TY - JOUR
T1 - Switching from Clopidogrel to Prasugrel in patients undergoing PCI
T2 - A meta-analytic overview
AU - Verdoia, Monica
AU - Barbieri, Lucia
AU - Suryapranata, Harry
AU - De Luca, Giuseppe
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.
PY - 2016/2/17
Y1 - 2016/2/17
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Clopidogrel
KW - meta-analysis
KW - percutaneous coronary intervention
KW - prasugrel
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/84959091248
U2 - 10.3109/09537104.2015.1042447
DO - 10.3109/09537104.2015.1042447
M3 - Article
SN - 0953-7104
VL - 27
SP - 93
EP - 104
JO - Platelets
JF - Platelets
IS - 2
ER -