Ticagrelor vs Clopidogrel in Clopidogrel-Naive Patients With Chronic Coronary Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Whether ticagrelor may reduce periprocedural myocardial necrosis after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with and without chronic clopidogrel therapy is unclear. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare ticagrelor vs clopidogrel in patients with and without chronic clopidogrel therapy before undergoing elective PCI. METHODS: In this prespecified analysis of the ALPHEUS (Assessment of Loading With the P2Y12 Inhibitor Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel to Halt Ischemic Events in Patients Undergoing Elective Coronary Stenting) trial, patients were defined as clopidogrel(+) and clopidogrel(-) according to the presence and absence of clopidogrel treatment for ≥7 days before PCI, respectively. The primary endpoint was the composite of PCI-related myocardial infarction and major injury as defined by the third and fourth universal definition 48 hours after PCI. RESULTS: A total of 1,882 patients were included, 805 (42.7%) of whom were clopidogrel(+). These patients were older, had more comorbidities, and had more frequent features of complex PCI. The primary endpoint was less frequently present in clopidogrel(-) compared to clopidogrel(+) patients (32.8% vs 40.0%; OR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.60-0.88), but no significant differences were reported for the risk of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or transient ischemic attack at 48 hours or 30 days. Ticagrelor did not reduce periprocedural myocardial necrosis or the risk of adverse outcomes, and there was no significant interaction regarding the presence of chronic clopidogrel treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Clopidogrel-naive patients presented less periprocedural complications compared to clopidogrel(+) patients, a difference related to a lower risk profile and less complex PCI. The absence of clopidogrel at baseline did not affect the absence of a difference between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in terms of PCI-related complications supporting the use of clopidogrel as the standard of care in elective PCI in patients with or without chronic clopidogrel treatment.

Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source: A Subgroup Analysis of the CHANCE-2 Trial.

BACKGROUND: The atherosclerotic sources of embolism are a significant contributor to embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS). However, there is limited evidence for the efficacy of intensive dual antiplatelet therapy for ESUS. We conducted an investigation to determine whether gene-directed dual antiplatelet therapy could reduce the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with ESUS. METHODS: CHANCE-2 (Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients with Acute Nondisabling Cerebrovascular Events-II) was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial that objectively compared ticagrelor plus aspirin and clopidogrel plus aspirin in patients with minor stroke or transient ischemic attack who carried CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles in China. All study participants were classified into ESUS and non-ESUS groups for the prespecified exploratory analysis. Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the interaction of the state of ESUS with the effects of dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor-aspirin versus clopidogrel-aspirin, adjusting for sociodemographic and clinical factors. RESULTS: The subgroup analysis comprised 5796 participants (90.4% of the total 6412 participants) in the CHANCE-2 trial, with a median age of 64.9 years (range, 57.0-71.4 years), of whom 1964 (33.9%) were female. These participants underwent diffusion-weighted imaging as part of the study protocol. After systematic evaluation, 15.2% of patients (881/5796) were deemed to have ESUS. The incidence of stroke recurrence in patients with ESUS was found to be 5.6% in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and 9.2% in the clopidogrel-aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.33-0.99]; P=0.04). In patients without ESUS, the respective incidence rates were 5.6% and 7.5% (hazard ratio, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.58-0.90]; P<0.01). The P value was 0.56 for the treatment × ESUS status interaction effect. CONCLUSIONS: In this prespecified exploratory analysis, ticagrelor with aspirin was superior to clopidogrel with aspirin for preventing stroke at 90 days in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack who carried CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles and were classified as ESUS. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04078737.

Antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery bypass surgery: five year follow-up of randomised DACAB trial.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of different antiplatelet strategies on clinical outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting. DESIGN: Five year follow-up of randomised Different Antiplatelet Therapy Strategy After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (DACAB) trial. SETTING: Six tertiary hospitals in China; enrolment between July 2014 and November 2015; completion of five year follow-up from August 2019 to June 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 500 patients aged 18-80 years (including 91 (18.2%) women) who had elective coronary artery bypass grafting surgery and completed the DACAB trial. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomised 1:1:1 to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily (dual antiplatelet therapy; n=168), ticagrelor monotherapy 90 mg twice daily (n=166), or aspirin monotherapy 100 mg once daily (n=166) for one year after surgery. After the first year, antiplatelet therapy was prescribed according to standard of care by treating physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events (a composite of all cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and coronary revascularisation), analysed using the intention-to-treat principle. Time-to-event analysis was used to compare the risk between treatment groups. Multiple post hoc sensitivity analyses examined the robustness of the findings. RESULTS: Follow-up at five years for major adverse cardiovascular events was completed for 477 (95.4%) of 500 patients; 148 patients had major adverse cardiovascular events, including 39 in the dual antiplatelet therapy group, 54 in the ticagrelor monotherapy group, and 55 in the aspirin monotherapy group. Risk of major adverse cardiovascular events at five years was significantly lower with dual antiplatelet therapy versus aspirin monotherapy (22.6% v 29.9%; hazard ratio 0.65, 95% confidence interval 0.43 to 0.99; P=0.04) and versus ticagrelor monotherapy (22.6% v 32.9%; 0.66, 0.44 to 1.00; P=0.05). Results were consistent in all sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with ticagrelor dual antiplatelet therapy for one year after surgery reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events at five years after coronary artery bypass grafting compared with aspirin monotherapy or ticagrelor monotherapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03987373ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03987373.

After stent implantation for ACS, ticagrelor monotherapy after <1 mo of DAPT vs. 12 mo of DAPT improved 1-y net clinical benefit.

SOURCE CITATION: Hong SJ, Lee SJ, Suh Y, et al; T-PASS (Ticagrelor Monotherapy in Patients Treated With New-Generation Drug-Eluting Stents for Acute Coronary Syndrome) Investigators. Stopping aspirin within 1 month after stenting for ticagrelor monotherapy in acute coronary syndrome: the T-PASS randomized noninferiority trial. Circulation. 2024;149:562-573. 37878786.

Review of the Ticagrelor Trials Evidence Base.

Ticagrelor is a platelet P2Y12 receptor inhibitor approved for use in patients with acute coronary syndromes, coronary artery disease, and low-moderate risk acute ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack. Clinical trials have evaluated the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor on ischemic and bleeding outcomes for different indications and with varying treatment approaches. As a result, there is a large body of clinical evidence demonstrating different degrees of net clinical benefit compared with other platelet inhibitor drugs based on indication, patient characteristics, clinical presentation, treatment duration, and other factors. We provide a review of the major trials of ticagrelor in the context of other randomized trials of clopidogrel and prasugrel to organize the volume of available information, elevate corroborating and conflicting data, and identify potential gaps as areas for further exploration of optimal antiplatelet treatment.

Impact of Society Guidelines on Trends in Use of Newer P2Y12 Inhibitors for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decade, major society guidelines have recommended the use of newer P2Y12 inhibitors over clopidogrel for those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome. It is unclear what impact these recommendations had on clinical practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: All percutaneous coronary intervention procedures (n=534 210) for acute coronary syndrome in England and Wales (April 1, 2010, to March 31, 2022) were retrospectively analyzed, stratified by choice of preprocedural P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel, ticagrelor, and prasugrel). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to examine odds ratios of receipt of ticagrelor and prasugrel (versus clopidogrel) over time, and predictors of their receipt. Overall, there was a significant increase in receipt of newer P2Y12 inhibitors from 2010 to 2020 (2022 versus 2010: ticagrelor odds ratio, 8.12 [95% CI, 7.67-8.60]; prasugrel odds ratio, 6.14 [95% CI, 5.53-6.81]), more so in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction than non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome indication. The most significant increase in odds of receipt of prasugrel was observed between 2020 and 2022 (P<0.001), following a decline/plateau in its use in earlier years (2011-2019). In contrast, the odds of receipt of ticagrelor significantly increased in earlier years (2012-2017, Ptrend<0.001), after which the trend was stable (Ptrend=0.093). CONCLUSIONS: Over a 13-year-period, there has been a significant increase in use of newer P2Y12 inhibitors, although uptake of prasugrel use remained significantly lower than ticagrelor. Earlier society guidelines (pre-2017) were associated with the highest rates of ticagrelor use for non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome and ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction cases while the ISAR-REACT 5 (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome) trial and later society guidelines were associated with higher prasugrel use, mainly for ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction indication.

