Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Ticagrelor and prasugrel show no statistically credible difference in 1-year MACE for ACS patientsComparing Ticagrelor and Prasugrel for Patients with Heart Conditions After Surgery

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that ticagrelor and prasugrel show no statistically credible difference in 1-year MACE for ACS patients after PCI.

This meta-analysis synthesized results from retrospective new-user cohort studies involving 133,718 adults with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing their first percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The analysis compared ticagrelor to prasugrel over a 1-year follow-up period.

The primary meta-analysis reported no statistically credible difference between ticagrelor and prasugrel for 1-year MACE (HR 1.28; 95% CrI, 0.89-1.88). Secondary outcomes, including NACE (HR 1.23; 95% CrI, 0.88-1.75), all-cause mortality (HR 1.17; 95% CrI, 0.78-1.77), and cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.23; 95% CrI, 0.81-1.87), also showed no statistically credible differences. Specific events such as ischemic events (HR 1.28), acute myocardial infarction (HR 1.30), stroke (HR 1.09), and gastrointestinal bleeding (HR 1.04) did not show significant differences between the two agents.

A post-hoc meta-analysis using only U.S. databases showed a statistically significant increase in 1-year MACE for ticagrelor (HR 1.49; 95% CrI, 1.05-2.10). However, the authors noted substantial between-database heterogeneity as a limitation. These findings suggest that while both agents are options for ACS patients post-PCI, no significant difference in primary outcomes was established in the main analysis.

How this fits prior evidence

This meta-analysis addresses the comparative efficacy of ticagrelor and prasugrel in ACS patients, expanding on prior evidence showing ticagrelor reduces mortality and MACE compared to clopidogrel. While previous data established ticagrelor as a viable option for ACS based on FDA approval, this study specifically compares it against prasugrel. The finding of no statistically credible difference between these two specific agents in the primary meta-analysis provides further nuance to the selection of P2Y12 inhibitors following PCI.

Doctors often have to choose between different medications to prevent blood clots in patients who have suffered a heart attack or other serious heart issues. This study looked at over 130,000 patients to compare two specific drugs: ticagrelor and prasugrel. Both medicines are used after a procedure to open blocked arteries.

The main goal was to see if one drug performed better than the other over a one-year period. Researchers looked at major events like heart attacks, strokes, and deaths. They also checked for safety issues, such as internal bleeding or stomach bleeding, to ensure both drugs were safe for daily use.

The results showed that there was no clear difference in overall success rates between the two medications. Patients taking ticagrelor had similar outcomes to those taking prasugrel regarding heart attacks and strokes. While some smaller groups showed slight variations, the main findings suggested both drugs are comparable options for patients with these conditions.

What this means for you:
Both ticagrelor and prasugrel showed similar success rates for preventing major heart events over one year.

Common questions

Are there any safety concerns with these medications?

The study looked at specific risks like bleeding. It found no statistically significant difference between ticagrelor and prasugrel for hemorrhagic events (HR 1.01) or gastrointestinal bleeding (HR 1.04). These results suggest both drugs had similar safety profiles regarding these specific issues during the one-year follow-up.

How many people were included in this study?

The analysis included a large group of 133,718 adults. These patients all had acute coronary syndrome and underwent their first procedure to open blocked arteries (PCI) before starting either ticagrelor or prasugrel.

What are the main differences between these two drugs?

The study found no statistically credible difference between ticagrelor and prasugrel for primary outcomes like death, heart attack, or stroke. While a smaller look at only U.S. data showed a different trend, the overall analysis of all 133,718 patients did not show a clear winner.

Study Details

Study typeMeta analysis
Sample sizen = 133,718
EvidenceLevel 1
PublishedAug 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
Background: Ticagrelor and prasugrel are recommended P2Y12 inhibitors for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), yet uncertainty persists regarding their direct comparative evidence and guideline recommendations differ. Methods: We conducted a multinational retrospective new-user cohort study across 7 claims and electronic health record databases. Adults with ACS undergoing first PCI who initiated ticagrelor or prasugrel were included; patients with prior major ischemic or hemorrhagic events or oral anticoagulant use were excluded. The primary outcome was 1-year major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction, or stroke). Secondary outcomes included net adverse clinical events (NACE) and individual components. Propensity scores were estimated using large-scale L1-regularized logistic regression and applied through stratification. Prespecified diagnostics (covariate balance, empirical equipoise, and systematic error) determined eligibility of each database for inclusion in meta-analysis. Database-specific hazard ratios (HRs) were combined using Bayesian random-effects meta-analysis. Results: Among 7 participating databases, 3 met prespecified diagnostic criteria and were included in the primary meta-analysis, comprising 133,718 patients from one nationwide Korean claims database and two U.S. commercial claims databases (ticagrelor, 109,639; prasugrel, 24,079). For 1-year MACE, the pooled HR for ticagrelor versus prasugrel was 1.28 (95% credible interval [CrI], 0.89-1.88), with substantial between-database heterogeneity. Sensitivity analyses across alternative time-at-risk definitions and propensity score matching were consistent. No statistically credible differences were observed for NACE (HR 1.23, CrI 0.88-1.75), all-cause mortality (HR 1.17, CrI 0.78-1.77), cardiovascular mortality (HR 1.23, CrI 0.81-1.87), ischemic events (HR 1.28, CrI 0.88-1.90), hemorrhagic events (HR 1.01, CrI 0.72-1.39), acute myocardial infarction (HR 1.30, CrI 0.88-1.94), stroke (HR 1.09, CrI 0.73-1.58), or gastrointestinal bleeding (HR 1.04, CrI 0.77-1.41). In a post hoc meta-analysis restricted to the two U.S. databases, the pooled HR for 1-year MACE was 1.49 (95% CrI 1.05-2.10). Conclusions: In this pre-specified multinational observational study, no statistically credible difference in 1-year MACE was observed between ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with ACS undergoing PCI. However, substantial cross-database heterogeneity warrants further investigation into context-specific comparative effectiveness and safety.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.