Acute coronary syndromes are common situations in medical practice, with high morbidity and mortality. Consequent to its relevance, its clinical management has always been subject of discussion and controversy. Since the past decade, the dual antiplatelet regimen has been the main therapeutic option used in its passivation, whereas percutaneous interventions have become the most common therapeutic option. Clopidogrel, the drug initially used in combination with aspirin, is effective and safe; however, it has disadvantages that led to the development of a new generation of more efficient antiplatelet drugs, such as prasugrel and ticagrelor. In large comparative clinical trials, these two drugs proved superior to clopidogrel in reducing major combined cardiac events. Hence the main guidelines currently support the two new agents, which are considered first-line drugs. Due to the clear differences between the protocols of clinical trials corroborating their inclusion in clinical practice, it is not possible to make direct comparison without the risk of generating hasty impressions. More recently, a large prospective, randomized clinical trial provided an appropriate head-to-head comparison between prasugrel and ticagrelor in cases of acute coronary disease, in a population submitted to invasive treatment. The study demonstrated a significant advantage of prasugrel. In this review, we discuss the primary details of these more contemporary drugs and the most relevant clinical trials related to them, identifying the advantages and disadvantages of each agent. At the end, we state our view on their current prescription.
Informed consent for clinical trials in acute coronary syndromes and stroke following the European Clinical Trials Directive: investigators' experiences and attitudes
