Prasugrel versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes

Stephen D. Wiviott(Brigham and Women's Hospital), Eugene Braunwald(Brigham and Women's Hospital), Carolyn H. McCabe(Brigham and Women's Hospital), Gilles Montalescot(Inserm), Witold Rużyłło(Institute of Cardiology), Shmuel Gottlieb(Bikur Cholim Hospital), F.-J. Neumann(Universitäts-Herzzentrum Freiburg-Bad Krozingen), Diego Ardissino(Ospedale di Parma), Stefano De Servi(Azienda Ospedaliera Ospedale Civile di Legnano), Sabina A. Murphy(Brigham and Women's Hospital), Jeffrey Riesmeyer(Eli Lilly (United States)), Govinda J. Weerakkody(Eli Lilly (United States)), C. Michael Gibson(Brigham and Women's Hospital), Elliott M. Antman(Brigham and Women's Hospital)
New England Journal of Medicine
November 4, 2007
Cited by 6,737Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

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 [ClinicalTrials.gov].)


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis