Despite the demonstrated benefits of Prasugrel, a new generation thienopyridine, in the prevention of thrombotic complications after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS), its use is still precluded to those many patients arriving to the cath lab pre-treated with Clopidogrel. Conclusive data on the strategy of switching from Clopidogrel to Prasugrel are still missing, therefore we aimed to perform a meta-analysis of current studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of switching from Clopidogrel to Prasugrel (PS) as compared to a standard thienopyridine therapy with Clopidogrel or Prasugrel in patients undergoing PCI. Literature archives and main scientific sessions’ abstracts were scanned for studies comparing a switching strategy from Clopidogrel to Prasugrel vs. Prasugrel or Clopidogrel. Primary efficacy endpoint was overall mortality. Secondary endpoints were: non-fatal myocardial infarction and definite/probable stent thrombosis. Safety endpoint was the rate of major bleedings according to a per-protocol definition. A total of 12 studies, involving 3956 patients, were included. Among them, 1396 patients (35.3%), received Prasugrel after a Clopidogrel treatment (PS), while 2560 (64.7%) received either Prasugrel or Clopidogrel. The switch from Clopidogrel to Prasugrel was in the majority of the studies periprocedural. The mortality was numerically lower, but not statistically significant, in the PS group as compared with patients who did not switch (1.7% vs. 3.8%, OR [95% CI] = 0.68 [0.40,1.15], p = 0.15, phet = 0.61), without any relationship with patients’ risk profile (r = −0.68 [−2.09, 0.73], p = 0.35). Similar results were obtained for secondary efficacy endpoints and at sensitivity analysis in the majority of subgroups evaluated. Moreover, the PS strategy did not increase major bleedings as compared with standard therapy (1.4% vs. 2.5%, OR [95% CI = 0.70 [0.39, 1.25], p = 0.23, phet = 0.6). The present meta-analysis confirms that, among patients undergoing PCI, switching from Clopidogrel to Prasugrel may be safely performed and therefore should be encouraged among patients eligible to Prasugrel.

Switching from Clopidogrel to Prasugrel in patients undergoing PCI: A meta-analytic overview

DE LUCA, GIUSEPPE
Ultimo
2016-01-01

Abstract

Despite the demonstrated benefits of Prasugrel, a new generation thienopyridine, in the prevention of thrombotic complications after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS), its use is still precluded to those many patients arriving to the cath lab pre-treated with Clopidogrel. Conclusive data on the strategy of switching from Clopidogrel to Prasugrel are still missing, therefore we aimed to perform a meta-analysis of current studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of switching from Clopidogrel to Prasugrel (PS) as compared to a standard thienopyridine therapy with Clopidogrel or Prasugrel in patients undergoing PCI. Literature archives and main scientific sessions’ abstracts were scanned for studies comparing a switching strategy from Clopidogrel to Prasugrel vs. Prasugrel or Clopidogrel. Primary efficacy endpoint was overall mortality. Secondary endpoints were: non-fatal myocardial infarction and definite/probable stent thrombosis. Safety endpoint was the rate of major bleedings according to a per-protocol definition. A total of 12 studies, involving 3956 patients, were included. Among them, 1396 patients (35.3%), received Prasugrel after a Clopidogrel treatment (PS), while 2560 (64.7%) received either Prasugrel or Clopidogrel. The switch from Clopidogrel to Prasugrel was in the majority of the studies periprocedural. The mortality was numerically lower, but not statistically significant, in the PS group as compared with patients who did not switch (1.7% vs. 3.8%, OR [95% CI] = 0.68 [0.40,1.15], p = 0.15, phet = 0.61), without any relationship with patients’ risk profile (r = −0.68 [−2.09, 0.73], p = 0.35). Similar results were obtained for secondary efficacy endpoints and at sensitivity analysis in the majority of subgroups evaluated. Moreover, the PS strategy did not increase major bleedings as compared with standard therapy (1.4% vs. 2.5%, OR [95% CI = 0.70 [0.39, 1.25], p = 0.23, phet = 0.6). The present meta-analysis confirms that, among patients undergoing PCI, switching from Clopidogrel to Prasugrel may be safely performed and therefore should be encouraged among patients eligible to Prasugrel.
2016
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
58.meta switch prasugrel.pdf

solo gestori archivio

Tipologia: Versione Editoriale (PDF)
Licenza: Tutti i diritti riservati (All rights reserved)
Dimensione 908.23 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
908.23 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11570/3256344
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 1
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact