Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39621344›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2024

Ticagrelor vs Prasugrel for Acute Coronary Syndrome in Routine Care.

Nils Krüger, Johannes Krefting, Thorsten Kessler, Raphael Schmieder, Fabian Starnecker, Alexander Dutsch, Christian Graesser, Ulrike Meyer-Lindemann, Theresa Storz, Irina Pugach and 19 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Clinical outcomes of drug-coated balloon vs. second-generation drug-eluting stent for coronary in-stent restenosis.Clinical research in cardiology : official journal of the German Cardiac Society · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Oral P2YEuropean cardiology · 2025
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

29 authors.

Nils KrügerDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Johannes KreftingDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Thorsten KesslerDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Raphael SchmiederDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Fabian StarneckerDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Alexander DutschDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Christian GraesserDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ulrike Meyer-LindemannDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Theresa StorzDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Irina PugachDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Christian FrießDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Zhifen ChenDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Dario BongiovanniDepartment of Internal Medicine I, Cardiology, University Hospital Augsburg, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.
Iulian ManeaSchool of Electronic Engineering and Computer Science, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom.
Tobias DreischulteInstitute of General Practice and Family Medicine, LMU University Hospital, LMU Munich, Munich, Germany.
Frank OffenbornAllgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Bayern, Munich, Germany.
Peter KraseAllgemeine Ortskrankenkasse Bayern, Munich, Germany.
Hendrik B SagerDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Jens WiebeDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Sebastian KufnerDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Erion XhepaDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Michael JonerDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Teresa TrenkwalderDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ulrich GueldenerDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Adnan KastratiDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Salvatore CasseseDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Heribert SchunkertDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
Moritz von ScheidtDepartment of Cardiology, German Heart Center Munich, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany.
DigiMed Bayern Consortium

Funding

British Heart Foundation
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: In patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing invasive treatment, ticagrelor and prasugrel are guideline-recommended P2Y12 receptor inhibitors. The ISAR-REACT5 randomized clinical trial demonstrated superiority for prasugrel, although concerns were raised about the generalizability of some underpowered subgroup analyses. Objectives: To emulate a randomized clinical trial evaluating the safety and effectiveness of ticagrelor vs prasugrel under the conditions of routine care in individuals with ACS planned to undergo an invasive treatment strategy. Design, Setting, and Participants: This new-user cohort study included secondary data from a German statutory health insurance claims database between January 2012 and December 2021, using 1:1 propensity score nearest-neighbor matching to emulate ISAR-REACT5. Individuals with ACS receiving either ticagrelor or prasugrel treatment after hospital discharge were followed up for 1 year. Eligibility criteria closely emulated those of ISAR-REACT5 and included age of 18 years or older and cardiovascular risk factors. Data were analyzed from May 2023 to May 2024. Exposure: Outpatient prescription of ticagrelor or prasugrel. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke within 1 year of outpatient treatment initiation. Secondary end points included individual components of the primary end point and stent thrombosis. The safety end point was major bleeding. A Cox proportional hazards regression model was fitted to the overall cohort. Results: Of 17 642 propensity score-matched individuals (mean [SD] age, 63.1 [10.9] years; 73.9% male), 8821 received ticagrelor and 8821 received prasugrel. Agreement was met in 11 of 12 predefined agreement metrics when comparing the results with ISAR-REACT5. The primary composite end point of all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke occurred in 815 individuals (9.2%) receiving ticagrelor and 663 (7.5%) receiving prasugrel (hazard ratio [HR], 1.24; 95% CI, 1.12-1.37). Myocardial infarction (HR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.06-1.36) and stroke (HR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.02-1.74) each occurred significantly more often in the ticagrelor group. Analysis of all-cause mortality (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.99-1.64), stent thrombosis (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.89-1.30), and major bleeding (HR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.96-1.32) revealed no significant differences between treatment groups. Subgroup analysis showed that prasugrel was associated with the primary composite end point in fewer individuals with ST-segment elevation MI (338 of 4941 [6.8%] vs 451 of 4852 [9.3%]). Conclusions and Relevance: This cohort study found that prasugrel was associated with lower rates of all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke compared with ticagrelor in individuals with ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy in routine care, particularly in individuals with ST-segment elevation MI. The findings suggest that carefully designed database studies can complement and extend findings from randomized clinical trials, informing guidelines and clinical decision-making.

Indexed as

Acute Coronary SyndromePrasugrel HydrochlorideTicagrelorAgedCohort StudiesFemaleGermanyHemorrhageHumansMaleMiddle AgedMyocardial InfarctionPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsPropensity ScoreStrokePlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsPrasugrel HydrochlorideTicagrelor

Identifiers

PMID39621344
PMCPMC11612834

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.