Ticagrelor Monotherapy After 3-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndrome by High Bleeding Risk: The Subanalysis From the TICO Trial

2022 ◽  
Vol 52 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yong-Joon Lee ◽  
Yongsung Suh ◽  
Jung-Sun Kim ◽  
Yun-Hyeong Cho ◽  
Kyeong Ho Yun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Dual Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
High Bleeding Risk

P672Ischemic and bleeding risk after an acute coronary syndrome in patients with prior history of cancer treated with dual antiplatelet therapy

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
I Munoz Pousa ◽  
S Raposeiras Roubin ◽  
E Abu-Assi ◽  
S Manzano Fernandez ◽  
F D'Ascenzo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Dual Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Prior History ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
History Of ◽  
History Of Cancer

Abstract Introduction Very few patients with history of cancer are included in clinical trials. With this study from real-life patients, we try to analyze the ischemic and bleeding risk of patients with history of cancer who were treated with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods The data analyzed in this study were obtained from the fusion of 3 clinical registries of ACS patients: BleeMACS (2004–2013), CardioCHUVI/ARRITXACA (2010–2016) and RENAMI (2013–2016). All 3 registries include consecutive patients discharged after an ACS with DAPT and undergoing PCI. The merged data set contain 26,076 patients. A propensity-matched analysis was performed to match the baseline characteristics of patients with and without previous history of recent cancer. The impact of prior cancer in the ischemic and bleeding risk was assessed by a competitive risk analysis, using a Fine and Gray regression model, with death being the competitive event. For ischemic risk we have considered a new acute myocardial infarction (AMI), whereas for bleeding risk we have considered major bleeding (MB) defined as bleeding requiring hospital admission. All events occurred with DAPT, as follow-up time was censored by DAPT suspension/withdrawal. Results From the 26,076 ACS patients, 1,661 have prior history of cancer (6.4%). Patients with cancer were older, and with more cardiovascular risk factors. DAPT with prasugrel/ticagrelor was less frequently prescribed in patients with cancer in comparison with the rest of the population (14.5% vs 22.4%, p<0.001). During a mean follow-up of 12.2±4.8 months, 964 patients died (3.7%), and 640 AMI (2.5%) and 685 MB (2.6%) were reported. The unadjusted cumulative incidences of AMI and MB were higher in patients with prior cancer (5.1 and 5.2 per 100 patients/year, respectively) than in those with prior cancer (2.4 and 2.6 per 100 patients/year, respectively). After propensity-score matching, we obtained two matched groups of 1,656 patients. Patients with prior cancer showed a significant higher risk of AMI (sHR 1.44, 95% CI 1.01–2.04, p=0.044), but not higher risk of MB (sHR 1.21, 95% CI 0.88–1.68, p=0.248), in comparison with those without prior cancer. Conclusions In ACS patients discharged with DAPT after PCI, prior history of cancer is an independent factor of higher ischemic risk – in terms of AMI, but it is not an independent predictor of increased hemorrhagic risk.

