Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in ACS

Prasugrel versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes

Citation: New Eng J Med (2007). Vol. 357, Issue 20,
p. 2001-2015.

Stephen D. Wiviott, M.D., Eugene Braunwald, M.D., Carolyn H. McCabe, B.S., Gilles Montalescot, M.D., Ph.D., Witold Ruzyllo, M.D., Shmuel Gottlieb, M.D., Franz-Joseph Neumann, M.D., Diego Ardissino, M.D., Stefano De Servi, M.D., Sabina A. Murphy, M.P.H., Jeffrey Riesmeyer, M.D., Govinda Weerakkody, Ph.D., C. Michael Gibson, M.D., Elliott M. Antman, M.D., for the TRITON–TIMI 38 Investigators

ABSTRACT:

Background Dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a thienopyridine is a cornerstone of treatment to prevent thrombotic complications of acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous coronary intervention.

Methods To compare prasugrel, a new thienopyridine, with clopidogrel, we randomly assigned 13,608 patients with moderate-to-high-risk acute coronary syndromes with scheduled percutaneous coronary intervention to receive prasugrel (a 60-mg loading dose and a 10-mg daily maintenance dose) or clopidogrel (a 300-mg loading dose and a 75-mg daily maintenance dose), for 6 to 15 months. The primary efficacy end point was death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The key safety end point was major bleeding.

Results The primary efficacy end point occurred in 12.1% of patients receiving clopidogrel and 9.9% of patients receiving prasugrel (hazard ratio for prasugrel vs. clopidogrel, 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.90; P<0.001). We also found significant reductions in the prasugrel group in the rates of myocardial infarction (9.7% for clopidogrel vs. 7.4% for prasugrel; P<0.001), urgent target-vessel revascularization (3.7% vs. 2.5%; P<0.001), and stent thrombosis (2.4% vs. 1.1%; P<0.001). Major bleeding was observed in 2.4% of patients receiving prasugrel and in 1.8% of patients receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.68; P=0.03). Also greater in the prasugrel group was the rate of life-threatening bleeding (1.4% vs. 0.9%; P=0.01), including nonfatal bleeding (1.1% vs. 0.9%; hazard ratio, 1.25; P=0.23) and fatal bleeding (0.4% vs. 0.1%; P=0.002).

Conclusion In patients with acute coronary syndromes with scheduled percutaneous coronary intervention, prasugrel therapy was associated with significantly reduced rates of ischemic events, including stent thrombosis, but with an increased risk of major bleeding, including fatal bleeding. Overall mortality did not differ significantly between treatment groups. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00097591.

The abstract can be viewed at:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/
357/20/2001
Access to the full article requires subscription.