less common in AA vs. non-AA (11.9% vs. 21.4%, respectively, P = 0.001). In addition, the use of prasugrel increased with the severity of presentation in non-AA but not in AA patients. Multivariable logistic regression showed AA race was an independent predictor of reduced use of prasugrel (0.42 [0.37-0.49], P < 0.0001). AA race was independently associated with a significantly higher risk of MI at 90-days and 1 year after PCI. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher risk clinical presentation and worse 1-year ischemic outcomes, AA race was an independent predictor of lower prasugrel prescription in a contemporary population of ACS patients undergoing PCI.

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.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare 1-year real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU), associated charges, and antiplatelet treatment patterns among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel. METHODS: Using the ProMetis-Lx database, adult ACS-PCI patients treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel post-discharge were identified between 1 August 2011 and 31 May 2013 and propensity matched to adjust for baseline differences. RESULTS: Before matching, ticagrelor-treated patients (n = 2991) were older with increased baseline ischemic and bleeding risks compared with prasugrel-treated patients (n = 12,797). After matching, ticagrelor patients had higher all-cause HRU (2.5 vs. 2.4 per patient per month; P = 0.012) and cardiovascular (CV) HRU (0.4 vs. 0.3 per patient per month; P = 0.026), with the difference in CV rehospitalizations (17.7 vs. 15.7 %; P = 0.011) primarily driven by congestive heart failure (CHF) (4.9 vs. 3.8 %; P = 0.02). All-cause charges within 1 year did not significantly differ between groups ($US5456 vs. 4844 per patient per month; P = 0.37), but dyspnea-related total charges were significantly higher with ticagrelor ($US139 vs. 95 per patient per month; P = 0.005). Although infrequent, switching was slightly higher with ticagrelor (8.3 vs. 6.0 %; P < 0.001) at 1 year, and mean persistence was slightly longer with prasugrel (150 vs. 159 days; P = 0.002), with no significant difference in mean adherence (61 vs. 63 %; P = 0.17). CONCLUSION: Overall monthly HRU was slightly lower with prasugrel than with ticagrelor, with no significant difference in bleeding HRU. Prasugrel was associated with slightly higher pharmacy charges, but lower dyspnea charges, resulting in no significant difference in total charges. Patients receiving prasugrel tended to use it for longer than those receiving ticagrelor as less switching occurred. These findings may aid decision making, but must be tempered due to inherent study limitations.