Efficacy and Safety of P2Y12 monotherapy vs standard DAPT in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Debates persist regarding the optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in coronary artery disease (CAD). Recent trials have introduced a novel approach involving P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with ticagrelor or clopidogrel, after a short DAPT. However, the effectiveness and safety of this strategy remains to be established. We aimed to perform a meta-analysis comparing monotherapy with P2Y12 inhibitors versus standard DAPT in patients undergoing PCI at 12 months. METHODS: Multiple databases were searched. Six RCTs with a total of 24877 patients were included. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 12 months of follow-up. The secondary endpoints were cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarction, probable or definite stent thrombosis, stroke events, and major bleeding. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024499529). RESULTS: Monotherapy with P2Y12 inhibitor ticagrelor significantly reduced both allcause mortality (HR 0.71, 95 CI [0.55-0.91], P = 0.007) and cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.66, 95% CI [0.49-0.89], P = 0.006) compared to standard DAPT. In contrast, clopidogrel monotherapy did not demonstrate a similar reduction. The decrease in mortality associated with ticagrelor was primarily due to a lower risk of major bleeding (HR 0.56, 95% CI [0.43-0.72], P < 0.001), while the risk of myocardial infarction (MI) remained unchanged (HR 0.90, 95% CI [0.73-1.11], P = 0.32). The risk of stroke was found to be similar across treatments. CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to standard DAPT, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy with ticagrelor may lead to a reduced mortality. The clinical benefits are driven by a reduction of bleeding risk without ischemic risk trade-off.

Assessment of platelet functional activity in healthy individuals and patients receiving antiplatelet therapy. Possible inconsistencies between aggregation and flow cytometry tests.

Platelet functional activity was assessed in healthy volunteers (HV, n=92), patients with stable angina pectoris (SA, n=42) and acute coronary syndrome (ACS, n=73), treated with acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) + clopidogrel and ASA + ticagrelor, respectively. In all HV and patients we have compared parameters of platelet aggregation (maximum light transmission and velocity, Tmax and Vmax) and parameters, characterizing exposure of platelet activation markers, evaluated by flow cytometry. HV platelets were activated by 10 µM, 1 µM TRAP, and 20 µM, 5 µM, 2.5 µM ADP; patient platelets were activated by 10 µM TRAP and by 20 µM and 5 µM ADP. Strong and significant correlations between the aggregation and flow cytometry parameters (the r correlation coefficient from 0.4 up to >0.6) most frequently were registered in HV platelet during activation by 1 µM TRAP and in SA patients during platelet activation by 20 µM and 5 µM ADP. However, in many other cases these correlations were rather weak (r < 0.3) and sometimes statistically insignificant. In HV the differences in PAC-1 binding parameters between platelets activated by 10 µM TRAP (the strongest agonist) and all ADP concentrations were negligible (≤ 10%), while CD62P binding (at all ADP concentrations) and LTA parameters for (5 µM and 2.5 µM ADP) were significantly lower (by 40-60%). Antiplatelet therapy in patients decreased all parameters as compared to HV, but to varying extents. For 10 µM TRAP the MFI index for PAC-1 binding (40-50% decrease) and for both ADP concentrations the Tmax values (60-85% decrease) appeared to be the most sensitive in comparison with the other parameters that decreased to a lesser extent. The data obtained indicate a possibility of inconsistency between different LTA and flow cytometry parameters in assessing platelet activity and efficacy of antiplatelet drugs.

New Score Models for Predicting Bleeding and Ischemic of Ticagrelor Therapy in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus.

PURPOSE: Ticagrelor is an antiplatelet drug, and its use increases the risk of bleeding. Coronary artery disease is significantly influenced by the widespread occurrence of diabetes mellitus. In order to decrease the incidence of clinical adverse events, a novel bleeding and thrombosis score is developed in this research. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patient data from two medical centers who were diagnosed with diabetes mellitus and treated with ticagrelor. We gathered information on every patient from the electronic database of the hospital and follow-up. The collected data were statistically analyzed to obtain risk factors for bleeding and ischemic events. RESULTS: A total of 851 patients with diabetes mellitus who have been administered ticagrelor are included in our investigation. A total of 76 patients have bleeding events and 80 patients have ischemic events. The analysis of multiple variables indicates that characteristics like the age of >65, having a previous occurrence of bleeding, experiencing anemia, using aspirin, and taking atorvastatin are linked to a higher likelihood of bleeding. Additionally, the age of >65, smoking, having a history of blood clots, and having a BMI ≥ 30 are found to increase the risk of ischemia. CONCLUSION: The A4B score established in this study was better than the HAS-BLED score，and the same is true for the ABST score to the CHA2DS-VASc score. This new risk assessment model can potentially detect patients who are at high risk for bleeding and ischemic events. For high-risk patients, the dose of ticagrelor can be adjusted appropriately or the medication can be adjusted.(2023-09-11, ChiCTR2300075627).

Incidence and pattern of urgent revascularization in acute coronary syndromes treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel.

BACKGROUND: The ISAR-REACT 5 trial compared the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with ACS managed invasively. The present study sought to investigate the impact of ticagrelor and prasugrel on the incidence and pattern of urgent revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS AND RESULTS: This post-hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included all ACS patients who underwent PCI. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the incidence of urgent revascularization at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcome was the pattern of urgent revascularization procedures (namely, urgent target vessel/non-target vessel revascularization - TVR/NTVR). Among 3,377 ACS patients who underwent PCI, 1,676 were assigned to ticagrelor and 1,701 to prasugrel before PCI. After 12 months, the incidence of urgent revascularization was higher among patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (6.8% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.75; p = 0.051), mostly attributable to significantly more urgent NTVR in the ticagrelor group (3.8% vs. 2.4%; HR = 1.62 [1.09-2.41]; p = 0.017). The risk of urgent TVR did not differ between treatment groups (3.3% vs. 3.0%; HR = 1.13 [0.77-1.65]; p = 0.546). CONCLUSIONS: In ACS patients treated with PCI, the cumulative rate of urgent revascularizations after 12 months is higher with ticagrelor compared to prasugrel, due to a significant increase in urgent revascularizations involving remote coronary vessels.

