Factors Associated With Initial Prasugrel Versus Clopidogrel Selection for Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Insights From the Treatment With ADP Receptor Inhibitors: Longitudinal Assessment of Treatment Patterns and Events After Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRANSLATE-ACS) Study.
BACKGROUND
Few studies have examined how antiplatelet therapies are selected during the routine care of acute myocardial infarction patients, particularly relative to the patient's estimated mortality and bleeding risks.


RESULTS
We examined patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction treated with percutaneous coronary intervention at 233 US hospitals in the TRANSLATE-ACS observational study from April 2010 to October 2012. We developed a multivariable logistic regression model to identify factors associated with prasugrel selection. Prasugrel use rates and associated 1-year risk-adjusted major adverse cardiovascular events and Global Utilization of Streptokinase and t-PA for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) moderate/severe bleeding outcomes were also examined in relation to predicted mortality and bleeding using the validated Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes (ACTION) risk prediction scores. Among 11 969 patients, 3123 (26%) received prasugrel at the time of percutaneous coronary intervention. The strongest factors associated with prasugrel use included cardiogenic shock (odds ratio [OR] 1.68, 95% CI 1.25-2.26), drug-eluting stent use (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.31-1.62), and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction presentation (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.12-1.35). Older age (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.0.53-0.61), dialysis (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.96), prior history of stroke/transient ischemic attack (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.38-0.73), and interhospital transfer (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.46-0.55) were associated with lowest prasugrel selection. Prasugrel was used less often than clopidogrel in patients at higher predicted bleeding risk (21.9% versus 29.7%, P<0.001). Yet paradoxically, prasugrel was also less likely than clopidogrel to be used in patients with higher predicted mortality risk (21.1% versus 30.2%, P<0.001). Adjusted bleeding and outcomes events were similar among those receiving prasugrel and clopidogrel in the 4 subgroups of patients based on bleeding risk and ischemic benefits.


CONCLUSIONS
In community practice, prasugrel use may be driven more by bleeding risk rather than ischemic benefit. This may result in underutilization of higher potency ADP receptor inhibitor among patients more likely to derive ischemic benefit.
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC a.vora@duke.edu.
Amit N
AN
Vora
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Eric D
ED
Peterson
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Lisa A
LA
McCoy
Lilly USA, LLC, Indianapolis, IN.
Mark B
MB
Effron
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Kevin J
KJ
Anstrom
Lilly USA, LLC, Indianapolis, IN.
Douglas E
DE
Faries
Lilly USA, LLC, Indianapolis, IN.
Marjorie E
ME
Zettler
Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy Center, University of California Los Angeles, CA.
Gregg C
GC
Fonarow
Daiichi-Sankyo, Inc., Parsippany, NJ.
Brian A
BA
Baker
Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, NY.
Gregg W
GW
Stone
Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC.
Tracy Y
TY
Wang
acute coronary syndrome; clopidogrel; prasugrel; risk prediction
Thromb Haemost. 2014 Dec;112(6):1190-7
25183544
Am Heart J. 2011 Jan;161(1):113-122.e2
21167342
JAMA. 2000 Aug 16;284(7):835-42
10938172
Int J Cardiol. 2015 Apr 1;184:122-7
25703419
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Dec 6;58(24):e44-122
22070834
Am J Cardiol. 2011 Apr 15;107(8):1136-43
21324428
N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 10;361(11):1045-57
19717846
Am Heart J. 2011 Nov;162(5):844-51
22093200
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Jan 29;61(4):e78-140
23256914
Lancet. 2007 Feb 24;369(9562):667-78
17321312
Lancet. 2009 Feb 28;373(9665):723-31
19249633
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014 Dec 23;64(24):e139-228
25260718
N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 15;357(20):2001-15
17982182
Arch Intern Med. 2003 Oct 27;163(19):2345-53
14581255