PLATO - Ticagrelor in ACS

Wallentin L, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1045-57.

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)
    • 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
    • Subgroup analyses: 3 of 25 subgroups had a positive test for interaction (each with p=0.05 or lower). Of interest:

    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).