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.

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