Ticagrelor alone versus ticagrelor plus aspirin from month 1 to month 12 after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ULTIMATE-DAPT): a randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Following percutaneous coronary intervention with stent placement to treat acute coronary syndromes, international clinical guidelines generally recommend dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin plus a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor for 12 months to prevent myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis. However, data on single antiplatelet therapy with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor earlier than 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with an acute coronary syndrome are scarce. The aim of this trial was to assess whether the use of ticagrelor alone, compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin, could reduce the incidence of clinically relevant bleeding events without an accompanying increase in major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (MACCE). METHODS: In this randomised, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trial, patients aged 18 years or older with an acute coronary syndrome who completed the IVUS-ACS study and who had no major ischaemic or bleeding events after 1-month treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy were randomly assigned to receive oral ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) plus oral aspirin (100 mg once daily) or oral ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) plus a matching oral placebo, beginning 1 month and ending at 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention (11 months in total). Recruitment took place at 58 centres in China, Italy, Pakistan, and the UK. Patients were required to remain event-free for 1 month on dual antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary drug-eluting stents. Randomisation was done using a web-based system, stratified by acute coronary syndrome type, diabetes, IVUS-ACS randomisation, and site, using dynamic minimisation. The primary superiority endpoint was clinically relevant bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [known as BARC] types 2, 3, or 5). The primary non-inferiority endpoint was MACCE (defined as the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, ischaemic stroke, definite stent thrombosis, or clinically driven target vessel revascularisation), with an expected event rate of 6·2% in the ticagrelor plus aspirin group and an absolute non-inferiority margin of 2·5 percentage points between 1 month and 12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention. The two co-primary endpoints were tested sequentially; the primary superiority endpoint had to be met for hypothesis testing of the MACCE outcome to proceed. All principal analyses were assessed in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03971500, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Sept 21, 2019, and Oct 27, 2022, 3400 (97·0%) of the 3505 participants in the IVUS-ACS study were randomly assigned (1700 patients to ticagrelor plus aspirin and 1700 patients to ticagrelor plus placebo). 12-month follow-up was completed by 3399 (>99·9%) patients. Between month 1 and month 12 after percutaneous coronary intervention, clinically relevant bleeding occurred in 35 patients (2·1%) in the ticagrelor plus placebo group and in 78 patients (4·6%) in the ticagrelor plus aspirin group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·45 [95% CI 0·30 to 0·66]; p<0·0001). MACCE occurred in 61 patients (3·6%) in the ticagrelor plus placebo group and in 63 patients (3·7%) in the ticagrelor plus aspirin group (absolute difference -0·1% [95% CI -1·4% to 1·2%]; HR 0·98 [95% CI 0·69 to 1·39]; pnon-inferiority<0·0001, psuperiority=0·89). INTERPRETATION: In patients with an acute coronary syndrome who had percutaneous coronary intervention with contemporary drug-eluting stents and remained event-free for 1 month on dual antiplatelet therapy, treatment with ticagrelor alone between month 1 and month 12 after the intervention resulted in a lower rate of clinically relevant bleeding and a similar rate of MACCE compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin. Along with the results from previous studies, these findings show that most patients in this population can benefit from superior clinical outcomes with aspirin discontinuation and maintenance on ticagrelor monotherapy after 1 month of dual antiplatelet therapy. FUNDING: The Chinese Society of Cardiology, the National Natural Scientific Foundation of China, and the Jiangsu Provincial & Nanjing Municipal Clinical Trial Project. TRANSLATION: For the Mandarin translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Acute Large-Vessel Ischemic Stroke: A Randomized Controlled Single-Blinded Trial.

BACKGROUND: Large-vessel ischemic stroke represents about 25-40% of all ischemic strokes. Few clinical trials compared ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in ischemic stroke patients; all these studies included only patients with a transient ischemic attack or minor stroke; moreover, none of these studies included patients from North Africa. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to compare ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in the first-ever large-vessel occlusion (LVO) acute ischemic stroke in Egypt. METHODS: Our trial involved 580 first-ever LVO ischemic stroke patients who were randomly assigned to administer loading and maintenance doses of ticagrelor or clopidogrel. Screening, randomization, and start of treatment occurred during the first 24 hours of the stroke. RESULTS: 580 patients were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Thirty patients in the ticagrelor group and 49 patients in the clopidogrel group experienced a new ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke at 90 days (hazard ratio [HR] 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.38-0.98; p-value = 0.04), 36 patients in the ticagrelor group, and 57 in the clopidogrel group experienced composite of a new stroke, myocardial infarction, or death due to vascular insults (HR 0.56; 95% CI 0.37-0.87; p = 0.009). Patients who received ticagrelor had better clinical outcomes regarding National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) reduction and a favorable modified Rankin scale (mRS) score. There were no differences between ticagrelor and clopidogrel regarding hemorrhagic and non-hemorrhagic complications. CONCLUSION: Patients with acute large-vessel ischemic stroke who received ticagrelor within the first 24 hours after ischemic stroke had better clinical outcomes based on recurrent stroke rates, NIHSS reduction, and favorable mRS rates compared with those who received clopidogrel. There were no differences between ticagrelor and clopidogrel regarding hemorrhagic and non-hemorrhagic complications. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials.gov (NCT06120725).

