ArticleJAMA network open2024
Ticagrelor vs Prasugrel for Acute Coronary Syndrome in Routine Care.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Concordance between target trial emulation and randomised controlled trials: systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2026Pooled it
- Upward Air Temperature Shifts and Acute Cardiovascular Events in Individuals with Atherosclerotic Cardiovascular Disease: A Time-Stratified Case-Crossover Study.The Lancet regional health. Europe · 2026Article
- Optimal Duration of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention of the Left Main Coronary Artery: A Contemporary Narrative Review.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Review
- Antiplatelet Therapy in Stable Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- 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 · 2026Article
- Flow Diversion for Ruptured Tiny Internal Carotid Artery Aneurysm in Patient Allergic to Acetylsalicylic Acid: Case Report and Literature Review.Journal of neurological surgery reports · 2025Article
- Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Acute Coronary Syndrome: Real-World Treatment and Safety.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Prognosis modelling of adverse events for post-PCI treated AMI patients based on inflammation and nutrition indexes.BMC cardiovascular disorders · 2025Article
- Errors in the Results, Table 2, Figures 2 and 3, and Supplement 1.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Oral P2YEuropean cardiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
29 authors.
Funding
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
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.