TY - JOUR
T1 - Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes and Diabetes Mellitus
AU - Ndrepepa, Gjin
AU - Kastrati, Adnan
AU - Menichelli, Maurizio
AU - Neumann, Franz Josef
AU - Wöhrle, Jochen
AU - Bernlochner, Isabell
AU - Richardt, Gert
AU - Witzenbichler, Bernhard
AU - Sibbing, Dirk
AU - Gewalt, Senta
AU - Angiolillo, Dominick J.
AU - Hamm, Christian W.
AU - Hapfelmeier, Alexander
AU - Trenk, Dietmar
AU - Laugwitz, Karl Ludwig
AU - Schunkert, Heribert
AU - Schüpke, Stefanie
AU - Mayer, Katharina
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020
PY - 2020/10/12
Y1 - 2020/10/12
N2 - Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in whom invasive therapy was planned. Background: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS with DM undergoing invasive treatment remain unknown. Methods: This pre-specified analysis of the ISAR-REACT (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment) 5 trial included 892 patients with ACS with DM and 3,124 patients with ACS without DM randomized to prasugrel or ticagrelor. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding (both assessed 12 months after randomization). Results: The primary endpoint occurred in 51 patients (11.2%) in the ticagrelor group and 55 patients (13.0%) in the prasugrel group in the DM cohort (hazard ratio: 0.84; 95% confidence interval: 0.58 to 1.24; p = 0.383) and in 132 patients (8.6%) in the ticagrelor group and 81 patients (5.2%) in the prasugrel group in the non-DM cohort (hazard ratio: 1.70; 95% confidence interval: 1.29 to 2.24; p < 0.001). There was a significant treatment arm–by–diabetic status interaction (pint = 0.0035). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 27 patients (6.9%) in the ticagrelor group and 19 patients (5.5%) in the prasugrel group (p = 0.425) in the DM cohort and in 68 patients (5.2%) in the ticagrelor group and 60 patients (4.6%) in the prasugrel group in the non-DM cohort (p = 0.500). Conclusions: DM seems to affect the efficacy of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with ACS. In patients with DM, the efficacy of ticagrelor was comparable with that of prasugrel.
AB - Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in whom invasive therapy was planned. Background: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS with DM undergoing invasive treatment remain unknown. Methods: This pre-specified analysis of the ISAR-REACT (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment) 5 trial included 892 patients with ACS with DM and 3,124 patients with ACS without DM randomized to prasugrel or ticagrelor. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding (both assessed 12 months after randomization). Results: The primary endpoint occurred in 51 patients (11.2%) in the ticagrelor group and 55 patients (13.0%) in the prasugrel group in the DM cohort (hazard ratio: 0.84; 95% confidence interval: 0.58 to 1.24; p = 0.383) and in 132 patients (8.6%) in the ticagrelor group and 81 patients (5.2%) in the prasugrel group in the non-DM cohort (hazard ratio: 1.70; 95% confidence interval: 1.29 to 2.24; p < 0.001). There was a significant treatment arm–by–diabetic status interaction (pint = 0.0035). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 27 patients (6.9%) in the ticagrelor group and 19 patients (5.5%) in the prasugrel group (p = 0.425) in the DM cohort and in 68 patients (5.2%) in the ticagrelor group and 60 patients (4.6%) in the prasugrel group in the non-DM cohort (p = 0.500). Conclusions: DM seems to affect the efficacy of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with ACS. In patients with DM, the efficacy of ticagrelor was comparable with that of prasugrel.
KW - acute coronary syndrome
KW - diabetes
KW - percutaneous coronary intervention
KW - prasugrel
KW - ticagrelor
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85091656457&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.07.032
DO - 10.1016/j.jcin.2020.07.032
M3 - Article
C2 - 33032712
AN - SCOPUS:85091656457
SN - 1936-8798
VL - 13
SP - 2238
EP - 2247
JO - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
JF - JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
IS - 19
ER -