Safety of Clopidogrel vs. Ticagrelor in Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Regimens for High-Bleeding Risk Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis of Adverse Outcomes.

IF 3.1 Q2 PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular Prevention Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-01 DOI:10.1007/s40292-024-00635-3
Abdur Rehman Khalid, Farooq Ahmad, Muhammad Ahrar Bin Naeem, Smak Ahmed, Muhammad Umar, Hassan Mehmood, Muhammad Kashif, Shazib Ali
{"title":"Safety of Clopidogrel vs. Ticagrelor in Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Regimens for High-Bleeding Risk Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: A Comprehensive Meta-analysis of Adverse Outcomes.","authors":"Abdur Rehman Khalid, Farooq Ahmad, Muhammad Ahrar Bin Naeem, Smak Ahmed, Muhammad Umar, Hassan Mehmood, Muhammad Kashif, Shazib Ali","doi":"10.1007/s40292-024-00635-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Patients of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) at a high-bleeding risk (HBR) often require dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events. Clopidogrel and ticagrelor are the most commonly used antiplatelet agents in DAPT regimens. However, the safety profiles of these drugs in ACS patients at HBR remain a subject of ongoing debate.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>To investigate any difference between the safety of clopidogrel and ticagrelor used as a part of DAPT regimen in ACS patients at HBR.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify experimental and observational studies published up to the knowledge cutoff date in September 2023. Studies comparing the safety of clopidogrel and ticagrelor in ACS patients at HBR were included for analysis. The primary outcomes assessed were major bleeding events, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI), while secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), and net adverse clinical and cerebral events (NACCE).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included a total of 8 observational studies in our meta-analysis. The pooled analysis revealed a statistically significant increase in the risk of MI (pooled RR = 1.43; 95% CI 1.12-1.83; P = 0.005) in the patients using clopidogrel. There were no statistically significant differences in major bleeding events (pooled RR = 0.94; 95% CI 0.82-1.09; P = 0.44), stroke (pooled RR = 1.36; 95% CI 0.86-2.14; P = 0.18), all-cause mortality (pooled RR = 1.17; 95% CI 0.97-1.41; P = 0.10), MACCE (pooled RR = 1.07; 95% CI 0.76-1.50; P = 0.69) and NACCE (pooled RR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.66-1.37; P = 0.78) between the two groups. Subgroup analyses based on region were performed.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both drugs are generally safe for treating ACS patients with HBR at baseline, although a higher risk of MI was observed with the use of clopidogrel. Nevertheless, drug choice should factor in regional variations, patient-specific characteristics, cost, accessibility, and potential drug interactions.</p>","PeriodicalId":12890,"journal":{"name":"High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular Prevention","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular Prevention","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40292-024-00635-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Patients of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) at a high-bleeding risk (HBR) often require dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) to reduce the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events. Clopidogrel and ticagrelor are the most commonly used antiplatelet agents in DAPT regimens. However, the safety profiles of these drugs in ACS patients at HBR remain a subject of ongoing debate.

Aim: To investigate any difference between the safety of clopidogrel and ticagrelor used as a part of DAPT regimen in ACS patients at HBR.

Methods: A systematic search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar was conducted to identify experimental and observational studies published up to the knowledge cutoff date in September 2023. Studies comparing the safety of clopidogrel and ticagrelor in ACS patients at HBR were included for analysis. The primary outcomes assessed were major bleeding events, stroke, and myocardial infarction (MI), while secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), and net adverse clinical and cerebral events (NACCE).

Results: We included a total of 8 observational studies in our meta-analysis. The pooled analysis revealed a statistically significant increase in the risk of MI (pooled RR = 1.43; 95% CI 1.12-1.83; P = 0.005) in the patients using clopidogrel. There were no statistically significant differences in major bleeding events (pooled RR = 0.94; 95% CI 0.82-1.09; P = 0.44), stroke (pooled RR = 1.36; 95% CI 0.86-2.14; P = 0.18), all-cause mortality (pooled RR = 1.17; 95% CI 0.97-1.41; P = 0.10), MACCE (pooled RR = 1.07; 95% CI 0.76-1.50; P = 0.69) and NACCE (pooled RR = 0.95; 95% CI 0.66-1.37; P = 0.78) between the two groups. Subgroup analyses based on region were performed.