scholarly journals A cost-effectiveness and safety analysis of dual antiplatelet therapy comparing aspirin–clopidogrel to aspirin–ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 262-70
Author(s):  
Nafrialdi Nafrialdi ◽  
Novita M. Handini ◽  
Instiaty Instiaty ◽  
Ika P. Wijaya
Keyword(s):  
Acute Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Cost Effectiveness ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Major Bleeding ◽  
Dual Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Major Adverse Cardiovascular Events ◽  
Minor Bleeding ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) using either an aspirin–clopidogrel (A–C) combination or aspirin–ticagrelor (A–T) combination has become the standard therapy for acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Ticagrelor shows better pharmacokinetic profiles but is more expensive. This study aimed to compare cost-effectiveness and safety profiles of A–C versus A–T in patients with ACS.Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of ACS patient at the Cipto Mangunkusumo Hospital between 2014 and 2016. ACS patients treated for the first time with A–T or A–C were included. Occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) within 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were used as effectiveness outcomes, while safety outcomes were measured based on the incidence of adverse drug reactions (major and minor bleeding, dyspnea, and hyperuricemia). Cost-effectiveness analysis was presented as incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER).Results: Data records obtained from 123 ACS patients treated with A–C and 57 ACS patients treated with A–T were evaluated. Within the first three months, the MACE rate was 15.8% in the A–T group and 31.7% in the A–C group (RR: 0.498, 95% CI: 0.259–0.957, p=0.039). There was no statistically significant difference observed in the number of MACE between groups after 6, 9, and 12 months. The A–T group had a higher incidence of major bleeding (melena) than the A–C group (5.3% vs 1.62%, p=0.681), especially in geriatric patients. Minor bleeding was observed in three patients of the A–C group, but in none of the patients in the A–T group. The cost of ICER was IDR 279,438, indicating the additional cost needed for avoiding MACE within 3 months, if A–T was used.Conclusion: The aspirin–ticagrelor combination is a clinically superior and cost-effective option for MACE prevention among ACS patients, especially during the first three months of DAPT, with a slight but not significantly higher major bleeding risk when compared to the aspirin–clopidogrel combination.

scholarly journals Ischemic and bleeding risk stratification in diabetic patients after acute coronary syndrome based on insulin requirement

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
I Cavallari ◽  
E Sagazio ◽  
E Antonucci ◽  
P Calabro' ◽  
F Gragnano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Insulin Therapy ◽  
Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Clinical Benefit ◽  
Dual Antiplatelet Therapy ◽  
Bleeding Risk ◽  
Diabetic Patients ◽  
Coronary Syndrome ◽  
Diabetes Status ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Net Clinical Benefit

Abstract Background Diabetes is a known risk factor for a first or recurrent cardiovascular event, however, its association with an increased risk of bleeding is controversial. To date, no study has explored the prognostic weight of insulin therapy in the setting of ACS. Purpose To investigate the differential role of insulin versus no insulin therapy on ischemic and bleeding risks in patients with diabetes and ACS. Methods START-ANTIPLATELET is a prospective, real-world multicenter registry including consecutive patients admitted for ACS. For the purpose of this analysis, patients were stratified according to diabetes status and insulin therapy. We compared 1-year rates of major adverse cardiovascular events, a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction and stroke, and of any bleeding, according to diabetes status (no diabetes, diabetes not on insulin therapy, diabetes on insulin therapy). In addition, we evaluated the net clinical benefit of dual antiplatelet therapy with the newer P2Y12 inhibitors (ticagrelor or prasugrel) vs dual antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel according to diabetes status. Results In an overall population of 907 patients, 198 had diabetes, 10.6% of whom were on insulin. From non-diabetic patients to diabetic patients not on insulin and diabetic patients on insulin there was a stepwise decrease of MACE-free survival (log-rank p 0.039) with incidence of events at 1 year being 3.8%, 6.8% (adjusted p vs no diabetes 0.49) and 12.5% (adjusted p vs no diabetes 0.047), respectively (Figure, panel A). The rates of any bleeding were higher in patients on insulin (20.8% vs 8.8% in those without diabetes and 5.8% in diabetic patients not receiving insulin; log-rank p 0.028; Figure, panel B). Multivariable analysis demonstrated an almost 5-fold increase of any bleeding in diabetic patients with vs without insulin (OR 4.98, 95% CI 1.46–16.92; p=0.010). In the overall population, the incidence of the net composite endpoint including MACE or major bleeding with the use of ticagrelor/prasugrel on top of aspirin was significantly lower compared to use of clopidogrel (4.7% vs 8.4%; OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.30–0.94, p=0.031). This net clinical benefit in patients receiving a newer P2Y12 inhibitor was regardless of the diabetes status (p for interaction 0.48). Conclusions In this cohort of ACS patients, the presence of diabetes stratified by insulin therapy was associated with a graded increase in the 1-year rates of MACE. Conversely, insulin therapy significantly contributed to the overall increase of bleeding risk in diabetes. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document