4.7 Article

Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor Over Time in Patients With Prior MI in PEGASUS-TIMI 54

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
Volume 70, Issue 11, Pages 1368-1375

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2017.07.768

Keywords

cardiovascular death; ischemic risk; myocardial infarction; P2Y(12) inhibition; secondary prevention; stroke

Funding

  1. AstraZeneca
  2. Accumetrics
  3. Amgen
  4. Beckman Coulter
  5. Bristol-Myers Squibb
  6. CV Therapeutics
  7. Daiichi-Sankyo Co. Ltd.
  8. Eli Lilly and Co.
  9. GlaxoSmithKline
  10. Integrated Therapeutics
  11. MedImmune
  12. Merck and Co.
  13. Nanosphere
  14. Novartis Pharmaceuticals
  15. Nuvelo
  16. Ortho-Clinical Diagnostics
  17. Pfizer
  18. Roche Diagnostics
  19. Sanofi
  20. Sanofi-Synthelabo
  21. Siemens Medical Solutions
  22. Singulex
  23. PlaqueTec
  24. Actelion
  25. Avacta
  26. Bayer
  27. Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer alliance
  28. Novartis
  29. The Medicines Company
  30. ThermoFisher Scientific
  31. Merck
  32. Servier
  33. Amarin
  34. Chiesi
  35. Eisai
  36. Ethicon
  37. Forest Laboratories
  38. Ironwood
  39. Ischemix
  40. Lilly
  41. Medtronic
  42. Roche
  43. Janssen
  44. Maquet
  45. malpractice attorneys
  46. Bristol-Myers Squibb/Pfizer
  47. Boehringer Ingelheim
  48. Eli Lilly
  49. Edwards Lifesciences
  50. Abbott
  51. AZ Company
  52. Beth Israel Deaconess Medical
  53. Brigham Women's Hospital
  54. Cardiovascular Research Foundation
  55. CCC
  56. Celladon
  57. CME Resources
  58. Daiichi-Sankyo
  59. Elsevier
  60. Europa
  61. Federation Francaise de Cardiologie
  62. ICAN
  63. INSERM
  64. Lead-Up
  65. Menarini
  66. Merck Sharp Dohme
  67. TIMI Study Group
  68. WebMD
  69. Brigham and Women's Hospital from Abbott Laboratories
  70. Critical Diagnostics
  71. Genzyme
  72. Gilead
  73. Intarcia
  74. Janssen Research Development
  75. Poxel
  76. Takeda

Ask authors/readers for more resources

BACKGROUND Ticagrelor reduces ischemic risk in patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI). It remains unclear whether ischemic risk and the benefits of prolonged P2Y(12) inhibition in this population remain consistent over time. OBJECTIVES The study sought to investigate the pattern of ischemic risk over time and whether the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor were similar early and late after randomization. METHODS The PEGASUS-TIMI (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) 54 trial randomized patients with prior MI (median 1.7 years prior) to ticagrelor 90 mg, ticagrelor 60 mg, or placebo on a background of aspirin. The rates of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI, and stroke as well as TIMI major bleeding were analyzed at yearly landmarks (years 1, 2, and 3). RESULTS A total of 21,162 patients were randomized and followed for 33 months (median), with 28% of patients >= 5 years from MI at trial conclusion. The risk of CV death, MI, or stroke in the placebo arm remained roughly constant over the trial at an similar to 3% annualized rate. The benefit of ticagrelor 60 mg was consistent at each subsequent landmark (year 1 hazard ratio [HR]: 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67 to 0.99; year 2 HR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.11; and year 3 HR: 0.79; 95% CI: 0.62 to 1.00). TIMI major bleeding was increased with ticagrelor 60 mg at each landmark, but with the greatest hazard in the first year (year 1 HR: 3.22; year 2 HR: 2.07; year 3 HR: 1.65). CONCLUSIONS Patients with a history of MI remain at persistent high risk for CVD, MI, and stroke as late as 5 years after MI. The efficacy of low-dose ticagrelor is consistent over time with a trend toward less excess bleeding. (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin [PEGASUS]; NCT01225562) (J Am Coll Cardiol 2017; 70: 1368-75) (C) 2017 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available