American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 129–141 | Cite as

One-Year Clinical Effectiveness Comparison of Prasugrel with Ticagrelor: Results from a Retrospective Observational Study using an Integrated Claims Database

  • Mark B. Effron
  • Kavita V. Nair
  • Cliff Molife
  • Stuart Y. Keller
  • Robert L. PageII
  • Jason C. Simeone
  • Brian Murphy
  • Beth L. Nordstrom
  • Yajun Zhu
  • Patrick L. McCollam
  • George W. Vetrovec
Original Research Article



No direct comparisons of ticagrelor and prasugrel with 1-year clinical follow-up have been reported.


Our objective was to compare 1-year clinical outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and treated with either ticagrelor or prasugrel in a real-world setting.


This retrospective study included patients from a payer database who were aged ≥18 years and had ACS managed with PCI with no history of transient ischemic attack (TIA)/stroke. Data were propensity matched for prasugrel use with a 3:1 prasugrel:ticagrelor ratio. Post-discharge net adverse clinical event (NACE) rate at 1 year was evaluated for noninferiority using a pre-defined 20% margin. NACE was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or rehospitalization for bleeding.


In total, 15,788 ACS-PCI patients were included (prasugrel 12,797; ticagrelor 2991). Prasugrel-treated patients were younger; less likely to be female, have prior myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes, or non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI); and more likely to have unstable angina (UA) than ticagrelor-treated patients. Prior to matching, NACE and MACE (P < 0.01) were lower, with no difference in bleeding with prasugrel compared with ticagrelor. After matching, there was no significant difference in baseline characteristics. Noninferiority was demonstrated for NACE, MACE, and bleeding between prasugrel and ticagrelor. NACE and MACE were significantly lower with prasugrel use, primarily driven by heart failure, with no significant difference in all-cause death, MI, UA, revascularization, TIA/stroke, or bleeding.


In this retrospective study, physicians preferentially used prasugrel rather than ticagrelor in younger ACS-PCI patients with lower risk of bleeding or comorbidities. After propensity matching, clinical outcomes associated with prasugrel were noninferior to those with ticagrelor.



The authors thank Doug Faries, PhD, Hsiao Lieu, MD, Molly Tomlin, MS, Nayan Acharya, MD (deceased), and Vladimir Kryzhanovski, MD, at Eli Lilly and Company; Feride Frech-Tamas, PhD, Elizabeth Marrett, MPH, and Qiaoyi Zhang, PhD, at Daiichi Sankyo Inc.; and Teresa Bennett and Jaime Lucove at Symphony Health Solutions, for valuable contributions to this study and manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards


This study was funded by Daiichi Sankyo Inc., Parsippany, NJ, USA, and Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, IN, USA.

Conflict of interest

MBE is a shareholder of, receives a pension from, and—at the time of the study—was an employee of Eli Lilly and Company. CM, SK, YZ, and PLM are shareholders and employees of Eli Lilly and Company. GV is an unpaid consultant to Daiichi Sankyo and Eli Lilly. KVN and RLP II are paid consultants to Daiichi Sankyo and Eli Lilly. JCS, BLN, and BM are employed by Evidera, which received funding from Eli Lilly and Company and Daiichi Sankyo Inc. to conduct this research.

Supplementary material

40256_2017_255_MOESM1_ESM.docx (328 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 327 kb)


