Ticagrelor Compared to Clopidogrel in Acute Coronary Syndromes trial (TC4): a Bayesian pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.

IF 9.4 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Stephen A Kutcher, Nandini Dendukuri, Sonny Dandona, Lyne Nadeau, James M Brophy
{"title":"Ticagrelor Compared to Clopidogrel in Acute Coronary Syndromes trial (TC4): a Bayesian pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial.","authors":"Stephen A Kutcher, Nandini Dendukuri, Sonny Dandona, Lyne Nadeau, James M Brophy","doi":"10.1503/cmaj.241862","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Dual antiplatelet therapy is the standard of care for acute coronary syndrome, but uncertainty exists regarding the optimal regimen for patients in North America. We sought to compare the effectiveness and safety of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and ticagrelor or clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome from a single tertiary academic centre in Montréal, Canada.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a pragmatic, open-label, time-clustered (bimonthly between October 2018 and March 2021), randomized controlled trial. The primary effectiveness end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. The primary safety end point was hospital admissions for bleeding. We ascertained 12-month outcomes from the Quebec universal electronic health databases. We designed and analyzed the study within a Bayesian paradigm to supplement existing knowledge. The primary analysis was a Bayesian logistic regression model with an informed focused prior from previously randomly assigned North American patients. Robustness was evaluated with vague and other prespecified informative priors, spanning reasonable pre-existing beliefs. We defined clinically important benefits and harms as risk reductions exceeding a 10% difference.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We randomly assigned 1005 patients with acute coronary syndrome to ticagrelor (<i>n</i> = 450) or clopidogrel (<i>n</i> = 555). Major acute cardiovascular events occurred in 50 (11.1%) patients assigned to ticagrelor and 64 (11.5%) assigned to clopidogrel (relative risk [RR] 0.95, 95% credible interval 0.67-1.35, with a vague prior). The primary analysis with an informed focused prior resulted in probabilities of a clinically meaningful ticagrelor benefit (RR < 0.9), equivalence (0.9 ≤ RR ≤ 1.1) or harm (RR ≥ 1.1) of 2%, 41%, and 57%, respectively. For the safety end point, there was no consistent signal of benefit or harm with ticagrelor. Sensitivity analyses with a range of prior beliefs gave generally consistent results.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Whether we analyzed this trial with a vague or a range of reasonable informed priors, we found no strong evidence for the superiority of ticagrelor over clopidogrel in North American patients. Current guidelines favouring ticagrelor over clopidogrel might take this new evidence into future consideration.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT04057300.</p>","PeriodicalId":9609,"journal":{"name":"Canadian Medical Association journal","volume":"197 12","pages":"E309-E318"},"PeriodicalIF":9.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11957720/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Canadian Medical Association journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.241862","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Dual antiplatelet therapy is the standard of care for acute coronary syndrome, but uncertainty exists regarding the optimal regimen for patients in North America. We sought to compare the effectiveness and safety of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and ticagrelor or clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome from a single tertiary academic centre in Montréal, Canada.

Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, open-label, time-clustered (bimonthly between October 2018 and March 2021), randomized controlled trial. The primary effectiveness end point was a composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. The primary safety end point was hospital admissions for bleeding. We ascertained 12-month outcomes from the Quebec universal electronic health databases. We designed and analyzed the study within a Bayesian paradigm to supplement existing knowledge. The primary analysis was a Bayesian logistic regression model with an informed focused prior from previously randomly assigned North American patients. Robustness was evaluated with vague and other prespecified informative priors, spanning reasonable pre-existing beliefs. We defined clinically important benefits and harms as risk reductions exceeding a 10% difference.

