Ticagrelor Compared to Clopidogrel in Acute Coronary Syndromes

Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) is most often caused by erosion or rupture of an atherosclerotic plaque associated with inflammation, thrombus formation, vasoconstriction, and microembolisation. In unremitting circumstances, thrombosis at the site of plaque rupture or erosion leads to complete compromise of coronary blood flow and ultimately myocardial infarction (MI). Platelet adhesion, activation and aggregation, therefore, play key roles in the transformation of a stable atherosclerotic plaque to an unstable lesion and antiplatelet drugs have become a mainstay in the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events.

A large multicenter RCT (PLATO) showed a statistically significant decrease in composite CV outcomes with the newer ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel. This has prompted both European and Canadian guideline writers to endorse ticagrelor/aspirin as the DAPT of choice. However residual uncertainties regarding the choice of DAPT are highlighted by the PLATO subgroup analysis that showed an increased risk with ticagrelor in North America (NA) patients. This led to delayed FDA approval, dissenting FDA reviews and a reluctance in US guidelines to recommend the ticagrelor DAPT regime over others.

The main area of uncertainty, at least from the NA perspective, hinges on the small number of NA patients randomized in the PLATO trial and their increased risk with ticagrelor (n=1814, HR 1.25; 95% CI 0.93 - 1.67). The risk in NA patients was statistically significantly different from the benefit seen in the other subgroups (P=0.04) and the crux of the debate is then whether to believe the subgroup analysis or the combined study results (n=18624, HR, 0.84; 95% CI 0.77 to 0.92). The complete study provides maximal information but perhaps at a cost of being less representative of what to expect in NA practice. Conventional statistical paradigms would say that given the pre-specified nature of the geographic subgroup analysis and given the statistically significant interaction observed, one should concentrate on the subgroup results and not the combined results.

The conventional statistical model used in the PLATO analysis subsumes that every patient, regardless of differences in recruitment characteristics or ancillary treatment strategies received in the different regions, is completely identical in their response to the studied intervention. It seems highly unlikely that patients from the 43 PLATO enrolling countries are truly identical in their drug response given recruitment, genetic and background treatment variations.

This project will resolve these uncertainties and address the crucial clinical question of which DAPT regime is best after an ACS? This proposal will double the currently available evidence with a novel research design using inexpensive, electronic data and will provide a feasible answer to this important clinical question.

More information can be found here:

https://brophyj.github.io/index.html

Inclusion criteria

• Patients that are prescribed a dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) regimen following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) event.
• ACS, with or without ST-segment elevation.
• STEMI and NSTEMI positive biomarkers and appropriate ECG changes will be required.
• NSTEMI patients with negative biomarkers are generally considered as unstable angina and will also be eligible for study inclusion if their treating physician has determined that DAPT is appropriate.
• Patients provided written informed consent.

Exclusion criteria

• A decision from the patients attending physician to circumvent randomization and assign the patient a specific dual-antiplatelet therapy regimen.
• A contraindication to clopidogrel or ticagrelor
• Patients diagnosed with chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention (CTO PCI)