Limb Outcomes With Ticagrelor Plus Aspirin in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and Atherosclerosis.

BACKGROUND: Ticagrelor reduced major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and increased bleeding in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and coronary artery disease. Limb events including revascularization, acute limb ischemia (ALI), and amputation are major morbidities in patients with T2DM and atherosclerosis. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the effect of ticagrelor on limb events. METHODS: Patients were randomized to ticagrelor or placebo on top of aspirin and followed for a median of 3 years. MACE (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke), limb events (ALI, amputation, revascularization), and bleeding were adjudicated by an independent and blinded clinical events committee. The presence of peripheral artery disease (PAD) was reported at baseline. RESULTS: Of 19,220 patients randomized, 1,687 (8.8%) had PAD at baseline. In patients receiving placebo, PAD was associated with higher MACE (10.7% vs 7.3%; HR: 1.48; P < 0.001) and limb (9.5% vs 0.8%; HR: 10.67; P < 0.001) risk. Ticagrelor reduced limb events (1.6% vs 1.3%; HR: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.61-0.96; P = 0.022) with significant reductions for revascularization (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.62-0.99; P = 0.044) and ALI (HR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.08-0.70; P = 0.009). The benefit was consistent with or without PAD (HR: 0.80; 95% CI: 0.58-1.11; and HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.55-1.05, respectively; Pinteraction = 0.81). There was no effect modification of ticagrelor vs placebo based on PAD for MACE (Pinteraction = 0.40) or TIMI major bleeding (Pinteraction = 0.3239). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with T2DM and atherosclerosis are at high risk of limb events. Ticagrelor decreased this risk, but increased bleeding. Future trials evaluating the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin would further elucidate the benefit/risk of such therapy in patients with PAD, including those without coronary artery disease. (A Study Comparing Cardiovascular Effects of Ticagrelor Versus Placebo in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus [THEMIS]: NCT01991795).

Safety of Clopidogrel vs. Ticagrelor in Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Regimens for High-Bleeding Risk Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis of Adverse Outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Patients of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) at a high-bleeding risk (HBR) often require dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events. Clopidogrel and ticagrelor are the most commonly used antiplatelet agents in DAPT regimens. However, the safety profiles of these drugs in ACS patients at HBR remain a subject of ongoing debate. AIM: To investigate any difference between the safety of clopidogrel and ticagrelor used as a part of DAPT regimen in ACS patients at HBR. METHODS: A systematic search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify experimental and observational studies published up to the knowledge cutoff date in September 2023. Studies comparing the safety of clopidogrel and ticagrelor in ACS patients at HBR were included for analysis. The primary outcomes assessed were major bleeding events, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI), while secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), and net adverse clinical and cerebral events (NACCE). RESULTS: We included a total of 8 observational studies in our meta-analysis. The pooled analysis revealed a statistically significant increase in the risk of MI (pooled RR = 1.43; 95% CI 1.12-1.83; P = 0.005) in the patients using clopidogrel. There were no statistically significant differences in major bleeding events (pooled RR = 0.94; 95% CI 0.82-1.09; P = 0.44), stroke (pooled RR = 1.36; 95% CI 0.86-2.14; P = 0.18), all-cause mortality (pooled RR = 1.17; 95% CI 0.97-1.41; P = 0.10), MACCE (pooled RR = 1.07; 95% CI 0.76-1.50; P = 0.69) and NACCE (pooled RR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.66-1.37; P = 0.78) between the two groups. Subgroup analyses based on region were performed. CONCLUSION: Both drugs are generally safe for treating ACS patients with HBR at baseline, although a higher risk of MI was observed with the use of clopidogrel. Nevertheless, drug choice should factor in regional variations, patient-specific characteristics, cost, accessibility, and potential drug interactions.

