Fulltext

Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) in Elderly Patients: Which Drug to Choose, Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Akkaif MA 1 , Sha'aban A 1 , Daud NAA 1 , Yunusa I 2 , Ng ML 3 , Sk Abdul Kader MA 4 Show all authors , Noor DAM 1 , Ibrahim B 1

Affiliations 

  • 1 Discipline of Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang 11800, Malaysia
  • 2 College of Pharmacy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 29208, USA
  • 3 Advanced Medical and Dental Institute, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang 13200, Malaysia
  • 4 Department of Cardiology, Penang General Hospital, Penang 10990, Malaysia
J Cardiovasc Dev Dis, 2021 Sep 30;8(10).
PMID: 34677192 DOI: 10.3390/jcdd8100123

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A new generation P2Y12 receptor inhibitor (ticagrelor) is recommended in current therapeutic guidelines to treat patients with coronary heart disease (CHD). However, it is unknown if ticagrelor is more effective than clopidogrel in elderly patients. Therefore, a systematic review was done to assess the effectiveness and safety of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in older patients with CHD to determine the appropriate antiplatelet treatment plan.

METHODOLOGY: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effectiveness and safety of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in elderly patients with CHD. We selected eligible RCTs based on specified study criteria following a systematic search of PubMed and Scopus databases from January 2007 to May 2021. Primary efficacy outcomes assessed were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), and all-cause death. The secondary outcome assessed was major bleeding events. We used RevMan 5.3 software to conduct a random-effects meta-analysis and estimated the pooled incidence and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for ticagrelor and clopidogrel.

RESULTS: Data from 6 RCTs comprising 21,827 elderly patients were extracted according to the eligibility criteria. There was no significant difference in the MACE outcome (incidence: 9.23% vs. 10.57%; RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.70-1.28, p = 0.72), MI (incidence: 5.40% vs. 6.23%; RR = 0.94, 95% CI= 0.69-1.27, p = 0.67), ST (incidence: 2.33% vs. 3.17%; RR = 0.61, 95% CI= 0.32-1.17, p = 0.13), and all-cause death (4.29% vs. 5.33%; RR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.65-1.12, p = 0.25) for ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel, respectively. In addition, ticagrelor was not associated with a significant increase in the rate of major bleeding (incidence: 9.98% vs. 9.33%: RR = 1.37, 95% CI = 0.97-1.94, p = 0.07) vs. clopidogrel.

CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find evidence that ticagrelor is significantly more effective or safer than clopidogrel in elderly patients with CHD.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Similar publications