1-Year Outcomes of Patients Undergoing Primary Angioplasty for Myocardial Infarction Treated With Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor.

BACKGROUND: Early outcomes of patients in the PRAGUE-18 (Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in the Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction) study did not find any significant differences between 2 potent P2Y12 inhibitors. OBJECTIVES: The 1-year follow-up of the PRAGUE-18 study focused on: 1) a comparison of efficacy and safety between prasugrel and ticagrelor; and 2) the risk of major ischemic events related to an economically motivated post-discharge switch to clopidogrel. METHODS: A total of 1,230 patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to prasugrel or ticagrelor with an intended treatment duration of 12 months. The combined endpoint was cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke at 1 year. Because patients had to cover the costs of study medication after hospital discharge, some patients decided to switch to clopidogrel. RESULTS: The endpoint occurred in 6.6% of prasugrel patients and in 5.7% of ticagrelor patients (hazard ratio: 1.167; 95% confidence interval: 0.742 to 1.835; p = 0.503). No significant differences were found in: cardiovascular death (3.3% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.769), MI (3.0% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.611), stroke (1.1% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.423), all-cause death (4.7% vs. 4.2%; p = 0.654), definite stent thrombosis (1.1% vs. 1.5%; p = 0.535), all bleeding (10.9% vs. 11.1%; p = 0.999), and TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) major bleeding (0.9% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.754). The percentage of patients who switched to clopidogrel for economic reasons was 34.1% (n = 216) for prasugrel and 44.4% (n = 265) for ticagrelor (p = 0.003). Patients who were economically motivated to switch to clopidogrel had (compared with patients who continued the study medications) a lower risk of major cardiovascular events; however, they also had lower ischemic risk. CONCLUSIONS: Prasugrel and ticagrelor are similarly effective during the first year after MI. Economically motivated early post-discharge switches to clopidogrel were not associated with an increased risk of ischemic events. (Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in the Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction [PRAGUE-18]; NCT02808767).

Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Treated With Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Multicenter Randomized PRAGUE-18 Study.

BACKGROUND: No randomized head-to-head comparison of the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel has been published in the 7 years since the higher efficacy of these newer P2Y12 inhibitors were first demonstrated relative to clopidogrel. METHODS: This academic study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of prasugrel and ticagrelor in acute myocardial infarction treated with primary or immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 1230 patients were randomly assigned across 14 sites to either prasugrel or ticagrelor, which was initiated before percutaneous coronary intervention. Nearly 4% were in cardiogenic shock, and 5.2% were on mechanical ventilation. The primary end point was defined as death, reinfarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, stroke, or serious bleeding requiring transfusion or prolonging hospitalization at 7 days (to reflect primarily the in-hospital phase). This analysis presents data from the first 30 days (key secondary end point). The total follow-up will be 1 year for all patients and will be completed in 2017. RESULTS: The study was prematurely terminated for futility. The occurrence of the primary end point did not differ between groups receiving prasugrel and ticagrelor (4.0% and 4.1%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.73; P=0.939). No significant difference was found in any of the components of the primary end point. The occurrence of key secondary end point within 30 days, composed of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke, did not show any significant difference between prasugrel and ticagrelor (2.7% and 2.5%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-2.15; P=0.864). CONCLUSIONS: This head-to-head comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor does not support the hypothesis that one is more effective or safer than the other in preventing ischemic and bleeding events in the acute phase of myocardial infarction treated with a primary percutaneous coronary intervention strategy. The observed rates of major outcomes were similar but with broad confidence intervals around the estimates. These interesting observations need to be confirmed in a larger trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02808767.