Search

Background: Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) reduce gastrointestinal bleeding events but may alter clopidogrel metabolism. We sought to understand the comparative effectiveness and safety of prasugrel versus clopidogrel in the context of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use., Methods and Results: Using data on 11 955 acute myocardial infarction (MI) patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention at 233 hospitals and enrolled in the TRANSLATE-ACS study, we compared whether discharge PPI use altered the association of 1-year adjusted risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; death, MI, stroke, or unplanned revascularization) and Global Use of Strategies To Open Occluded Arteries (GUSTO) moderate/severe bleeding between prasugrel- and clopidogrel-treated patients. Overall, 17% of prasugrel-treated and 19% of clopidogrel-treated patients received a PPI at hospital discharge. At 1 year, patients discharged on a PPI versus no PPI had higher risks of MACE (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 1.38, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-1.58) and GUSTO moderate/severe bleeding (adjusted HR 1.55, 95% CI 1.15-2.09). Risk of MACE was similar between prasugrel and clopidogrel regardless of PPI use (adjusted HR 0.88, 95% CI 0.62-1.26 with PPI, adjusted HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90-1.28 without PPI, interaction P=0.31). Comparative bleeding risk associated with prasugrel versus clopidogrel use differed based on PPI use but did not reach statistical significance (adjusted HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.36-1.48 with PPI, adjusted HR 1.34, 95% CI 0.79-2.27 without PPI, interaction P=0.17)., Conclusions: PPIs did not significantly affect the MACE and bleeding risk associated with prasugrel use, relative to clopidogrel., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01088503., (© 2016 The Authors and Eli Lilly & Company. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.)

Purpose: Results of a study of bleeding events and other inhospital outcomes with the use of clopidogrel versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are reported., Methods: Demographic and clinical data on adults hospitalized for ACS, managed with PCI, and treated with clopidogrel or prasugrel during a two-year period were extracted from a large hospital claims database. Bleeding rates, hospital length of stay (LOS), and total hospital costs during the index hospitalization were evaluated., Results: The study sample consisted of 75,297 patients who received clopidogrel and 9,477 who received prasugrel. The unadjusted bleeding rates were 5.7% with clopidogrel use and 3.2% with prasugrel use (p < 0.0001). After propensity score stratification to adjust for selection bias, rates of bleeding events were not significantly different between clopidogrel- and prasugrel-treated patients (odds ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.80-1.02; p = 0.0949). The adjusted mean ± S.D. hospital LOS was 0.22 day lower (95% CI, 0.15-0.28; p < 0.001) with the use of prasugrel versus clopidogrel, and adjusted total mean hospital costs were $375 less for prasugrel-treated patients (p = 0.003)., Conclusion: After adjustments for demographic and clinical characteristics, rates of inhospital bleeding in patients who received prasugrel and those who received clopidogrel were not significantly different. The adjusted analyses showed that the mean hospital LOS was shorter and total mean hospital costs were lower for patients treated with prasugrel., (Copyright © 2016 by the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To compare 30 and 90 day real-world acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and bleeding related rehospitalization rates in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI; ACS-PCI) treated with clopidogrel or prasugrel., Research Design and Methods: Using the Premier hospital database, ACS-PCI patients receiving a drug-eluting (DES) or bare-metal (BMS) stent and clopidogrel or prasugrel from July 2009 to June 2011 were analyzed. Patients were included based on the prasugrel US prescribing information (USPI), excluding patients with a history of transient ischemic attack/stroke and patients ≥75 years without diabetes or prior MI. The primary endpoint was 30 day adjusted AMI rehospitalization rate. Secondary endpoints included 90 day AMI and 30 and 90 day bleeding-related rehospitalization rates. Treatment comparisons were adjusted using propensity score stratification., Results: At the index event, prasugrel patients (N = 9404) differed from clopidogrel patients (N = 74,163) by having a lower risk of comorbid conditions associated with bleeding, being more likely younger and male, having ST-elevation MI and receiving a DES. For clopidogrel and prasugrel, respectively, the observed AMI-related rehospitalization rates were 4.7% and 3.9% at 30 days (p < 0.0001) and 6.3% and 5.1% at 90 days (p < 0.0001). After adjustment, prasugrel was associated with ∼10% lower odds of AMI-related rehospitalization (30 days: OR = 0.892 [95% CI: 0.798, 0.998]; 90 days, OR = 0.901 [95% CI: 0.817, 0.994]). Adjusted bleeding-related rehospitalization rates were similar to each other (OR = 1.035 at 30 days [95% CI: 0.765, 1.399]; OR = 0.922 at 90 days [95% CI: 0.725, 1.172])., Study Limitations: Treatment adherence was not assessed. Bleeding events not resulting in a hospitalization (e.g. office, outpatient, or emergency room visits), deaths outside the hospital, or readmissions to a hospital outside of the Premier alliance were not captured in the database., Conclusions: The different patient characteristics between prasugrel- and clopidogrel-treated patients suggest physicians are more selective in choosing patients for prasugrel than recommended in the prasugrel USPI. However, after adjustment for these differences, 30 and 90 day AMI rehospitalization rates were lower for prasugrel-treated patients compared to clopidogrel-treated patients, with no difference in adjusted bleeding-related rehospitalization rates.

BackgroundFew studies have examined how antiplatelet therapies are selected during the routine care of acute myocardial infarction patients, particularly relative to the patient's estimated mortality and bleeding risks.Methods and resultsWe examined patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention at 233 US hospitals in the TRANSLATE-ACS observational study from April 2010 to October 2012. We developed a multivariable logistic regression model to identify factors associated with prasugrel selection. Prasugrel use rates and associated 1-year risk-adjusted major adverse cardiovascular events and Global Utilization of Streptokinase and t-PA for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) moderate/severe bleeding outcomes were also examined in relation to predicted mortality and bleeding using the validated Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes (ACTION) risk prediction scores. Among 11 969 patients, 3123 (26%) received prasugrel at the time of percutaneous coronary intervention. The strongest factors associated with prasugrel use included cardiogenic shock (odds ratio [OR] 1.68, 95% CI 1.25-2.26), drug-eluting stent use (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.31-1.62), and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction presentation (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.12-1.35). Older age (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.0.53-0.61), dialysis (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.96), prior history of stroke/transient ischemic attack (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38-0.73), and interhospital transfer (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.46-0.55) were associated with lowest prasugrel selection. Prasugrel was used less often than clopidogrel in patients at higher predicted bleeding risk (21.9% versus 29.7%, P