Search

Background: The ISAR-REACT 5 trial compared the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with ACS managed invasively. The present study sought to investigate the impact of ticagrelor and prasugrel on the incidence and pattern of urgent revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Methods and Results: This post-hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included all ACS patients who underwent PCI. The primary endpoint for this analysis was the incidence of urgent revascularization at 12-month follow-up. Secondary outcome was the pattern of urgent revascularization procedures (namely, urgent target vessel/non-target vessel revascularization - TVR/NTVR). Among 3,377 ACS patients who underwent PCI, 1,676 were assigned to ticagrelor and 1,701 to prasugrel before PCI. After 12 months, the incidence of urgent revascularization was higher among patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (6.8% vs. 5.2%; hazard ratio [HR] = 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.00-1.75; p = 0.051), mostly attributable to significantly more urgent NTVR in the ticagrelor group (3.8% vs. 2.4%; HR = 1.62 [1.09-2.41]; p = 0.017). The risk of urgent TVR did not differ between treatment groups (3.3% vs. 3.0%; HR = 1.13 [0.77-1.65]; p = 0.546)., Conclusions: In ACS patients treated with PCI, the cumulative rate of urgent revascularizations after 12 months is higher with ticagrelor compared to prasugrel, due to a significant increase in urgent revascularizations involving remote coronary vessels., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Objectives: To assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) presenting during off- and on-hours., Background: The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to time of hospital presentation remain unknown., Methods: This post hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial included 1565 patients with ACS presenting off-hours and 2453 patients presenting on-hours, randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 bleeding, both at 12 months., Results: The primary endpoint occurred in 80 patients (10.4%) in the ticagrelor group and 57 patients (7.3%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting off-hours (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.45; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.03; P = 0.033), and 104 patients (8.5%) in the ticagrelor group and 80 patients (6.7%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting on-hours (HR = 1.29 [0.97-1.73]; P = 0.085), without significant treatment arm-by-presentation time interaction (P int  = 0.62). BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding occurred in 35 patients (5.1%) in the ticagrelor group and 37 patients (5.3%) in the prasugrel group (P = 0.84) in patients presenting off-hours, and 60 patients (5.9%) in the ticagrelor group and 43 patients (4.6%) in the prasugrel group in patients presenting on-hours (P = 0.17)., Conclusions: In patients with ACS planned to undergo an invasive treatment strategy, time of presentation (off-hours vs. on-hours) does not interact significantly with the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01944800., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background:  The relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel based dual antiplatelet therapy strategies according to the platelet count (PC) in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) have not been defined., Methods:  This is a posthoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial, in which patients presenting with ACS were randomized to treatment with ticagrelor versus prasugrel. Patients were divided into quartiles according to PC. The primary endpoint was incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and the safety endpoint was incidence of BARC (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium) type 3 to 5 bleeding at 12 months., Results:  A total of 3,943 patients with known PC (997 patients in quartile 1 (Q1), 1,003 in quartile 2 (Q2) [205 ± 10.3 × 10 9 /L], 961 patients in quartile 3 (Q3) [241 ± 11.7 × 10 9 /L], and 982 patients in quartile 4 (Q4) [317 ± 68.6 × 10 9 /L]). There was no significant interaction between treatment arm (ticagrelor vs. prasugrel) and PC group with respect to primary endpoint (Q1: 8.8 vs. 6.3%, hazard ratio [HR] =1.41, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-2.23; p  = 0.148; Q2: 9.9 vs. 5.8%, HR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.06-2.66; p  = 0.027; Q3: 7.8 vs. 5.5%, HR = 1.43, 95% CI: 0.87-2.37; p  = 0.159; Q4: 10.1 vs. 10.1%, HR = 1.05, 95% CI: 0.71-1.57; p  = 0.799; p for interaction [ p int ] = 0.482) and with respect to bleeding endpoint (Q1: 5.8 vs. 4.2%, HR = 1.41, 95% CI: 0.76-2.63; p  = 0.279; Q2: 6.4 vs. 3.7%, HR = 1.62, 95% CI: 0.85-2.06; p  = 0.140; Q3: 4.4 vs. 3.0%, HR = 1.53, 95% CI: 0.73-3.18; p  = 0.258; Q4: 5.6 vs. 8.5%, HR = 0.67, 95% CI: 0.40-1.14; p  = 0.138, p int  = 0.102)., Conclusions:  In this analysis, incidences of ischemic and bleeding events at 12 months are comparable across quartiles of platelet count., Competing Interests: D.J.A. reports consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and research grants to his institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. H.S. reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer Vital, MSD SHARP&DOHME, Novartis, Servier, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, and Pfizer, and consulting fees from AstraZeneca, Amgen, and MSD SHARP&DOHME. S.K. reports consulting and lecture fees from Astra Zeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Translumina. T.K. is named inventor on a patent application for prevention of restenosis after angioplasty and stent implantation outside the submitted work and received lecture fees from Bayer AG, Pharmaceuticals; M.J. reports speaker fees from Biotronik, personal fees from OrbusNeich, grants and personal fees from Boston Scientific, grants and personal fees from Edwards, personal fees from AstraZeneca, personal fees from Recor, grants from Amgen, not related to the current work., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Background The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome and prior myocardial infarction (MI) remain unstudied. We aimed to assess the treatment effect of ticagrelor versus prasugrel according to prior MI status in patients with ACS. Methods and Results Patients with acute coronary syndrome planned for an invasive strategy and randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment) 5 trial were included. The primary end point was the composite of 1-year all-cause death, MI, or stroke; the secondary safety end point was the composite of 1-year Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding. The study included 4015 patients (prior MI=631 patients; no prior MI=3384 patients). As compared with patients without prior MI, the primary end point occurred more frequently in patients with prior MI (12.6% versus 7.2%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.78 [95% CI, 1.38-2.29]); the secondary safety end point appears to differ little between patients with and without prior MI (5.8% versus 5.7%, respectively; HR, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.71-1.45]). With regard to the primary end point, ticagrelor versus prasugrel was associated with an HR of 1.62 (95% CI, 1.03-2.55) in patients with prior MI and an HR of 1.28 (95% CI, 0.99-1.65) in patients without prior MI ( P int =0.79). Conclusions Patients with acute coronary syndrome and prior MI are at higher risk for recurrent ischemic but not bleeding events. Prasugrel is superior to ticagrelor in reducing the risk of ischemic events without a tradeoff in bleeding regardless of prior MI status. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.P int =0.79). Conclusions Patients with acute coronary syndrome and prior MI are at higher risk for recurrent ischemic but not bleeding events. Prasugrel is superior to ticagrelor in reducing the risk of ischemic events without a tradeoff in bleeding regardless of prior MI status. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Background: The relative efficacy and safety of more potent P2Y 12 inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndrome and high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains unclear. We aimed to study the treatment effect of ticagrelor and prasugrel in percutaneous coronary intervention patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and HBR., Methods: This post hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5) included patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel, in whom HBR was defined as per Academic Research Consortium criteria. The primary (efficacy) end point was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The secondary (safety) end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed 12 months after randomization., Results: Out of the 3239 patients included in this analysis, 486 fulfilled the criteria for Academic Research Consortium-HBR definition (HBR group; ticagrelor, n=230 and prasugrel, n=256), while 2753 did not (non-HBR group; ticagrelor, n=1375 and prasugrel, n=1378). Compared with the non-HBR group, the HBR group had a higher risk for the primary (hazard ratio [HR]=3.57 [95% CI, 2.79-4.57]; P <0.001) and secondary end point (HR=2.94 [2.17-3.99]; P <0.001). In the HBR group, the primary (HR=1.09 [0.73-1.62]) and secondary (HR=1.18 [0.67-2.08]) end points were not significantly different between patients assigned to ticagrelor and prasugrel. In the non-HBR group, the primary end point (HR=1.62 [1.19-2.20]) occurred more frequently in patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to patients assigned to prasugrel, without difference in safety (HR=1.08 [0.74-1.58]). There was no significant treatment allocation-by-HBR status interaction with respect to the primary ( P for interaction=0.12) or secondary ( P for interaction=0.80) end points., Conclusions: In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, HBR status increased both ischemic and bleeding risk without significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of either ticagrelor or prasugrel. These results warrant confirmation in larger cohorts., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.

