Logo Logo
Help
Contact
Switch Language to German
Ndrepepa, Gjin; Kastrati, Adnan; Menichelli, Maurizio; Neumann, Franz-Josef; Woehrle, Jochen; Bernlochner, Isabell; Richardt, Gert; Witzenbichler, Bernhard; Sibbing, Dirk; Gewalt, Senta; Angiolillo, Dominick J.; Hamm, Christian W.; Hapfelmeier, Alexander; Trenk, Dietmar; Laugwitz, Karl-Ludwig; Schunkert, Heribert; Schuepke, Stefanie; Mayer, Katharina (2020): Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in PatientsWith Acute Coronary Syndromes and Diabetes Mellitus. In: Jacc-Cardiovascular Interventions, Vol. 13, No. 19: pp. 2238-2247
Full text not available from 'Open Access LMU'.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in whom invasive therapy was planned. Background: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS with DM undergoing invasive treatment remain unknown. METHODS This pre-specified analysis of the ISAR-REACT (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment) 5 trial included 892 patients with ACS with DM and 3,124 patients with ACS without DM randomized to prasugrel or ticagrelor. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke;the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding (both assessed 12 months after randomization). RESULTS The primary endpoint occurred in 51 patients (11.2%) in the ticagrelor group and 55 patients (13.0%) in the prasugrel group in the DM cohort (hazard ratio: 0.84;95% confidence interval: 0.58 to 1.24;p = 0.383) and in 132 patients (8.6%) in the ticagrelor group and 81 patients (5.2%) in the prasugrel group in the non-DM cohort (hazard ratio: 1.70;95% confidence interval: 1.29 to 2.24;p < 0.001). There was a significant treatment arm-by-diabetic status interaction (p(int) = 0.0035). Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 27 patients (6.9%) in the ticagrelor group and 19 patients (5.5%) in the prasugrel group (p = 0.425) in the DM cohort and in 68 patients (5.2%) in the ticagrelor group and 60 patients (4.6%) in the prasugrel group in the non-DM cohort (p = 0.500). CONCLUSIONS DM seems to affect the efficacy of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with ACS. In patients with DM, the efficacy of ticagrelor was comparable with that of prasugrel. (C) 2020 Published by Elsevier on behalf of the American College of Cardiology Foundation.