Efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in smokers and nonsmokers with acute coronary syndromes

Abstract Background The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to smoking status in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) are not known. Purpose The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to smoking status in patients with ACS undergoing invasive evaluation. Methods This pre-specified analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included 1349 smokers and 2652 nonsmokers randomised to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the secondary endpoint was the incidence of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding. Both endpoints were assessed at 12 months after randomisation. Results There was no significant treatment arm-by-smoking status interaction regarding the efficacy outcome. The primary endpoint occurred in 47 patients (7.0%) in the ticagrelor group and 41 patients (6.2%) in the prasugrel group in smokers (hazard ratio [HR]=1.15; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76–1.75; P=0.510) and in 133 patients (10.2%) in the ticagrelor group and 94 patients (7.2%) in the prasugrel group in nonsmokers (HR=1.44 [1.10–1.87], P=0.007; Pint=0.378). The secondary endpoint occurred in 27 patients (4.6%) in the ticagrelor group and 33 patients (5.6%) in the prasugrel group in smokers (HR=0.81 [0.49–1.35]; P=0.412) and in 66 patients (6.0%) in the ticagrelor group and 46 patients (4.4%) in the prasugrel group in nonsmokers (HR=1.38 [0.94–2.01]; P=0.097). Conlusions Although there was no significant interaction between smoking and treatment effect, the present findings suggest a greater advantage of prasugrel over ticagrelor in nonsmoker vs. smoker patients with ACS. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): German Centre for Cardiovascular Research;Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Germany </jats:sec

Ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome in relation to glomerular filtration rate

Abstract Objectives The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus prasugrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) according to their glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Background The outcomes of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to GFR have not been defined. Methods Patients (n=3985) with GFR available were categorized in three groups according to the tertiles of GFR. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction and stroke at 1 year. Results The primary endpoint occurred significantly more often in patients with low GFR compared to high GFR as well as in patients with low GFR compared to intermediate GFR (picture 1). Patients in the lowest GFR group had significantly higher ischemic and bleeding risks than patients in the intermediate (hazard ratio [HR] 1.93 and 1.68) or high GFR groups (HR 3.52 and 2.96). In the group with low GFR, the primary endpoint occurred in 103 of 677 ticagrelor patients (15.4%) and in 72 of 652 prasugrel patients (11.2%; (HR=1.45, [1.07–1.96], p=.016, picture 2). In addition, each single component of the primary endpoint and stent thrombosis were numerically lower with prasugrel compared with ticagrelor. Occurrence of myocardial infarction was 3.7% with prasugrel compared to 6.6% with ticagrelor (p=0.019). BARC 3–5 bleeding events were similar with ticagrelor and prasugrel (8.8% versus 7.1%, p=0.278). In the intermediate and high GFR group the primary endpoint and bleeding events were similar between prasugrel and ticagrelor. Conclusions The incidence of a composite endpoint (all-cause death, myocardial infarction or stroke) occurred less frequently in patients who received prasugrel compared to patients who received ticagrelor in the low GFR population, whereas rate of bleeding events was similar. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: Foundation. Main funding source(s): Supported by a grant (FKZ 81X1600501) from the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and the Deutsches Herzzentrum München, Germany. Primary endpoint according to GFRLow GFR: Prasugrel versus Ticagrelor </jats:sec