ABSTRACT
Background Dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) is the standard of care for acute coronary syndromes, but uncertainty exists regarding the optimal regime for North American patients.
Methods This pragmatic, open-label, time clustered, randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.Gov (NCT04057300) compared the effectiveness and safety of DAPT with ticagrelor or clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome patients from a single tertiary academic center in Montreal, Canada. The primary effectiveness endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. The primary safety endpoint were bleeding hospitalizations. Twelve-month outcomes were ascertained from the Québec universal electronic health databases. The study was designed and analyzed within a Bayesian paradigm to supplement existing knowledge. The primary analysis was a Bayesian logistic regression models with an informed focused prior from previously randomized North American patients. Robustness was evaluated with vague and other pre-specified informative priors, spanning reasonable pre-existing beliefs. Clinically significant benefits and harms were defined as risk reductions exceeding a 10% difference.
Results 1,005 ACS patients were randomized to ticagrelor (n = 450) or clopidogrel (n = 555). MACE occurred in 50 (11.1%) ticagrelor and 64 (11.5%) clopidogrel patients (relative risk (RR), 0.95; 95% credible interval [95% CrI]: 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 endpoint, there was no consistent signal of benefit or harm with ticagrelor. Sensitivity analyses with a range of prior beliefs gave generally consistent results.
Conclusions Whether this trial was analysed with a vague, or a range of reasonable informed priors, no strong evidence for the superiority of ticagrelor over clopidogrel was found.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
ClinicalTrials.Gov (NCT04057300)
Clinical Protocols
https://www.brophyj.com/upload/TC4protocol.pdf
Funding Statement
Canadian Institute of Health Research (reference number PJT-156344). No third party payments were received.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Approved by the McGill University Health Centre (MUHC) Research Ethics Board
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All statistical programs will be shared. Governmental regulations prohibit sharing patient level data.