Conclusion: Both drugs are generally safe for treating ACS patients with HBR at baseline, although a higher risk of MI was observed with the use of clopidogrel. Nevertheless, drug choice should factor in regional variations, patient-specific characteristics, cost, accessibility, and potential drug interactions.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
高出血风险急性冠状动脉综合征患者双重抗血小板疗法中氯吡格雷与替卡格雷的安全性:不良结果的综合 Meta 分析》。
简介:高出血风险(HBR)急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)患者通常需要双重抗血小板疗法(DAPT)来降低心血管事件复发的风险。氯吡格雷和替卡格雷是 DAPT 方案中最常用的抗血小板药物。目的:研究氯吡格雷和替卡格雷作为 DAPT 方案的一部分用于 HBR ACS 患者的安全性差异:方法:在 PubMed、Cochrane Library 和 Google Scholar 上进行系统检索,以确定截至 2023 年 9 月知识截止日之前发表的实验性和观察性研究。纳入分析的研究比较了氯吡格雷和替卡格雷在HBR ACS患者中的安全性。评估的主要结果是大出血事件、中风和心肌梗死(MI),次要结果包括全因死亡率、主要不良心脑血管事件(MACCE)和净不良临床和脑事件(NACCE):我们的荟萃分析共纳入了 8 项观察性研究。汇总分析显示,使用氯吡格雷的患者发生心肌梗死的风险在统计学上有显著增加(汇总 RR = 1.43;95% CI 1.12-1.83;P = 0.005)。在大出血事件(汇总 RR = 0.94;95% CI 0.82-1.09;P = 0.44)、中风(汇总 RR = 1.36;95% CI 0.86-2.14;P = 0.18)、全因死亡率(汇总RR = 1.17;95% CI 0.97-1.41;P = 0.10)、MACCE(汇总RR = 1.07;95% CI 0.76-1.50;P = 0.69)和NACCE(汇总RR = 0.95;95% CI 0.66-1.37;P = 0.78)在两组之间的差异。根据地区进行了分组分析:尽管使用氯吡格雷会增加心肌梗死的风险,但这两种药物对于治疗基线HBR的ACS患者总体上都是安全的。不过,在选择药物时应考虑地区差异、患者特异性特征、成本、可及性和潜在的药物相互作用等因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
57
期刊介绍: High Blood Pressure & Cardiovascular Prevention promotes knowledge, update and discussion in the field of hypertension and cardiovascular disease prevention, by providing a regular programme of independent review articles covering key aspects of the management of hypertension and cardiovascular diseases. The journal includes:   Invited ''State of the Art'' reviews.  Expert commentaries on guidelines, major trials, technical advances.Presentation of new intervention trials design.''Pros and Cons'' or round tables on controversial issues.Statements on guidelines from hypertension and cardiovascular scientific societies.Socio-economic issues.Cost/benefit in prevention of cardiovascular diseases.Monitoring of healthcare systems.News and views from the Italian Society of Hypertension (including abstracts).All manuscripts are subject to peer review by international experts. Letters to the editor are welcomed and will be considered for publication.
期刊最新文献
Myocardial Mechanics in Acromegaly: A Meta-Analysis of Echocardiographic Studies. Vericiguat on C-reactive Protein Level and Prognosis in Patients with Hypertensive Heart Failure. Assessment of EMR ML Mining Methods for Measuring Association between Metal Mixture and Mortality for Hypertension. Hyperuricemia in Cardiac Rehabilitation Patients: Prevalence and Association with Functional Improvement and Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction. Position Statement of the Italian Society of Cardiovascular Prevention (SIPREC) and Italian Heart Failure Association (ITAHFA) on Cardiac Rehabilitation and Protection Programs as a Cornerstone of Secondary Prevention after Myocardial Infarction or Revascularization.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1