Network meta-analysis of prasugrel, ticagrelor, high- and standarddose clopidogrel in patients scheduled for percutaneous coronary interventions

Thrombosis and Haemostasis

Volumn 108, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 318-327

  Steiner, Sabine ^a,b   Moertl, Deddo ^c   Chen, Li ^b   Coyle, Doug ^d   Wells, George A ^b  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA HEART INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^c Karl Landsteiner Institute for Implementation of Innovative Techniques in Cardiac Surgery   (Austria)

^d UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Antiplatelet agents; Meta analysis; Percutaneous coronary intervention

Indexed keywords

CLOPIDOGREL; PRASUGREL; TICAGRELOR;

ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME; ARTICLE; BLEEDING; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE; DEATH; DISEASE SEVERITY; DRUG DOSE COMPARISON; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG MEGADOSE; DRUG SAFETY; HEART DEATH; HEART INFARCTION; HUMAN; LOADING DRUG DOSE; META ANALYSIS; MORTALITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SIDE EFFECT; STENT THROMBOSIS; STROKE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; THROMBOSIS;

ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME; ADENOSINE; ANGIOPLASTY; CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASES; HEMORRHAGE; HUMANS; ODDS RATIO; PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION; PIPERAZINES; PLATELET AGGREGATION INHIBITORS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RISK; STENTS; THIOPHENES; TICLOPIDINE; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84864364080     PISSN: 03406245     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1160/TH11-08-0586     Document Type: Article

References (49)

