Advertisement

Associations between use of prasugrel vs clopidogrel and outcomes by type of acute coronary syndrome: an analysis from the PROMETHEUS registry

  • Zhen Ge
  • Usman Baber
  • Bimmer E. Claessen
  • Jaya Chandrasekhar
  • Rishi Chandiramani
  • Shawn X. Li
  • Samantha Sartori
  • Annapoorna S. Kini
  • Sunil V. Rao
  • Sandra Weiss
  • Timothy D. Henry
  • Samir Kapadia
  • Brent Muhlestein
  • Craig Strauss
  • Catalin Toma
  • Anthony DeFranco
  • Mark B. Effron
  • Stuart Keller
  • Brian A. Baker
  • Stuart Pocock
  • George Dangas
  • Roxana MehranEmail author
Article
  • 36 Downloads

Abstract

We sought to investigate the utilization of prasugrel and its association with outcomes relative to clopidogrel in three typical subgroups of ACS in a real-world setting. Prasugrel is superior to clopidogrel for reducing risk of ischemic events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but is associated with an increased risk of bleeding complications. PROMETHEUS was a retrospective multicenter observational study of 19,913 ACS patients undergoing PCI from 8 centers in the United States between 2010 and 2013. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned revascularization. The study cohort included 3285 (16.5%) patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 5412 (27.2%) patients with NSTEMI and 11,216 (56.3%) patients with unstable angina (UA). The frequency of prasugrel use at discharge was highest in STEMI and lowest in UA patients, 27.3% versus 22.2% versus 18.9% (p < 0.001). Use of prasugrel vs clopidogrel was associated with a lower rate of MACE in STEMI, NSTEMI, or UA at 1 year, but the differences were attenuated for all groups except for patients with UA (adjusted HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69–0.94, p = 0.006) after propensity adjusted analysis. After adjustment, there was no difference in bleeding risk between prasugrel and clopidogrel for all groups at 1 year. STEMI patients were more likely to receive prasugrel compared to NSTEMI and UA patients. Prasugrel was associated with reduced adverse outcomes compared with clopidogrel in unadjusted analyses, findings that were largely attenuated upon adjustment and suggest preferential use of prasugrel in low vs high risk patients.

Keywords

Acute coronary syndrome Percutaneous coronary intervention Prasugrel Clopidogrel 

Notes

Funding

The PROMETHEUS study was sponsored and funded by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. and Eli Lilly and Company.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflicts of interest

We have the following financial disclosures to report: Dr. Mehran has received institutional grant support from The Medicines Company, Bristol-Myers Squibb/Sanofi, and Eli Lilly and Company/Daiichi Sankyo; and is a consultant to Abbott Vascular, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, Covidien, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Regado Biosciences, Maya Medical, Merck & Co., and The Medicines Company. Dr. Kini serves on the speaker’s bureau of the ACC and has received consulting fees from WebMD. Dr. Henry has received research grant support from Eli Lilly and company, and Daiichi Sankyo. Mr. Keller is employed by Eli Lilly and Company and Dr. Effron is a shareholder and retiree of Eli Lilly and Company. Dr. Baker is employed by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. All other authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

