Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor versus Aspirin and Clopidogrel for Stroke Prevention in Patients with Vascular Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Abstract

Introduction: Currently, it is still controversial to treat stroke with ticagrelor alone. The purpose of our study was to systematically review and analyze the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor on cerebrovascular outcomes in patients with vascular risk factors.

Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases were systematically searched using the keywords stroke, ticagrelor, clopidogrel, and aspirin to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Primary outcomes included reported stroke, ischemic stroke, and complex events; the secondary outcome was hemorrhagic stroke. The safety outcomes included major bleeding events, major or minor bleeding, and intracranial bleeding. The pooled odds ratio (OR), hazard ratios (HRs), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated. We used I2 statistics to assess statistical heterogeneity.

Results: This meta-analysis included 15 RCTs involving 63,865 patients. Compared to the control group, ticagrelor reduced the risk of stroke (OR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.81-0.99, p = 0.03; I2 = 3%), ischemic stroke (OR: 0.81; 95% CI: 0.74-0.90, p < 0.0001; I2 = 0%). Ticagrelor was not associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (OR: 0.94; 95% CI: 0.84-1.06, p = 0.31; I2 = 62%), major bleeding (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.97-1.15, p = 0.20; I2 = 17%), hemorrhagic strokes (OR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.76-1.96, p = 0.41; I2 = 0%), and intracranial hemorrhage (OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.78-1.43, p = 0.71; I2 = 12%). There was an increased risk of major or minor bleeding with ticagrelor compared to the control group (OR: 1.40; 95% CI: 1.19-1.66, p < 0.0001; I2 = 56%). Additional analyses demonstrated that ticagrelor reduced the risk of incident recurrent stroke (HR: 0.83; 95% CI: 0.75-0.93, p = 0.0009; I2 = 0%), recurrent ischemic stroke (HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.71-0.89, p < 0.0001; I2 = 0%) among patients with a history of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) or transient ischemic attack (TIA). There were no significant differences in safety outcomes.

Conclusion: Ticagrelor is slightly better than clopidogrel and aspirin in preventing stroke, especially ischemic stroke, with significant safety risks. For patients with a history of AIS/TIA, the use of ticagrelor was superior to the use of clopidogrel or aspirin in reducing the risk of subsequent stroke. We believe that ticagrelor is a potential alternative to aspirin or clopidogrel in some cases, especially for patients with CYP2C19 deficiency.