Effectiveness of Clopidogrel vs Alternative P2Y12 Inhibitors Based on the ABCD-GENE Score.

BACKGROUND: An ABCD-GENE (age, body mass index, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and CYP2C19 genetic variants) score ≥10 predicts reduced clopidogrel effectiveness, but its association with response to alternative therapy remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the association between ABCD-GENE score and the effectiveness of clopidogrel vs alternative P2Y12 inhibitor (prasugrel or ticagrelor) therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: A total of 4,335 patients who underwent PCI, CYP2C19 genotyping, and P2Y12 inhibitor treatment were included. The primary outcome was major atherothrombotic events (MAE) within 1 year after PCI. Cox regression was performed to assess event risk in clopidogrel-treated (reference) vs alternatively treated patients, with stabilized inverse probability weights derived from exposure propensity scores after stratifying by ABCD-GENE score and further by CYP2C19 loss-of-function (LOF) genotype. RESULTS: Among patients with scores <10 (n = 3,200), MAE was not different with alternative therapy vs clopidogrel (weighted HR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.65-1.22; P = 0.475). The risk for MAE also did not significantly differ by treatment among patients with scores ≥10 (n = 1,135; weighted HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.51-1.11; P = 0.155). Among CYP2C19 LOF allele carriers, MAE risk appeared lower with alternative therapy in both the group with scores <10 (weighted HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.25-1.01; P = 0.052) and the group with scores ≥10 (weighted HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.29-0.80; P = 0.004), while there was no difference in the group with scores <10 and no LOF alleles (weighted HR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.70-1.51; P = 0.885). CONCLUSIONS: These data support the use of alternative therapy over clopidogrel in CYP2C19 LOF allele carriers after PCI, regardless of ABCD-GENE score, while clopidogrel is as effective as alternative therapy in non-LOF patients with scores <10.

Ticagrelor downregulates the expression of proatherogenic and proinflammatory miR125-b compared to clopidogrel: A randomized, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Platelet P2Y12 antagonist ticagrelor reduces cardiovascular mortality after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) compared to clopidogrel, but the underlying mechanism is unknown. Because activated platelets release proatherogenic and proinflammatory microRNAs, including miR-125a, miR-125b and miR-223, we hypothesized that the expression of these miRNAs is lower on ticagrelor, compared to clopidogrel. OBJECTIVES: We compared miR-125a, miR-125b and miR-223 expression in plasma of patients after AMI treated with ticagrelor or clopidogrel. METHODS: After percutaneous coronary intervention on acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel, 60 patients with first AMI were randomized to switch to ticagrelor or to continue with clopidogrel. Plasma expression of miR-223, miR-125a-5p, miR-125b was measured using quantitative polymerase chain reaction at baseline and after 72 h and 6 months of treatment with ticagrelor or clopidogrel in patients and one in 30 healthy volunteers. Multiple electrode aggregometry using ADP test was used to determine platelet reactivity in response to P2Y12 inhibitors. RESULTS: Expression of miR-125b was higher in patients with AMI 72 h and 6 months, compared to healthy volunteers (p = 0.001), whereas expression of miR-125a-5p and miR-223 were comparable. In patients randomized to ticagrelor, expression of miR-125b decreased at 72 h (p = 0.007) and increased back to baseline at 6 months (p = 0.005). Expression of miR-125a-5p and miR-223 was not affected by the switch from clopidogrel to ticagrelor. CONCLUSIONS: Ticagrelor treatment leads to lower plasma expression of miR-125b after AMI, compared to clopidogrel. Higher expression of miR-125b might explain recurrent thrombotic events and worse clinical outcomes in patients treated with clopidogrel, compared to ticagrelor.