Efficacy and safety of clopidogrel versus prasugrel and ticagrelor for coronary artery disease treatment in patients with CYP2C19 LoF alleles: a systemic review and meta‐analysis. Issue 8 (28th April 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yoon, Ha Young; Lee, Nari; Seong, Jong‐Mi; Gwak, Hye Sun
• Is Part Of: British journal of clinical pharmacology. Volume 86:Issue 8(2020)
• Page Start: 1489
• Page End: 1498
• Publication Date: 2020-04-28
• Subjects: bleeding -- CYP2C19 reduced‐metabolizers -- major adverse cardiovascular events -- meta‐analysis -- P2Y12 receptor inhibitors; Pharmacology -- Periodicals; Drugs -- Periodicals; 615.1
• DOI: 10.1111/bcp.14317
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0306-5251

Abstract

Abstract : Aim: We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel with those of clopidogrel in CYP2C19 reduced‐metabolizers. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane and Web of Science were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials or cohort studies up to January 2020. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiovascular (CV) death, all‐cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis and stroke. The secondary endpoint was bleeding. Pooled effects were measured by relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Publication bias was evaluated with Egger's regression test and adjusted by trim and fill method. Results: Twelve studies comprising 5829 CV patients with CYP2C19 loss‐of‐function alleles were included. Patients who received ticagrelor or prasugrel showed a lower risk of MACE than those who received clopidogrel (RR 0.524; 95% CI: 0.375, 0.731). The former also had lower risks of CV death (RR 0.409; 95% CI: 0.177, 0.946), all‐cause death (RR 0.441; 95% CI: 0.263, 0.739), MI (RR 0.554; 95% CI: 0.414, 0.741) and stent thrombosis (RR 0.587; 95% CI: 0.348, 0.988) than the latter patient group. The risk of stroke was not significantly different between patients receiving the alternatives and those receiving clopidogrel (RR 0.605; 95% CI: 0.257, 1.425). Major and minor bleeding risk was not significantly different between patients treated with alternatives and clopidogrel (RR 1.019; 95% CI: 0.827, 1.260 and RR 1.235; 95% CI: 0.581, 2.628, respectively). Conclusion: CYP2C19 reduced‐metabolizers can expect better clinical outcome on using prasugrel or ticagrelor rather than clopidogrel.