Although P2Y₁₂ antagonists are effective in patients with non–ST-segment elevation (NSTE) acute coronary syndromes, the effect of the timing of administration — before or after coronary angiography — is not known. We evaluated the effect of administering the P2Y₁₂ antagonist prasugrel at the time of diagnosis versus administering it after the coronary angiography if percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was indicated. We enrolled 4033 patients with NSTE acute coronary syndromes and a positive troponin level who were scheduled to undergo coronary angiography within 2 to 48 hours after randomization. Patients were randomly assigned to receive prasugrel (a 30-mg loading dose) before the angiography (pretreatment group) or placebo (control group). When PCI was indicated, an additional 30 mg of prasugrel was given in the pretreatment group at the time of PCI and 60 mg of prasugrel was given in the control group. The rate of the primary efficacy end point, a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, urgent revascularization, or glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor rescue therapy (glycoprotein IIb/IIIa bailout) through day 7, did not differ significantly between the two groups (hazard ratio with pretreatment, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.25; P=0.81). The rate of the key safety end point of all Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding episodes, whether related or not related to coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG), through day 7 was increased with pretreatment (hazard ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.19 to 3.02; P=0.006). The rates of TIMI major bleeding and life-threatening bleeding not related to CABG were increased by a factor of 3 and 6, respectively. Pretreatment did not reduce the rate of the primary outcome among patients undergoing PCI (69% of the patients) but increased the rate of TIMI major bleeding at 7 days. All the results were confirmed at 30 days and in prespecified subgroups. Among patients with NSTE acute coronary syndromes who were scheduled to undergo catheterization, pretreatment with prasugrel did not reduce the rate of major ischemic events up to 30 days but increased the rate of major bleeding complications. (Funded by Daiichi Sankyo and Eli Lilly; ACCOAST ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01015287.)

Background: No randomized head-to-head comparison of the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel has been published in the 7 years since the higher efficacy of these newer P2Y ₁₂ inhibitors were first demonstrated relative to clopidogrel. Methods: This academic study was designed to compare the efficacy and safety of prasugrel and ticagrelor in acute myocardial infarction treated with primary or immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. A total of 1230 patients were randomly assigned across 14 sites to either prasugrel or ticagrelor, which was initiated before percutaneous coronary intervention. Nearly 4% were in cardiogenic shock, and 5.2% were on mechanical ventilation. The primary end point was defined as death, reinfarction, urgent target vessel revascularization, stroke, or serious bleeding requiring transfusion or prolonging hospitalization at 7 days (to reflect primarily the in-hospital phase). This analysis presents data from the first 30 days (key secondary end point). The total follow-up will be 1 year for all patients and will be completed in 2017. Results: The study was prematurely terminated for futility. The occurrence of the primary end point did not differ between groups receiving prasugrel and ticagrelor (4.0% and 4.1%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.98; 95% confidence interval, 0.55–1.73; P =0.939). No significant difference was found in any of the components of the primary end point. The occurrence of key secondary end point within 30 days, composed of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke, did not show any significant difference between prasugrel and ticagrelor (2.7% and 2.5%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.53–2.15; P =0.864). Conclusions: This head-to-head comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor does not support the hypothesis that one is more effective or safer than the other in preventing ischemic and bleeding events in the acute phase of myocardial infarction treated with a primary percutaneous coronary intervention strategy. The observed rates of major outcomes were similar but with broad confidence intervals around the estimates. These interesting observations need to be confirmed in a larger trial. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02808767.

Early outcomes of patients in the PRAGUE-18 (Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in the Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction) study did not find any significant differences between 2 potent P2Y12 inhibitors. The 1-year follow-up of the PRAGUE-18 study focused on: 1) a comparison of efficacy and safety between prasugrel and ticagrelor; and 2) the risk of major ischemic events related to an economically motivated post-discharge switch to clopidogrel. A total of 1,230 patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention were randomized to prasugrel or ticagrelor with an intended treatment duration of 12 months. The combined endpoint was cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke at 1 year. Because patients had to cover the costs of study medication after hospital discharge, some patients decided to switch to clopidogrel. The endpoint occurred in 6.6% of prasugrel patients and in 5.7% of ticagrelor patients (hazard ratio: 1.167; 95% confidence interval: 0.742 to 1.835; p = 0.503). No significant differences were found in: cardiovascular death (3.3% vs. 3.0%; p = 0.769), MI (3.0% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.611), stroke (1.1% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.423), all-cause death (4.7% vs. 4.2%; p = 0.654), definite stent thrombosis (1.1% vs. 1.5%; p = 0.535), all bleeding (10.9% vs. 11.1%; p = 0.999), and TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) major bleeding (0.9% vs. 0.7%; p = 0.754). The percentage of patients who switched to clopidogrel for economic reasons was 34.1% (n = 216) for prasugrel and 44.4% (n = 265) for ticagrelor (p = 0.003). Patients who were economically motivated to switch to clopidogrel had (compared with patients who continued the study medications) a lower risk of major cardiovascular events; however, they also had lower ischemic risk. Prasugrel and ticagrelor are similarly effective during the first year after MI. Economically motivated early post-discharge switches to clopidogrel were not associated with an increased risk of ischemic events. (Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in the Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarction [PRAGUE-18]; NCT02808767).

To compare two different clopidogrel regimens on the outcomes of patients undergoing elective coronary angiography (CAG)±ad hoc percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Open-trial randomized 1028 patients with stable angina to group A (‘non-selective’—clopidogrel 600 mg >6 h before CAG; n = 513) or group B (‘selective’—clopidogrel 600 mg in the cath-lab after CAG, only in case of PCI; n = 515). Combined primary endpoint was death/periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI)/stroke/re-intervention within 7 days. Secondary endpoints were troponin elevation and bleeding complications. Primary endpoint occurred in 0.8% group A patients vs. 1% group B (P = 0.749; 90% CI for the percentage difference −1.2–0.8). Periprocedural troponin elevation (>3× ULN) was detected in 2.6% group A vs. 3.3% group B (P = 0.475; 90% CI −2.5–1.0). Bleeding complications occurred in 3.5% group A patients vs. 1.4% group B (P = 0.025). After adjustment for covariates and factors that may influence the bleeding risk, patients in group A were shown to have more likely bleeding complications when compared with group B (OR = 3.03; 95% CI 1.14–8.10; P = 0.027). High (600 mg) loading dose of clopidogrel before elective CAG increased the risk of minor bleeding complications, while the benefit on periprocedural infarction was not significant. Clopidogrel can be given safely in the catheterization laboratory between CAG and PCI in chronic stable angina patients.