Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://doi.org/10.6515/ACS.202001_36(1).20190627A
DC FieldValue
dc.titleSwitching from Ticagrelor to Clopidogrel in Asian Patients with ST-Elevated Myocardial Infarction – A Time Dependent Analysis Study
dc.contributor.authorKoh L
dc.contributor.authorKim JH
dc.contributor.authorTan DS
dc.contributor.authorLeong WQ
dc.contributor.authorSyed SI
dc.contributor.authorLeow KL
dc.contributor.authorWee EW
dc.date.accessioned2020-10-02T10:53:44Z
dc.date.available2020-10-02T10:53:44Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.identifier.citationKoh L, Kim JH, Tan DS, Leong WQ, Syed SI, Leow KL, Wee EW (2020). Switching from Ticagrelor to Clopidogrel in Asian Patients with ST-Elevated Myocardial Infarction – A Time Dependent Analysis Study. Acta Cardiologica Sinica 36 (1) : 1-15. ScholarBank@NUS Repository. https://doi.org/10.6515/ACS.202001_36(1).20190627A
dc.identifier.issn10116842
dc.identifier.urihttps://scholarbank.nus.edu.sg/handle/10635/176986
dc.description.abstractBackground: Ticagrelor is initially prescribed after an ST-elevated myocardial infarction (STEMI) and this may be followed by a switch to clopidogrel. However, studies involving antiplatelet switching have been conflicting and only assessed at a specific switch point. The objective of this study was to investigate switching from ticagrelor to clopidogrel in an Asian population, after accounting for various switch points as in a real-world environment. Methods: A retrospective cohort of 349 STEMI patients started on ticagrelor and aspirin were followed-up for 1 year after a percutaneous coronary intervention that was performed between June 2014 and November 2016. Patients who switched to clopidogrel were compared with those who remained on ticagrelor. Outcomes measured were major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) and clinically significant bleeding (CSB). Cox regression analysis with switch status as a time-dependent covariate was performed. Results: The switched group was not associated with MACCEs or CSB [10.0% vs. 13.8%; hazard ratio (HR) = 0.484; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.196-1.191; p = 0.114]. There was also no significant difference when MACCEs were analyzed alone (2.3% vs. 7.7%; HR = 0.518; 95% CI: 0.137-1.957; p = 0.332). For CSB, the switched group was less likely to have an event (7.8% vs. 8.5%; HR = 0.298; 95% CI: 0.091-0.982; p = 0.047). Conclusions: This study showed no significant difference between staying on ticagrelor and switching to clopidogrel. Switching might decrease the incidence of CSB. De-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel could translate to cost savings for Asian patients without compromising safety and efficacy. © 2020, Republic of China Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved.
dc.publisherAmerican Chemical Society
dc.subjectAcute coronary syndrome
dc.subjectClopidogrel
dc.subjectDual antiplatelet
dc.subjectSwitching
dc.subjectTicagrelor
dc.typeArticle
dc.contributor.departmentPHARMACY
dc.description.doi10.6515/ACS.202001_36(1).20190627A
dc.description.sourcetitleActa Cardiologica Sinica
dc.description.volume36
dc.description.issue1
dc.description.page1-15
dc.published.statePublished
Appears in Collections:Staff Publications
Elements

Show simple item record
Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormatAccess SettingsVersion 
acs-36-008.pdf253.79 kBAdobe PDF

OPEN

PublishedView/Download

Google ScholarTM

Check

Altmetric


Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.