11239_2019_1842_MOESM1_ESM.tiff (10.1 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 10374 KB)
11239_2019_1842_MOESM2_ESM.docx (55 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 54 KB)
11239_2019_1842_MOESM3_ESM.docx (28 kb)
Supplementary material 3 (DOCX 28 KB)
11239_2019_1842_MOESM4_ESM.docx (27 kb)
Supplementary material 4 (DOCX 26 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH et al (2007) Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 357:2001–2015CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    De Servi S, Goedicke J, Schirmer A, Widimsky P (2014) Clinical outcomes for prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: an analysis from the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 3:363–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Montalescot G, Wiviott SD, Braunwald E et al (2009) Prasugrel compared with clopidogrel in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (TRITON-TIMI 38): double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 373:723–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Federspiel JJ, Anstrom KJ, Xian Y et al (2016) Comparing inverse probability of treatment weighting and instrumental variable methods for the evaluation of adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitors after percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA Cardiol 1:655–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zeymer U, Hochadel M, Lauer B et al (2015) Use, efficacy and safety of prasugrel in patients with ST segment elevation myocardial infarction scheduled for primary percutaneous coronary intervention in clinical practice. Results of the prospective ATACS-registry. Int J Cardiol 184:122–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bacquelin R, Oger E, Filippi E et al (2016) Safety of prasugrel in real-world patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: 1-year results from a prospective observational study (Bleeding and Myocardial Infarction Study). Arch Cardiovasc Dis 109:31–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lattuca B, Fabbro-Peray P, Leclercq F et al (2016) One-year incidence and clinical impact of bleeding events in patients treated with prasugrel or clopidogrel after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Arch Cardiovasc Dis 109:337–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Baber U, Sartori S, Aquino M et al (2017) Use of prasugrel vs clopidogrel and outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in contemporary clinical practice: Results from the PROMETHEUS study. Am Heart J 188:73–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kushner FG, Hand M, Smith SC Jr et al (2009) 2009 focused updates: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (updating the 2004 guideline and 2007 focused update) and ACC/AHA/SCAI guidelines on percutaneous coronary intervention (updating the 2005 guideline and 2007 focused update): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 120:2271–2306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anderson JL, Adams CD, Antman EM, /Non ST-Elevation (2007) et al. ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina. Myocardial Infarction): developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons: endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Circulation 116:e148–e304Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS et al (2012) Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. Circulation 126:2020–2035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R et al (2007) Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation 115:2344–2351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khayata M, Gabra JN, Nasser MF, Litman GI, Bhakta S, Raina R (2017) Comparison of clopidogrel with prasugrel and ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome: clinical outcomes from the national cardiovascular database ACTION registry. Cardiol Res 8:105–110CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hirsch A, Verouden NJ, Koch KT et al (2009) Comparison of long-term mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients treated for acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction versus those with unstable and stable angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol 104:333–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Polonski L, Gasior M, Gierlotka M et al (2011) A comparison of ST elevation versus non-ST elevation myocardial infarction outcomes in a large registry database: are non-ST myocardial infarctions associated with worse long-term prognoses? Int J Cardiol 152:70–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rafique AM, Nayyar P, Wang TY et al (2016) Optimal P2Y12 inhibitor in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a network meta-analysis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 9:1036–1046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A et al (2009) Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 361:1045–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kim K, Lee TA, Touchette DR, DiDomenico RJ, Ardati AK, Walton SM (2017) Contemporary trends in oral antiplatelet agent use in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 23:57–63Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Karve AM, Seth M, Sharma M et al (2015) Contemporary use of ticagrelor in interventional practice (from blue cross blue shield of Michigan cardiovascular consortium). Am J Cardiol 115:1502–1506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sherwood MW, Wiviott SD, Peng SA et al. Early clopidogrel versus prasugrel use among contemporary STEMI and NSTEMI patients in the US: insights from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. J Am Heart Assoc. 2014;3: e000849Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Roe MT, Armstrong PW, Fox KA et al (2012) Prasugrel versus clopidogrel for acute coronary syndromes without revascularization. N Engl J Med 367:1297–1309CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhen Ge
    • 1
    • 2
  • Usman Baber
    • 1
  • Bimmer E. Claessen
    • 1
  • Jaya Chandrasekhar
    • 1
  • Rishi Chandiramani
    • 1
  • Shawn X. Li
    • 3
  • Samantha Sartori
    • 1
  • Annapoorna S. Kini
    • 4
  • Sunil V. Rao
    • 5
  • Sandra Weiss
    • 6
  • Timothy D. Henry
    • 7
  • Samir Kapadia
    • 8
  • Brent Muhlestein
    • 9
  • Craig Strauss
    • 10
  • Catalin Toma
    • 11
  • Anthony DeFranco
    • 12
  • Mark B. Effron
    • 13
    • 14
  • Stuart Keller
    • 13
  • Brian A. Baker
    • 15
  • Stuart Pocock
    • 16
  • George Dangas
    • 1
  • Roxana Mehran
    • 17
    Email author
  1. 1.Icahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Division of Cardiology, Nanjing First HospitalNanjing Medical UniversityNanjingChina
  3. 3.Geisel School of Medicine DartmouthLebanonUSA
  4. 4.Mount Sinai HospitalNew YorkUSA
  5. 5.The Duke Clinical Research InstituteDurhamUSA
  6. 6.Christiana Care Health SystemNewarkUSA
  7. 7.Cedars-Sinai Heart InstituteLos AngelesUSA
  8. 8.Cleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  9. 9.Intermountain Heart InstituteSalt-Lake cityUSA
  10. 10.Minneapolis Heart InstituteMinneapolisUSA
  11. 11.University of Pittsburgh Medical CenterPittsburghUSA
  12. 12.Aurora Cardiovascular ServicesMilwaukeeUSA
  13. 13.Eli Lilly and CompanyIndianapolisUSA
  14. 14.Ochsner Medical CenterJohn Ochsner Heart and Vascular InstituteNew OrleansUSA
  15. 15.Daiichi Sankyo, Inc.Basking RidgeUSA
  16. 16.London School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineLondonUK
  17. 17.The Zena and Michael A. Wiener Cardiovascular InstituteThe Icahn School of Medicine at Mount SinaiNew YorkUSA

Personalised recommendations