SynthesisCardiology2022
Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor for Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Cardiology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prasugrel: Reassessing Its Role in Contemporary Antiplatelet Therapy.Cardiovascular therapeutics · 2026Review
- Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Acute Coronary Syndrome: Real-World Treatment and Safety.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Potent P2YCJC open · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThere have been inconsistent data on the direct comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor. This meta-analysis was conducted to summarize the current available evidence.
methodsWe performed a meta-analysis (PROSPERO-registered CRD42020166810) of randomized trials up to February 2020 that compared prasugrel and ticagrelor in acute coronary syndrome with respect to the composite endpoint of myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or cardiovascular death and secondary endpoints including MI, stroke, cardiovascular death, major bleeding (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2 or above), stent thrombosis, all-cause death, and other safety outcomes.
resultsOf the 11 eligible RCTs with 6,098 patients randomized to prasugrel (n = 3,050) or ticagrelor (n = 3,048), 180 and 207 had the composite endpoint events in the prasugrel arm and the ticagrelor arm, respectively, over a weighted mean follow-up period of 11 ± 2 months. Compared with prasugrel, the ticagrelor group had similar risk in the primary composite endpoint (risk ratio [RR] = 1.17; 95% CI = 0.96-1.42; p = 0.12, I2 = 0%). Compared to prasugrel, there was no significant difference associated with the ticagrelor groups with respect to stroke (RR = 1.05; 95% CI = 0.66-1.67; p = 0.84, I2 = 0%), cardiovascular death (RR = 1.01; 95% CI = 0.75-1.36; p = 0.95, I2 = 0%), BARC type 2 or above bleeding (RR = 1.16; 95% CI = 0.89-1.52; p = 0.26, I2 = 0%), stent thrombosis (RR = 1.58; 95% CI = 0.90-2.76; p = 0.11, I2 = 0%), and all-cause death (RR = 1.10; 95% CI = 0.86-1.43; p = 0.45, I2 = 0%) except MI (RR = 1.38; 95% CI = 1.05-1.81; p = 0.02, I2 = 0%) Conclusion: Compared with prasugrel, ticagrelor did not reduce the primary composite endpoint of MI, stroke, and cardiovascular death at a weighted mean follow-up of 11 months. There was no significant difference between the secondary outcomes except MI.
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.