PLATO - Ticagrelor in ACS
Bottom line: In patients with ACS (excluding STEMI treated with fibrinolysis, or low-risk unstable angina), ticagrelor reduced the risk of death (NNT 72) or MI (NNT 91) compared to clopidogrel at 1 year. Conversely, ticagrelor increased the risk of certain adverse events compared to clopidogrel, including non-CABG major bleed (NNH 143) and dyspnea (NNH 17).
Patients
- Inclusion:
- ACS with symptom onset <24h, including:
- STEMI treated with primary PCI
- NSTE-ACS with at least 2 of the following:
- EKG - ST-segment changes suggesting ischemia
- Troponin or CK-MB positive
- 1+ additional risk factor (age 60+ y; previous MI, CABG or ischemic stroke/TIA; CAD with stenosis at least 50% in 2+ vessels; carotid stenosis of at least 50% or cerebral revascularization; CKD with eGFR <60 mL/min; diabetes; PAD)
- ACS with symptom onset <24h, including:
- Exclusion:
- Fibrinolytic <24h before randomization
- Need for oral anticoagulation
- Increased risk of bradycardia
- Taking medication that is a strong CYP 3A inhibitor/inducer
- ? screened -> 18,624 randomized & analyzed for efficacy (18,421 analyzed for safety outcomes)
- "Average" patient
- Age 62 y (75+ y - 15%)
- Female 28%
- White 92%
- ACS final diagnosis
- STEMI 38%
- NSTEMI 42%
- Unstable angina 17%
- CV history
- MI 21%
- PCI 13%
- CABG 6%
- HF 5%
- Non-hemorrhagic stroke 4%
- PAD 6%
- CV risk factors
- Smoker 36%
- HTN 65%
- CKD 4%
- Dyslipidemia 47%
- Diabetes 25%
Interventions & co-interventions
- I: Ticagrelor x up to 12 months (median 9 months)
- Loading dose of 180 mg PO x1, followed by
- Maintenance dose of 90 mg PO BID
- Started at median 11 hours from start of chest pain
- % of patients taking at least 80% of study drug: 83%
- C: Clopidogrel x up to 12 months (median 9 months)
- Loading dose of 300 mg PO x1 (additional 300 mg for total loading dose 600 mg could be given prior to PCI), followed by
- Maintenance dose of 75 mg PO once daily
- Started at median 11 hours from start of chest pain
- % of patients taking at least 80% of study drug: 83%
- Co-interventions
- ASA 75-100 mg PO daily (could be increased to 325 mg PO daily for 1st 6 months after stent placement)
- Procedures
- Coronary angiography 81%
- PCI during index hospitalization 61%
- Other meds at discharge
- Statin, ACEI/ARB, beta-blocker ~90%
- PPI 45%
Results @ median 9 months
- Statistically significant reduction with ticagrelor in:
- Death from any cause: 4.5% vs 5.9% (NNT 72)
- Primary outcome (vascular death, MI, stroke): Ticagrelor 9.8%, clopidogrel 11.7% (NNT 53)
- MI 5.8% vs 6.9% (NNT 91)
- Stent thrombosis (probable or definite): 2.2% vs 2.9% (NNT 143)
- No statistically significant difference in:
- Ischemic stroke: 1.1% in both groups
- Hemorrhagic stroke: 0.2% vs 0.1% (p=0.10)
- Recurrent ischemia: 5.8% vs 6.2% (p=0.22)
- Safety:
- Premature discontinuation: 23.4% vs 21.5% (NNH 53)
- Because of adverse event: 7.4% vs 6.0% (NNH 72)
- Major bleed: 11.6% vs 11.2% (p=0.43)
- Not related to CABG: 4.5% vs 3.8% (NNH 143)
- Dyspnea: 13.8% vs 7.8% (NNH 17)
- Requiring study drug discontinuation: 0.9% vs 0.1% (NNH 125)
- Bradycardia requiring pacemaker insertion: 0.9% in both groups
- Transient reversible increases in SCr & uric acid greater in ticagrelor group
- Premature discontinuation: 23.4% vs 21.5% (NNH 53)
- Subgroup analyses: 3 of 25 subgroups had a positive test for interaction (each with p=0.05 or lower). Of interest:
- Region: Patients in the US did not have a reduction in the primary outcome (HR 1.25, 0.93-1.67), whereas all other groups did, including Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and Middle East. Further analysis of this subgroup effect suggested that this may have resulted from American sites preferentially using ASA doses of 300 mg/day or greater, whereas other sites preferentially used 75-100 mg/d.
- Lipid-lowering therapy: Patients also receiving lipid-lowering therapy benefited more than those not receiving lipid-lowering therapy. This was not further analyzed, but is likely due to chance or confounding by unmeasured factors.
Issues with internal validity?
- Unclear risk of bias: Incompletely described as a "randomized, double-blind trial". No description of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding method.
- Low risk of attrition bias (loss-to-follow-up <0.5%), and analysis properly included all randomized patients (intention-to-treat population).