1. Bowry AD, Brookhart MA, Choudhry NK. Meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of clopidogrel plus aspirin as compared to antiplatelet monotherapy for the prevention of vascular events. Am J Cardiol 2008; 101: 960-966.
2. Bainey KR, Lai TF, Mehta SR. Clopidogrel in acute coronary syndromes: where are we now? Thromb Haemost 2011; 105: 766-773.
3. O'Donoghue M, Wiviott SD. Clopidogrel response variability and future therapies: clopidogrel: does one size fit all? Circulation 2006; 114: e600-606.
4. Fernando H, Dart AM, Peter K, et al. Proton pump inhibitors, genetic polymorphisms and response to clopidogrel therapy. Thromb Haemost 2011; 105: 933-944.
5. Gremmel T, Panzer S. Clinical, genetic and confounding factors determine the dynamics of the in vitro response/non response to clopidogrel. Thromb Haemost 2011; 106: 211-218.
6. Aradi D, Komocsi A, Vorobcsuk A, et al. Prognostic significance of high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity after percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am Heart J 2010; 160: 543-551.
7. Sofi F, Marcucci R, Gori AM, et al. Clopidogrel non-responsiveness and risk of cardiovascular morbidity. An updated meta-analysis. Thromb Haemost 2010; 103: 841-848.
8. Sibbing D, Byrne RA, Bernlochner I, et al. High platelet reactivity and clinical outcome-fact and fiction. Thromb Haemost 2011; 106: 191-202.
9. Gurbel PA, Tantry US. Clopidogrel response variability and the advent of personalised antiplatelet therapy. A bench to bedside journey. Thromb Haemost 2011; 106: 265-271.
10. Fefer P, Matetzky S. The genetic basis of platelet responsiveness to clopidogrel. A critical review of the literature. Thromb Haemost 2011; 106: 203-210.
11. Mega JL, Simon T, Collet JP, et al. Reduced-function CYP2C19 genotype and risk of adverse clinical outcomes among patients treated with clopidogrel predominantly for PCI: a meta-analysis. J Am Med Assoc 2010; 304: 1821-1830.
12. Pare G, Mehta SR, Yusuf S, et al. Effects of CYP2C19 genotype on outcomes of clopidogrel treatment. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 1704-1714.
13. Wiviott SD, Antman EM, Braunwald E. Prasugrel. Circulation 2010; 122: 394-403.
14. Behan MW, Chew DP, Aylward PE. The role of antiplatelet therapy in the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease. Curr Opin Cardiol 2010; 25: 321-328.
15. Mehta SR, Bassand JP, Chrolavicius S, et al. Dose comparisons of clopidogrel and aspirin in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 930-942.
16. Price MJ, Berger PB, Teirstein PS, et al. Standard-vs high-dose clopidogrel based on platelet function testing after percutaneous coronary intervention: the GRAVITAS randomized trial. J Am Med Assoc 2011; 305: 1097-1105.
17. Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, et al. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess 2005; 9: 1-134, iii-iv.
18. Hoaglin DC, Hawkins N, Jansen JP, et al. Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. Value Health 2011; 14: 429-437.
19. Drug Approval Package: Effient (prasugrel) Tablet. Available from: http://www. accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2009/022307s000TOC.cfm. Accessed June 6, 2011.
20. Ticagrelor for acute coronary syndromes, NDA 22-433. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeeting Materials/Drugs/CardiovascularandRenalDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/ UCM220192.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2011.
21. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, et al. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation 2007; 115: 2344-2351.
22. Wiviott SD, Antman EM, Winters KJ, et al. Randomized comparison of prasugrel (CS-747, LY640315), a novel thienopyridine P2Y12 antagonist, with clopidogrel in percutaneous coronary intervention: results of the Joint Utilization of Medications to Block Platelets Optimally (JUMBO)-TIMI 26 trial. Circulation 2005; 111: 3366-3373.
23. Bovill EG, Terrin ML, Stump DC, et al. Hemorrhagic events during therapy with recombinant tissue-type plasminogen activator, heparin, and aspirin for acute myocardial infarction. Results of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI), Phase II Trial. Ann Intern Med 1991; 115: 256-265.
24. Higgins J, Green S. Assessing risk of bias in included studies. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. John Wiley & Sons; 2008; pp. 187-241.
25. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, et al. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. Br Med J 2003; 327: 557-560.
26. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1986; 7: 177-188.
27. Newcombe RG. Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: comparison of eleven methods. Stat Med 1998; 17: 873-890.
28. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med 2004; 23: 3105-3124.
29. Biondi-Zoccai G, Lotrionte M, Agostoni P, et al. Adjusted indirect comparison meta-analysis of prasugrel versus ticagrelor for patients with acute coronary syndromes. Int J Cardiol 2011; 150: 325-331.
30. Hao PP, Zhang MX, Li RJ, et al. Clopidogrel 150 vs. 75 mg day(-1) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis. J Thromb Haemost 2011; 9: 627-637.
31. Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Burton PR, et al. How vague is vague? A simulation study of the impact of the use of vague prior distributions in MCMC using WinBUGS. Stat Med 2005; 24: 2401-2428.
32. von Beckerath N, Kastrati A, Wieczorek A, et al. A double-blind, randomized study on platelet aggregation in patients treated with a daily dose of 150 or 75 mg of clopidogrel for 30 days. Eur Heart J 2007; 28: 1814-1819.
33. Abuzahra M, Pillai M, Caldera A, et al. Comparison of higher clopidogrel loading and maintenance dose to standard dose on platelet function and outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents. Am J Cardiol 2008; 102: 401-403.
34. Angiolillo DJ, Bernardo E, Palazuelos J, et al. Functional impact of high clopidogrel maintenance dosing in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary interventions. Results of a randomized study. Thromb Haemost 2008; 99: 161-168.
35. Aleil B, Jacquemin L, De Poli F, et al. Clopidogrel 150 mg/day to overcome low responsiveness in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the VASP-02 (Vasodilator-Stimulated Phosphoprotein-02) randomized study. Jacc: Cardiovasc Interv 2008; 1: 631-638.
36. Han Y-L, Wang B, Li Y, et al. A high maintenance dose of clopidogrel improves short-term clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing drug-eluting stent implantation. Chin Med J 2009; 122: 793-797.
37. Aradi D, Vorobcsuk A, Pinter T, et al. Doubling the maintenance dose of clopidogrel in patients with high post-clopidogrel platelet reactivity after percutaneous coronary intervention: the DOSER randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Conference of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), Stockholm, Sweden. Eur Heart J 2010; 31 (Suppl. 1): 971.
38. Palmerini T, Barozzi C, Tomasi L, et al. A randomised study comparing the antiplatelet and antiinflammatory effect of clopidogrel 150 mg/day versus 75 mg/day in patients with ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction and poor responsiveness to clopidogrel: results from the DOUBLE study. Thrombosis Research 2010; 125: 309-314.
39. Mehta SR, Tanguay JF, Eikelboom JW, et al. Double-dose versus standard-dose clopidogrel and high-dose versus low-dose aspirin in individuals undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes (CURRENTOASIS 7): a randomised factorial trial. Lancet 2010; 376: 1233-1243.
40. Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2001-2015.
41. Wiviott SD, Trenk D, Frelinger AL, et al. Prasugrel compared with high loadingand maintenance-dose clopidogrel in patients with planned percutaneous coron ary intervention: the Prasugrel in Comparison to Clopidogrel for Inhibition of Platelet Activation and Aggregation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 44 trial. Circulation 2007; 116: 2923-2932.
42. Alexopoulos D, Dimitropoulos G, Davlouros P, et al. Prasugrel overcomes high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity post-stenting more effectively than high-dose (150-mg) clopidogrel: The importance of cyp2c19 (*)2 genotyping. Jacc: Cardiovasc Interv 2011; 4: 403-410.
43. Cannon CP, Harrington RA, James S, et al. Comparison of ticagrelor with clopidogrel in patients with a planned invasive strategy for acute coronary syndromes (PLATO): a randomised double-blind study. Lancet 2010; 375: 283-293.
44. Bucher HC, Guyatt GH, Griffith LE, et al. The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 1997; 50: 683-691.
45. Caldwell DM, Ades AE, Higgins JP. Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. Br Med J 2005; 331: 897-900.
46. O'Regan C, Ghement I, Eyawo O, et al. Incorporating multiple interventions in meta-analysis: an evaluation of the mixed treatment comparison with the adjusted indirect comparison. Trials 2009; 10: 86.
47. Song F, Loke YK, Walsh T, et al. Methodological problems in the use of indirect comparisons for evaluating healthcare interventions: survey of published systematic reviews. Br Med J 2009; 338: b1147.
48. Parodi G, Bellandi B, Venditti F, et al. Residual Platelet Reactivity, Bleedings, and Adherence to Treatment in Patients Having Coronary Stent Implantation Treated With Prasugrel. Am J Cardiol 2012; 2: 214-218.
49. Mahaffey KW, Wojdyla DM, Carroll K, et al. Ticagrelor Compared With Clopidogrel by Geographic Region in the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) Trial. Circulation 2011; 124: 544-554.