Results: We randomly assigned 1005 patients with acute coronary syndrome to ticagrelor (n = 450) or clopidogrel (n = 555). Major acute cardiovascular events occurred in 50 (11.1%) patients assigned to ticagrelor and 64 (11.5%) assigned to clopidogrel (relative risk [RR] 0.95, 95% credible interval 0.67-1.35, with a vague prior). The primary analysis with an informed focused prior resulted in probabilities of a clinically meaningful ticagrelor benefit (RR < 0.9), equivalence (0.9 ≤ RR ≤ 1.1) or harm (RR ≥ 1.1) of 2%, 41%, and 57%, respectively. For the safety end point, there was no consistent signal of benefit or harm with ticagrelor. Sensitivity analyses with a range of prior beliefs gave generally consistent results.

Interpretation: Whether we analyzed this trial with a vague or a range of reasonable informed priors, we found no strong evidence for the superiority of ticagrelor over clopidogrel in North American patients. Current guidelines favouring ticagrelor over clopidogrel might take this new evidence into future consideration.

Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov no. NCT04057300.

替格瑞洛与氯吡格雷在急性冠脉综合征试验中的比较(TC4):一项贝叶斯实用群随机对照试验。
背景:双重抗血小板治疗是急性冠脉综合征的标准治疗方案,但北美地区患者的最佳治疗方案存在不确定性。我们试图比较乙酰水杨酸(ASA)和替格瑞洛或氯吡格雷在急性冠状动脉综合征患者中的有效性和安全性,这些患者来自加拿大montracimal的一个三级学术中心。方法:我们进行了一项实用的、开放标签的、时间聚类的(2018年10月至2021年3月双月刊)随机对照试验。主要疗效终点是全因死亡率、非致死性心肌梗死或缺血性中风的综合指标。主要的安全终点是因出血入院。我们从魁北克通用电子健康数据库中确定了12个月的结果。我们在贝叶斯范式中设计和分析了这项研究,以补充现有的知识。主要分析是一个贝叶斯逻辑回归模型,该模型具有先前随机分配的北美患者的知情焦点。鲁棒性评估与模糊和其他预先指定的信息先验,跨越合理的预先存在的信念。我们将临床上重要的益处和危害定义为风险降低超过10%的差异。结果:我们将1005例急性冠脉综合征患者随机分配到替格瑞洛(n = 450)或氯吡格雷(n = 555)组。替格瑞洛组有50例(11.1%)患者发生严重急性心血管事件,氯吡格雷组有64例(11.5%)患者发生严重急性心血管事件(相对危险度[RR] 0.95, 95%可信区间0.67-1.35,先验模糊)。具有知情重点先验的初步分析结果显示,替格瑞洛临床有意义获益(RR < 0.9)、等效性(0.9≤RR≤1.1)或危害(RR≥1.1)的概率分别为2%、41%和57%。对于安全性终点,替格瑞洛没有一致的益处或危害信号。具有一系列先验信念的敏感性分析给出了大致一致的结果。解释:无论我们是在模糊的或合理的知情范围内分析该试验,我们都没有发现在北美患者中替格瑞洛优于氯吡格雷的有力证据。目前的指南更倾向于替格瑞洛而不是氯吡格雷,未来可能会考虑到这一新证据。试验注册:Clinicaltrials.govNCT04057300。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Canadian Medical Association journal
Canadian Medical Association journal 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
4.10%
发文量
481
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) is a peer-reviewed general medical journal renowned for publishing original research, commentaries, analyses, reviews, clinical practice updates, and editorials. Led by Editor-in-Chief Dr. Kirsten Patrick, it has a significant impact on healthcare in Canada and globally, with a 2022 impact factor of 17.4. Its mission is to promote knowledge vital for the health of Canadians and the global community, guided by values of service, evidence, and integrity. The journal's vision emphasizes the importance of the best evidence, practice, and health outcomes. CMAJ covers a broad range of topics, focusing on contributing to the evidence base, influencing clinical practice, and raising awareness of pressing health issues among policymakers and the public. Since 2020, with the appointment of a Lead of Patient Involvement, CMAJ is committed to integrating patients into its governance and operations, encouraging their content submissions.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信