ArticleEuropean heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy2025
Comparative effectiveness and safety of dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in older adults with acute coronary syndrome: a target trial emulation study.
Article in European heart journal. Cardiovascular pharmacotherapy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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.
Funding
Abstract
aimsThere is conflicting trial evidence on the comparative effects of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in older patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). We aimed to assess the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and major bleeding in ACS patients ≥75 years initiating ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel treatment. METHODS AND
resultsWe used healthcare data from the Stockholm region (2011-2021) to emulate a hypothetical target trial comparing ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel. MACE was defined as a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Patients were followed for 12 months. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to adjust for 46 baseline confounders. We used weighted Cox proportional hazards regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and the weighted Aalen-Johansen estimator to estimate absolute risks (AR).Among 4637 older patients [median age, 81 years (IQR, 77-85)], 49% initiated DAPT with ticagrelor and 51% with clopidogrel. After weighting, all confounders were balanced. Ticagrelor was associated with a lower one-year MACE risk than clopidogrel (11.1% vs. 14.9%), corresponding to an AR difference of -3.8% (95%CI, -6.8, -0.8). The HR for ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel was 0.73 (95%CI, 0.56-0.95). There was no difference in the risk of major bleeding with one-year absolute risks of 4.3% with ticagrelor vs. 4.8% with clopidogrel, and a HR of 0.89 (95%CI, 0.63-1.27).
conclusionIn ACS patients aged ≥75 years, ticagrelor was associated with a lower risk of MACE than clopidogrel. There were no differences in major bleeding, although the confidence interval was wide.
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.