Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29233189›Full record

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.

Pravesh Kumar Bundhun, Jia-Xin Shi, Feng Huang

Abstract readComparative StudyMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Ideal P2Y12 Inhibitor in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Review and Current Status.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Pravesh Kumar BundhunInstitute of Cardiovascular Diseases, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, 530027, People's Republic of China.
Jia-Xin ShiInstitute of Cardiovascular Diseases, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, 530027, People's Republic of China.
Feng HuangInstitute of Cardiovascular Diseases and Guangxi Key Laboratory Base of Precision Medicine in Cardio-cerebrovascular Diseases Control and Prevention, the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, Guangxi, 530021, People's Republic of China. huangfeng7925@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3269-7530

Funding

Guangxi Natural Science Foundation 2016GXNSFAA380002Lisheng Health Foundation pilotage fund of Peking LHJJ20158126National Natural Science Foundation of China 81560046Science Research and Technology Development Project of Qingxiu District of Nanning 2016058Scientific Project of Guangxi Higher Education KY2015ZD028
6 · The paper itself

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

Acute Coronary SyndromeAdenosineHumansPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsPrasugrel HydrochloridePurinergic P2Y Receptor AntagonistsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTicagrelorAdenosinePlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsPrasugrel HydrochloridePurinergic P2Y Receptor AntagonistsTicagrelorAcute coronary syndromeAnti-plateletsClinical outcomesMeta-analysisPrasugrelTicagrelor

Identifiers

PMID29233189
PMCPMC5727970

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.