Skip To Main Content

Clopidogrel Based Strategies in ACS

Selective, clopidogrel-based strategies vs conventional treatment in acute coronary syndrome: A study-level meta-analysis.

The approach of “unguided de-escalation” rather than “guided de-escalation” to clopidogrel resulted in reduction of major or minor bleeding complications and net clinical endpoint vs ticagrelor/prasugrel use, while sustaining similar ischemic protection in patients with ACS undergoing PCI.

Key Takeaway

  • This meta-analysis of six randomized trials (RCTs) including patients with ACS undergoing PCI demonstrated:
  • Incidence of major bleeding and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) was similar in the selective, clopidogrel-based (unguided de-escalation/guided therapy) vs conventional treatment (ticagrelor/prasugrel) approaches
  • Rates of major or minor bleeding and occurrence of net clinical endpoint were lower in the selective, clopidogrel-based vs conventional treatment group
  • A “plain de-escalation to clopidogrel” after PCI for ACS (driven by clinical judgment), provided a better net clinical benefit vs conventional approach when conducted approximately four weeks after the procedure
  • Study findings do not support the strategy of platelet function- or genotype-guided clopidogrel therapy after PCI for patients with ACS, owing to lack of safety benefits vs conventional treatment, costs, and organizational issues

Why This Matters

  • Prasugrel or ticagrelor is recommended after ACS, owing to their potent platelet inhibition and higher protection of ischemic events vs clopidogrel
    • However, this greater efficacy of potent platelet inhibition occurs at the price of increased bleeding complications.
    • Hence, two strategies with clopidogrel therapy (unguided de-escalation and guided clopidogrel therapy) have been recently developed to maintain an adequate anti-ischemic effect and reduced bleeding risk.

Study Design

  • This study-level meta-analysis evaluated six RCTs investigating selective clopidogrel-based therapies vs conventional treatment with ticagrelor/prasugrel after PCI.
  • Inclusion criteria: Only RCTs* enrolling ≥40% of patients with ACS
  • Main safety endpoint: Pooled incidence of major bleeding
  • Main efficacy endpoint: Cumulative incidence of MACE (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke)
  • Other outcome measures: Net clinical endpoint, major or minor bleeding, individual components of the MACE endpoint, stent thrombosis, and unplanned coronary revascularization

Key Results

  • Meta-analysis included six RCTs (three on unguided de-escalation [N = 3,473]; three on guided clopidogrel therapy [N = 7,533])
  • Overall mean duration of follow-up = 10.3 months

Safety Outcomes

  • Rate of major bleeding (clopidogrel-based vs conventional therapy): 1.8% vs 3.1% (odds ratio [OR] = 0.72 [95% confidence interval {CI}: 0.51–1.01; P = 0.06])
  • Rate of major or minor bleeding (clopidogrel-based vs conventional therapy): 4.8% vs 9.1% (OR = 0.57 [95% CI: 0.40–0.80; P = 0.001])
    • Greater safety of selective, clopidogrel-based therapy was significant for unguided de-escalation (4.2% vs 8.9% [OR = 0.43 {95% CI: 0.32–0.58; P <0.00001}]), and nonsignificant with guided therapy (5.2% vs 9.2 % [OR = 0.72 {95% CI: 0.51–1.02; P = 0.07}]) (P for interaction = 0.03)

Efficacy Outcomes

  • Incidence of MACE: Similar for clopidogrel-based vs conventional therapy (2.9% vs 3.2% [OR = 0.93 {95% CI: 0.72–1.20; P = 0.58}])
  • Net clinical endpoint (clopidogrel-based vs conventional therapy): Occurred in 6.4% vs 9.8% patients (OR = 0.59 [95% CI: 0.41–0.85; P = 0.004])
    • Statistically significant reduction for unguided de-escalation (6.1% vs 11.3% [OR = 0.50 {95% CI: 0.39–0.64; P <0.00001}]); whereas no difference was noted for guided clopidogrel and conventional therapy (6.9% vs 8.4% [OR = 0.85 {95% CI: 0.62–1.16; P = 0.30}]) (P for interaction = 0.01)
  • Rate of stent thrombosis: Similar for clopidogrel-based vs conventional therapy (0.50% vs 0.26% [OR = 1.60 {95% CI: 0.72–3.54; P = 0.24}])
  • Unplanned coronary revascularization (reported only in three trials on unguided de-escalation vs conventional therapy): 3.5% vs 4.0% (OR = 0.86 [95% CI: 0.60–1.23; P = 0.42])

Limitations

  • Absence of patient-level data hampers specific outcome analyses and prevents adjustments for differences between the included trials
  • Two studies of this meta-analysis included a certain number of patients with chronic coronary syndrome
  • A subpopulation was selected from the intention-to-treat overall sample in two trials to specifically address the aims of the meta-analysis
  • Safety outcomes were variable across different investigations
  • Number of patients was smaller in the studies on unguided vs guided therapy
  • This analysis did not allow a direct comparison of unguided de-escalation vs guided clopidogrel therapy

*Please refer source publication (Patti et al.) for details on search strategy, trial characteristics, and de-escalation/platelet function testing/genotype guided approaches.

Reference

  1. Shoji S, Kuno T, Fujisaki T, Takagi H, Briasoulis A, Deharo P, et al. De-escalation of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021;78(8):763–777. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2021.06.012. PMID: 34275697.
MAT-BH-2300020/V1/JAN2023