Abstract
In the 2020 European Society of Cardiology guidelines on non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS), the experts proposed to put an end to the equipoise of ticagrelor and prasugrel in addition to aspirin in patients with NSTE-ACS who proceed to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). They gave a strong level of recommendation (IIa) in favor of prasugrel over ticagrelor in these patients. We challenge this proposition, which was mainly driven by the results of ISAR-REACT 5, an open-label prospective head-to-head study of a prasugrel-based strategy compared with a ticagrelor-based strategy in patients with ACS undergoing PCI. In addition to the methodological concerns regarding the ISAR-REACT 5 study, we also question this decision in light of the ISAR-REACT 5 diabetes mellitus subgroup analysis and previous studies and meta-analysis that showed no difference between ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients with ACS. Although we agree with the “one size does not fit all” concept for antiplatelet regimens in patients with ACS who proceed to PCI, we believe that the decision to strongly favor prasugrel was premature and not supported enough by the ISAR-REACT 5 results. In our opinion, equipoise remains between the ticagrelor- and prasugrel-based strategies and more data are needed to settle the debate.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: American journal of cardiovascular drugs : drugs, devices, and other interventions
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
