ArticleInternational journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature2026
Comparison of efficacy and safety between TIcagrelor and clopidogrel in Chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome (COSTIC study).
Article in International journal of cardiology. Heart & vasculature, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Ticagrelor is recommended as the preferred antiplatelet agent for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), which is controversial in East Asians, Chinese patients in particular. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in Chinese ACS patients following coronary stenting. Methods: Between August 2014 and October 2020, COSTIC recruited 9,040 patients prescribed with ticagrelor or clopidogrel. Applying propensity score matching, ticagrelor was compared with clopidogrel for 1-year risks of the primary efficacy endpoint (a composite of cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction and stroke) and bleeding endpoint. Results: The risk of the primary efficacy endpoint was comparable between the two groups but numerically higher after clopidogrel at 6 months (HR, 1.33 [95 % CI, 0.98-1.80]; Conclusions: Among Chinese ACS patients with successful PCI, ticagrelor did not significantly reduce the risk of major ischemic events; instead, it was associated with a significant elevation bleeding risk.
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.