ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2025
Effectiveness of clopidogrel vs. ticagrelor based on the ABCD-GENE score in acute coronary syndrome patients following percutaneous coronary intervention.
Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study employs the ABCD-GENE score (age, body mass index, chronic kidney disease, diabetes, and CYP2C19 variants) to compare the effectiveness and safety of clopidogrel versus ticagrelor-based DAPT in ACS patients post-PCI. Methods: A total of consecutive 21,705 ACS patients who underwent PCI between March 2016 and March 2023 and survived at discharge were included. The primary outcome was a composite of ischemic and bleeding events within 12 months, including cardiac death, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and BARC types 3 or 5 bleeding. Propensity score matching was performed to balance baseline characteristics between clopidogrel and ticagrelor-based DAPT. Results: In the ABCD-GENE score <10 group, (4,748 matched pairs), ticagrelor increased BARC 3 or 5 bleeding (1.9% vs. 1.1%; HR: 1.52; 95% CI, 1.18-1.96; P = 0.0018), with no difference in the primary outcome (3.0% vs 3.5%; HR: 1.17; 95% CI: 0.94-1.46; P = 0.17) or ischemic events (2.0% vs 1.6%; HR: 0.82; 95% CI: 0.60-1.10; P = 0.19), compared with clopidogrel. In the ABCD-GENE score ≥10 group (1,231 matched pairs), ticagrelor significantly reduced the primary outcome (4.1% vs 6.0%; HR: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.47-0.96; P = 0.0272), driven by reduced rates of ischemic events (2.2% vs 4.5%; HR: 0.57; 95% CI: 0.38-0.85; P = 0.0015), without an increase in BARC 3 or 5 bleeding (1.9% vs. 1.7%; HR: 1.08; 95% CI, 0.60-1.96; P = 0.79), compared with clopidogrel. Conclusion: The ABCD-GENE score showed good predictive accuracy for a composite of ischemic and bleeding events and could identify patients likely to benefit from the ticagrelor-based antiplatelet strategy.
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.