SynthesisBMC pharmacology & toxicology2017
Head to head comparison of Prasugrel versus Ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Synthesis in BMC pharmacology & toxicology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor for Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cardiology · 2022Pooled it
- Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials.Cardiovascular drugs and therapy · 2021Pooled it
- Post percutaneous coronary interventional adverse cardiovascular outcomes and bleeding events observed with prasugrel versus clopidogrel: direct comparison through a meta-analysis.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2018Pooled it
- Prasugrel Outperforms Ticagrelor in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Real-World Analysis.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2026Observational
- Prognosis modelling of adverse events for post-PCI treated AMI patients based on inflammation and nutrition indexes.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Mechanisms and recent advances in non-coding RNAs and RNA modifications in antiplatelet drug resistance.Frontiers in genetics · 2025Review
- Assessing the Clinical Treatment Dynamics of Antiplatelet Therapy Following Acute Coronary Syndrome and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in the US.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Ideal P2Y12 Inhibitor in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Review and Current Status.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Real-World Bleeding and Ischemic Events in Asian Patients on P2Y12-Inhibitors After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A National Claims Data Analysis.Advances in therapy · 2021Article
- Aggregometry Response to Half-dose Prasugrel in Flow-diverting Stent Implantation.Clinical neuroradiology · 2020Article
- Antithrombotic therapy in coronary artery disease patients with atrial fibrillation.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2020Observational
- Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel for the Treatment of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Following Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diabetes therapy : research, treatment and education of diabetes and related disorders · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrasugrel and Ticagrelor are emerging antiplatelet drugs that might have the potential to replace currently used antiplatelet agents. Previous analyses comparing prasugrel with ticagrelor mainly focused on an indirect comparison whereas direct comparison was reported only in a few recently published trials. We aimed to systematically carry out a head to head comparison of the adverse clinical outcomes which were associated with prasugrel versus ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).
methodsStudies comparing prasugrel with ticagrelor (head to head comparison) were searched from online databases. Adverse cardiovascular outcomes were considered as the primary endpoints whereas bleeding outcomes were considered as the secondary endpoints in this analysis. The latest version of the RevMan software was used to carry out subgroup analyses whereby odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the calculated probability (P) were generated.
resultsFour studies with a total number of 563 patients (2012 - 2016) were included (282 patients were treated with prasugrel and 281 patients were treated with ticagrelor). Results of this analysis did not show any significant difference in mortality between prasugrel and ticagrelor with OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 0.42 - 5.45; P = 0.52. In addition, myocardial infarction, major adverse cardiac events, stroke and stent thrombosis were also not significantly different with OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.08 - 4.58; P = 0.62, OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.37 - 2.21; P = 0.83, OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.08 - 4.58; P = 0.62 and OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.08 - 4.58; P = 0.62 respectively. Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) defined minor bleeding, and minimal bleeding were also not significantly different between these two newer antiplatelet agents with OR: 3.11, 95% CI: 0.48 - 19.94; P = 0.23, and OR: 2.39, 95% CI: 0.35 - 16.42; P = 0.38 respectively. Moreover, bleeding defined by the academic research consortium was also similarly manifested with OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.39 - 2.13; P = 0.84.
conclusionIn patients with ACS, both prasugrel and ticagrelor showed similar adverse cardiovascular outcomes and bleeding events. No significant difference was observed between these two newer antiplatelet agents during this head to head comparison. However, upcoming trials with long term follow up periods might be expected to completely solve this important clinical issue.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.