[HTML][HTML] Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes

SD Wiviott, E Braunwald, CH McCabe… - … England Journal of …, 2007 - Mass Medical Soc
SD Wiviott, E Braunwald, CH McCabe, G Montalescot, W Ruzyllo, S Gottlieb, FJ Neumann…
New England Journal of Medicine, 2007Mass Medical Soc
Background Dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a thienopyridine is a cornerstone of
treatment to prevent thrombotic complications of acute coronary syndromes and
percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods To compare prasugrel, a new thienopyridine,
with clopidogrel, we randomly assigned 13,608 patients with moderate-to-high-risk acute
coronary syndromes with scheduled percutaneous coronary intervention to receive
prasugrel (a 60-mg loading dose and a 10-mg daily maintenance dose) or clopidogrel (a …
Background
Dual-antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a thienopyridine is a cornerstone of treatment to prevent thrombotic complications of acute coronary syndromes and percutaneous coronary intervention.
Methods
To compare prasugrel, a new thienopyridine, with clopidogrel, we randomly assigned 13,608 patients with moderate-to-high-risk acute coronary syndromes with scheduled percutaneous coronary intervention to receive prasugrel (a 60-mg loading dose and a 10-mg daily maintenance dose) or clopidogrel (a 300-mg loading dose and a 75-mg daily maintenance dose), for 6 to 15 months. The primary efficacy end point was death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The key safety end point was major bleeding.
Results
The primary efficacy end point occurred in 12.1% of patients receiving clopidogrel and 9.9% of patients receiving prasugrel (hazard ratio for prasugrel vs. clopidogrel, 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.73 to 0.90; P<0.001). We also found significant reductions in the prasugrel group in the rates of myocardial infarction (9.7% for clopidogrel vs. 7.4% for prasugrel; P<0.001), urgent target-vessel revascularization (3.7% vs. 2.5%; P<0.001), and stent thrombosis (2.4% vs. 1.1%; P<0.001). Major bleeding was observed in 2.4% of patients receiving prasugrel and in 1.8% of patients receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.68; P=0.03). Also greater in the prasugrel group was the rate of life-threatening bleeding (1.4% vs. 0.9%; P=0.01), including nonfatal bleeding (1.1% vs. 0.9%; hazard ratio, 1.25; P=0.23) and fatal bleeding (0.4% vs. 0.1%; P=0.002).
Conclusions
In patients with acute coronary syndromes with scheduled percutaneous coronary intervention, prasugrel therapy was associated with significantly reduced rates of ischemic events, including stent thrombosis, but with an increased risk of major bleeding, including fatal bleeding. Overall mortality did not differ significantly between treatment groups. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00097591.)
The New England Journal Of Medicine