  1. 1.
    Amsterdam EA, Wenger NK, Brindis RG, et al. 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014;130:e344–426.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD, et al. ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2013;2013(127):e362–425.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Windecker S, Kolh P, Alfonso F, et al. ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization: the task force on myocardial revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur Heart J. 2014;35:2541–619.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Levine GN, Bates ER, Bittl JA, et al. ACC/AHA guideline focused update on duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;68(10):1082–115. Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bagai A, Peterson ED, Honeycutt E, et al. In-hospital switching between adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitors in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights into contemporary practice from the TRANSLATE-ACS study. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care. 2015;4:499–508.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2001–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. New Engl J Med. 2009;361:1045–57.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Steiner S, Moertl D, Chen L, et al. Network meta-analysis of prasugrel, ticagrelor, high- and standard-dose clopidogrel in patients scheduled for percutaneous coronary interventions. Thromb Haemost. 2012;108:318–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chatterjee S, Ghose A, Sharma A, et al. Comparing newer oral anti-platelets prasugrel and ticagrelor in reduction of ischemic events-evidence from a network meta-analysis. J Thromb Thrombolysis. 2013;36:223–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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;150:325–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Passaro D, Fadda V, Maratea D, et al. Anti-platelet treatments in acute coronary syndrome: simplified network meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2011;150:364–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Simeone JC, Molife C, Marrett E, et al. One-year post-discharge resource utilization and treatment patterns of patients with acute coronary syndrome managed with percutaneous coronary intervention and treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs. 2015;15:337–50.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    AstraZeneca. Brilinta [package insert] 2017 Accessed July 05 2017.
  14. 14.
    Eli Lilly and Company. Effient [package insert]. 2017. Accessed July 05 2017.
  15. 15.
    Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc. 1984;79:516–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rubin DB. The design versus the analysis of observational studies for causal effects: parallels with the design of randomized trials. Stat Med. 2007;26:20–36.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Austin PC. Primer on statistical interpretation or methods report card on propensity-score matching in the cardiology literature from 2004 to 2006: a systematic review. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2008;1:62–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cohen M. Predictors of bleeding risk and long-term mortality in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Curr Med Res Opin. 2005;21:439–45. Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mehran R, Baber U, Steg PG, et al. Cessation of dual antiplatelet treatment and cardiac events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PARIS): 2 year results from a prospective observational study. Lancet. 2013;382:1714–22.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Moscucci M, Fox KA, Cannon CP, et al. Predictors of major bleeding in acute coronary syndromes: the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE). Eur Heart J. 2003;24:1815–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Austin PC, Mamdani MM. A comparison of propensity score methods: a case-study estimating the effectiveness of post-AMI statin use. Stat Med. 2006;25:2084–106. Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schneeweiss S. Sensitivity analysis and external adjustment for unmeasured confounders in epidemiologic database studies of therapeutics. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2006;15(5):291–303.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Bae JP, Faries DE, Ernst FR, et al. Real-world observations with prasugrel compared to clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States. Curr Med Res Opin. 2014;30:2207–16.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wang TY, Zettler M, Effron MB, et al. Comparative effectiveness of prasugrel vs. clopidogrel among acute myocardial infarction patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: 30-day outcomes from the TRANSLATE-ACS observational study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(18_S1):B1. Scholar
  25. 25.
    Baber U, Sartori S, Aquino M, et al. 90-Day Effectiveness and Safety of Prasugrel vs. Clopidogrel as Used in Clinical Practice in Patients With ACS Undergoing PCI: Initial Findings from the PROMETHEUS Study. Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions—38th Annual Scientific Sessions. 2015.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Larmore C, Effron MB, Molife C, et al. ”Real-World” comparison of prasugrel with ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;88(4):535–44. Scholar
  27. 27.
    Becker RC, Bassand JP, Budaj A, et al. Bleeding complications with the P2Y12 receptor antagonists clopidogrel and ticagrelorin the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Eur Heart J. 2011;32:2933–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Alexopoulos D, Galati A, Xanthopoulou I, et al. Ticagrelor versus prasugrel in acute coronary syndrome patients with high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity following percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;60:193–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alexopoulos D, Xanthopoulou I, Mavronasiou E, et al. Randomized assessment of ticagrelor versus prasugrel antiplatelet effects in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2013;36:2211–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Vilahur G, Gutiérrez M, Casani L, et al. Protective effects of ticagrelor on myocardial injury after infarctionclinical perspective. Circulation. 2016;134:1708–19.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jeong HS, Hong SJ, Cho SA, et al. Comparison of ticagrelor versus prasugrel for inflammation, vascular function, and circulating endothelial progenitor cells in diabetic patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome requiring coronary stenting: a prospective, randomized, crossover trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:1646–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Motovska Z, Hlinomaz O, Miklik R, et al. Prasugrel versus ticagrelor in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention: multicenter randomized Prague-18 study. Circulation. 2016;134:1603–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Minicucci MF, Azevedo PS, Polegato BF, et al. Heart failure after myocardial infarction: clinical implications and treatment. Clin Cardiol. 2011;34:410–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Alexopoulos D, Xanthopoulou I, Gkizas V, et al. Randomized assessment of ticagrelor versus prasugrel antiplatelet effects in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012;5:797–804.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Parodi G, Valenti R, Bellandi B, et al. Comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor loading doses in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients: RAPID (Rapid Activity of Platelet Inhibitor Drugs) primary PCI study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:1601–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bonello L, Laine M, Kipson N, et al. Ticagrelor increases adenosine plasma concentration in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:872–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Nanhwan MK, Ling S, Kodakandla M, et al. Chronic treatment with ticagrelor limits myocardial infarct size: an adenosine and cyclooxygenase-2-dependent effect. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2014;34:2078–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Stone GW, Witzenbichler B, Weisz G, et al. Platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES): a prospective multicentre registry study. Lancet. 2013;382:614–23.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Kohli P, Udell JA, Murphy SA, et al. Discharge aspirin dose and clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes treated with prasugrel versus clopidogrel: an analysis from the TRITON-TIMI 38 study (trial to assess improvement in therapeutic outcomes by optimizing platelet inhibition with prasugrel-thrombolysis in myocardial infarction 38). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:225–32.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark B. Effron
    • 1
    • 3
  • Kavita V. Nair
    • 2
  • Cliff Molife
    • 3
  • Stuart Y. Keller
    • 3
  • Robert L. PageII
    • 2
  • Jason C. Simeone
    • 4
  • Brian Murphy
    • 4
  • Beth L. Nordstrom
    • 4
  • Yajun Zhu
    • 3
  • Patrick L. McCollam
    • 3
  • George W. Vetrovec
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Cardiovascular Diseases, Ochsner Clinical SchoolJohn Ochsner Heart and Vascular Institute, University of Queensland School of MedicineNew OrleansUSA
  2. 2.Skaggs School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of ColoradoAuroraUSA
  3. 3.Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate CenterIndianapolisUSA
  4. 4.EvideraLexingtonUSA
  5. 5.Allied Health Professions SchoolVirginia Commonwealth UniversityRichmondUSA

Personalised recommendations