Aims: To assess whether the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) are influenced by pre-admission treatment with aspirin and/or clopidogrel., Methods and Results: Patients (n = 4018) were categorized into two groups: pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel group (n = 1455) and no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel group (n = 2563). The primary endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke; the secondary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3-5 bleeding, both at 1 year. Patients in the pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel group had a higher risk of ischaemic events, but a similar risk of bleeding to patients in the no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel group (cumulative incidences 10.5% vs. 6.7%, and 5.7% vs. 5.7%, respectively). The primary endpoint occurred in 81/717 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 69/738 patients assigned to prasugrel in the pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel group [11.5% vs. 9.5%; hazard ratio (HR) = 1.23; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.69], and in 103/1295 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 68/1268 patients assigned to prasugrel in the no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel group [8.0% vs. 5.4%; HR = 1.50 (1.10-2.03); Pint = 0.38]. BARC type 3-5 bleeding events did not differ between ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients in the pre-admission aspirin and/or clopidogrel (6.2% vs. 4.5%) or no pre-admission aspirin or clopidogrel (5.3% vs. 5.1%) group (Pint = 0.54)., Conclusion: In patients with ACS, pre-admission therapy with aspirin and/or clopidogrel has no influence on the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Background: Whether the access site influences the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing invasive treatment strategy remains unstudied., Methods: This post-hoc analysis included ACS patients undergoing invasive treatment via radial or femoral access and randomized to either ticagrelor or prasugrel in the ISAR-REACT 5 trial. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke, safety endpoint was BARC 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed out to 12 months after randomization., Results: Out of 4018 patients, 3984 underwent invasive treatment via radial or femoral access. 1479 had coronary angiography via radial access (ticagrelor, N = 748; prasugrel, N = 731) and 2505 via femoral access (ticagrelor, N = 1245; prasugrel, N = 1260). There was no interaction between access route and assignment to either ticagrelor or prasugrel regarding the primary efficacy or safety endpoints (P for interaction≥0.616). In the radial group, the primary efficacy endpoint (7.6% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.32 [0.88-1.97], P = 0.151) and the safety endpoint (4.3% versus 3.0%, HR: 1.36, [0.73-1.31], P = 0.300) were not statistically different in patients receiving either ticagrelor or prasugrel. In the femoral group, the primary efficacy endpoint occurred more frequently in patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to prasugrel (10.3% versus 7.3%, HR: 1.44 [1.10-1.88], P = 0.006) without significant difference in terms of safety endpoint (6.4% versus 5.8%, HR: 1.14, [0.81-1.60], P = 0.470)., Conclusions: In patients with ACS undergoing an invasive treatment strategy, the access route does not influence the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01944800., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Importance: It is unclear whether ticagrelor or prasugrel hydrochloride is superior for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Objective: To assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor vs prasugrel for patients with ACS treated with PCI., Design, Setting, and Participants: A prespecified analysis was performed of a postrandomization subgroup of 3377 patients who presented with ACS and were treated with PCI in the investigator-initiated, multicenter, phase 4, open-label Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5 randomized clinical trial, conducted from September 1, 2013, to February 28, 2018. Statistical analysis was performed from September 1, 2020, to January 30, 2021. Analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle., Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to a ticagrelor-based or prasugrel-based strategy. This analysis focuses on the subgroup of patients who underwent PCI that was formed after randomization., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite consisting of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 12 months. The safety end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 3 to 5 bleeding., Results: The ticagrelor group comprised 1676 patients (1323 men [78.9%]; mean [SD] age, 64.4 [12.0] years), and the prasugrel group comprised 1701 patients (1341 men [78.8%]; mean [SD] age, 64.7 [12.0] years). The primary end point occurred for 162 patients (9.8%) in the ticagrelor group and 120 patients (7.1%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.41; 95% CI, 1.11-1.78; P = .005). Myocardial infarction occurred in 88 patients (5.3%) in the ticagrelor group compared with 55 patients (3.8%) in the prasugrel group (HR, 1.67; 95% CI, 1.19-2.34; P = .003). The safety end point, BARC type 3 to 5 bleeding, occurred in 84 of 1672 patients (5.3%) in the ticagrelor group and 78 of 1680 patients (4.9%) in the prasugrel group (HR; 1.10; 95% CI, 0.81-1.50; P = .54)., Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients presenting with ACS who were treated with PCI, the incidence of the primary composite end point occurred less frequently for patients who received prasugrel compared with those who received ticagrelor. The incidence of bleeding events was comparable between the 2 groups. These results suggest that, for patients presenting with ACS who undergo PCI, a prasugrel-based strategy is superior to a ticagrelor-based strategy. However, because these observations are based on a postrandomization subgroup, these findings should be regarded as hypothesis generating and dedicated randomized clinical trials may be warranted to confirm these findings., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01944800.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus prasugrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) according to their estimated glomerular filtration rates (eGFRs)., Background: The outcomes of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ACS according to eGFR have not been defined., Methods: Patients (n = 4,012) were categorized into 3 groups: low eGFR (<60 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), intermediate eGFR (≥60 and <90 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ), and high eGFR (≥90 mL/min/1.73 m 2 ). The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and stroke; the secondary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding, both at 1 year., Results: Patients with low eGFRs had a higher risk for the primary endpoint compared with patients with intermediate eGFRs (adjusted HR: 1.89; 95% CI: 1.46-2.46]) and those with high eGFRs (adjusted HR: 2.33; 95% CI: 1.57-3.46). A risk excess for low eGFR was also observed for bleeding (adjusted HR: 1.55 [95% CI: 1.12-2.13] vs intermediate eGFR; adjusted HR: 1.59 [95% CI: 1.01-2.50] vs high eGFR). However, eGFR did not affect the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. In patients with low eGFR, the primary endpoint occurred in 20.5% with ticagrelor and in 14.7% with prasugrel (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.04-2.08; P = 0.029); there was no significant difference in bleeding., Conclusions: These results show that among patients with ACS, reduction of eGFR is associated with increased risk for ischemic and bleeding events but has no significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome [ISAR-REACT 5]; NCT01944800)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This research was supported by a grant (FKZ 81X1600501) from the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Deutsches Herzzentrum München. Dr Angiolillo has received grants and personal fees from Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, Sanofi, and CeloNova; has received personal fees from Haemonetics, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, The Medicines Company, and St. Jude Medical; and has received grants from CSL Behring, Eisai, Gilead, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Matsutani Chemical Industry, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Hochholzer has received personal fees from Bayer Vital, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and The Medicines Company. Dr Kufner has received personal fees from Bristol Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, and Translumina. Dr Sager has received grants from the European Research Council, Else-Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung, Deutsche Herzstiftung, and Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr Neumann has received personal fees from Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, and Ferrer; has received grants and personal fees from Pfizer, Biotronik, Edwards Lifesciences, Bayer Healthcare, and Boston Scientific; and has received grants from Medtronic and GlaxoSmithKline outside the submitted work. Dr Schüpke has received the Else Kröner memorial grant from Else Kröner-Fresenius Stiftung; has received financial support from the German Center for Cardiovascular Research; has received consulting fees from Bayer Vital; and has received lecture fees from Daiichi-Sankyo and Biopas Laboratories. Dr Sibbing has received personal fees from Daichi-Sankyo, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Pfizer, and Servier. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Current guidelines recommend intensified platelet inhibition by prasugrel or ticagrelor in patients with unstable angina (UA) or non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) myocardial infarction (MI)., Objectives: This study sought to investigate the benefits and risks of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS) and planned invasive management., Methods: This post hoc analysis combines the pre-specified subgroups of UA and NSTEMI of the randomized ISAR-REACT 5 trial. It included 1,179 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1,186 assigned to prasugrel. Ticagrelor was started immediately after randomization and prasugrel after coronary angiography. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, MI, or stroke during 1-year follow-up, and the safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium class 3-5., Results: The primary endpoint was reached in 101 (8.7%) patients in the ticagrelor and in 73 (6.3%) patients in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.41; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04 to 1.90). The HR for all-cause death was 1.43 (95% CI: 0.93 to 2.21) and that for MI 1.43 (95% CI: 0.94 to 2.19). The safety endpoint occurred in 49 (5.2%) patients in the ticagrelor and in 41 (4.7%) patients in the prasugrel group (HR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.72 to 1.65). Landmark analysis revealed persistence of the efficacy advantage with prasugrel after the first month., Conclusions: In patients with NSTE-ACS, we found that prasugrel was superior to ticagrelor in reducing the combined 1-year risk of death, MI, and stroke without increasing the risk of bleeding. Due to the post hoc nature of the analysis, these findings need confirmation by further studies. (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome; NCT01944800)., Competing Interests: Author Relationship With Industry Dr. Neumann has received lecture fees, paid to his institution, from Amgen, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, and Ferrer; has received lecture fees, paid to his institution, and consulting fees, paid to his institution, from AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim; has received grant support and lecture fees, paid to his institution, from Pfizer, Biotronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Bayer HealthCare, and GlaxoSmithKline; and has received grant support from Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific. Dr. Sibbing has received personal fees from Bayer AG, Sanofi, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Ferrer, and Daiichi-Sankyo; and has received grants and personal fees from Roche Diagnostics. Dr. Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and The Medicines Company; has received payments for participation in review activities from CeloNova and St. Jude Medical; and his institution has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Idorsia, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr. Liebetrau has received consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Pfizer, and Thermo Fisher; and has received research grants from Deutsche Herzstiftung, Kerckhoff-Stiftung, and Kühl-Stiftung outside the submitted work. Dr. Liebetrau’s institution has received payments for participation in clinical study programs from Abbott, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Daiichi-Sankyo, and Neovasc. Dr. Hamm has received Advisory Board and speaker fees from AstraZeneca and Daiichi-Sankyo. Dr. Sager has received funding from the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Programme (STRATO), the Else-Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung, the Deutsche Herzstiftung, and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Dr. Joner has received personal fees from Biotronik, Orbus Neich, Boston Scientific, Edwards, AstraZeneca, and Recor; and has received grants from Boston Scientific, Edwards, and Amgen. Dr. Trenk has received consulting fees or honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Berlin Chemie, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ferrer, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and has received research grants from Deutsche Herzstiftung and PharmCompNet Baden-Wuerttemberg: Kompetenznetzwerk Pharmakologie Baden-Wuerttemberg outside the submitted work. Dr. Trenk’s institution has received payments for participation in clinical study programs from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Doasense, Esperion, Idorsia, and Otsuka. Dr. Schunkert has received personal fees from Merck Sharp & Dohme, Amgen, Bayer Vital GmbH, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Novartis, Servier, Brahms, Bristol Myers Squibb, Medtronic, Sanofi, Synlab, Pfizer, and Vifor; and has received grants and personal fees from AstraZeneca. Dr. Schüpke has received grants from the DZHK (German Center for Cardiovascular Research) and the Else Kröner-Fresenius-Stiftung; has received consulting fees from Bayer Vital GmbH; and has received lecture fees from Daiichi-Sankyo. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Dual antiplatelet therapy with low-dose acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and an inhibitor of the P2Y12 adenosine diphosphate (ADP) receptor is the standard treatment for patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or undergoing elective coronary interventions according to the current guidelines published by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). New generation P2Y12 inhibitors, such as prasugrel and ticagrelor exert stronger and more consistent inhibition of the P2Y12 receptor. In clinical studies enrolling patients with ACS these drugs decreased the incidence of ischemic events compared to the standard therapy with clopidogrel and ASA; however, this beneficial effect was associated with an increase in bleeding events. Alternative therapeutic approaches via addition of drugs with different modes of action showed an overall reduction of ischemic events but also failed to uncouple this beneficial effect from an increased bleeding risk.