ライフサイエンスコーパス: ticagrelor

1 ptor inhibitor (clopidogrel versus prasugrel/ticagrelor).

2 $52 600 per QALY relative to genotyping with ticagrelor).

3 ifyNow P2Y12 at 1 week between prasugrel and ticagrelor.

4 selecting between clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor.

5 antigen-binding fragment (Fab) antidote for ticagrelor.

6 t the development of a specific antidote for ticagrelor.

7 herapy among patients who could not tolerate ticagrelor.

8 e catheterization laboratory) treatment with ticagrelor.

9 ared genotyping strategies or prasugrel with ticagrelor.

10 cal excess was observed in patients assigned ticagrelor.

11 se aspirin and the potent antiplatelet agent ticagrelor.

12 sive switch from clopidogrel to prasugrel or ticagrelor.

13 e of action of the P2Y12 receptor antagonist ticagrelor.

14 or stent thrombosis tended to be lower with ticagrelor.

15 telet reactivity (>/=208 PRU) was lower with ticagrelor (0%) than with clopidogrel (57.1%).

16 ar degree of bleeding; in patients receiving ticagrelor 1 day before or up until surgery, there was a

17 cost of $10.52, total costs were higher for ticagrelor ($10,016 vs. $2,333; 95% CI: $7,441 to $7,930

18 or 900 mg, n=12), prasugrel 60 mg (n=10), or ticagrelor 180 mg (n=10) were included.

19 n therapy, were randomized to receive either ticagrelor 180 mg LD or clopidogrel 600 mg LD.

20 tiplatelet therapy as a single loading dose (ticagrelor 180 mg plus aspirin 325 mg) and as daily/main

21 After a 3- to 5-day run-in phase with a ticagrelor 180-mg loading dose (LD) followed by a ticagr

22 e [LD]/10 mg maintenance dose once daily) or ticagrelor (180 mg LD/90 mg maintenance dose twice daily

23 We randomly allocated patients (1:1) to ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 90

24 were randomized to receive a single dose of ticagrelor (180 mg) or placebo in a crossover fashion.

25 clopidogrel (600 mg); (3) a loading dose of ticagrelor (180 mg); or (4) a loading dose of ticagrelor

26 grel (600 mg, then 75 mg QD for 7-9 days) or ticagrelor (180 mg, then 90 mg BID for 7-9 days).

27 Chewing an LD of ticagrelor, 180 mg, in patients with STEMI is feasible a

28 I were randomized to either chewing an LD of ticagrelor, 180 mg, or standard oral administration of a

29 luate whether chewing a loading dose (LD) of ticagrelor, 180 mg, vs traditional oral administration o

30 significant difference between prasugrel and ticagrelor (2.7% and 2.5%, respectively; odds ratio, 1.0

31 ombotic events, total events were fewer with ticagrelor (2030 versus 2290; rate ratio, 0.88; 95% conf

32 at 2 hours post loading dose was lower with ticagrelor (27.6) versus clopidogrel (211.2); least-squa

33 iffer between groups receiving prasugrel and ticagrelor (4.0% and 4.1%, respectively; odds ratio, 0.9

34 Of these, 1,097 (504 ticagrelor, 593 clopidogrel) contributed to the primary

35 nth CEC-adjudicated Kaplan-Meier rates: 5.8% ticagrelor, 6.9% clopidogrel; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.84; 9

36 PRU values were 59 +/- 63 and 47 +/- 43 for ticagrelor 60 and 90 mg, respectively (p = 0.34).

37 >1 year previously, long-term treatment with ticagrelor 60 mg + low-dose ASA yields a cost-effectiven

38 Hospitalization costs were similar for ticagrelor 60 mg and placebo ($2,262 vs. $2,333; 95% con

39 TIMI major bleeding was increased with ticagrelor 60 mg at each landmark, but with the greatest

40 Ticagrelor 60 mg bid achieved high levels of peak and tr

41 The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ticagrelor 60 mg bid have not been studied.

42 he pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics for ticagrelor 60 mg compared with 90 mg bid.

43 $163; p = 0.54); after inclusion of a daily ticagrelor 60 mg cost of $10.52, total costs were higher

44 ich randomized 21,162 patients to ASA alone, ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily + low-dose ASA, or ticagrel

45 to 3 years) to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily, ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily, or placebo, all on a backg

46 The benefit of ticagrelor 60 mg was consistent at each subsequent landm

47 median 1.7 years prior) to ticagrelor 90 mg, ticagrelor 60 mg, or placebo on a background of aspirin.

48 29%, and 21% of patients receiving 90 mg of ticagrelor, 60 mg of ticagrelor, and placebo, respective

49 Site investigators reported 1,198 (580 ticagrelor, 618 clopidogrel) MIs.

50 Overall, 1,299 (610 ticagrelor, 689 clopidogrel) MIs reported by the CEC occ

51 ; P<0.001), with fewer recurrent events with ticagrelor (740 versus 834; P=0.01) and a highly signifi

52 atment for 5 to 7 days (maintenance therapy: ticagrelor 90 mg BID plus aspirin 81 mg QD).

53 agrelor 60 mg twice daily + low-dose ASA, or ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily + low-dose ASA.

54 peripheral artery disease to treatment with ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or clopidogrel 75 mg daily.

55 162 patients with prior MI (1 to 3 years) to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily, ticagrelor 60 mg twice dai

56 ts with prior MI (median 1.7 years prior) to ticagrelor 90 mg, ticagrelor 60 mg, or placebo on a back

57 relor 180-mg loading dose (LD) followed by a ticagrelor 90-mg twice-daily maintenance dose (MD), aspi

58 l artery disease to receive monotherapy with ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) or clopidogrel (75 mg onc

59 h additional risk factors were randomized to ticagrelor (90 or 60 mg twice daily) or placebo.

60 dial Infarction 54) trial studied 2 doses of ticagrelor, 90 mg twice a day (bid) and 60 mg bid, for l

61 Ticagrelor, a novel reversible antiplatelet agent, has a

62 We wanted to compare clopidogrel with ticagrelor, a potent antiplatelet agent, in patients wit

63 rove the cost-effectiveness of prasugrel and ticagrelor after percutaneous coronary intervention for

64 olin-induced cAMP, the mode of antagonism of ticagrelor also appears noncompetitive, at least functio

65 g to prasugrel versus continued therapy with ticagrelor, although to a lesser extent in those receivi

66 1704 patients (56%) were in the ticagrelor and 1333 (44%) in the clopidogrel strata.

67 mly allocated 13 199 patients (6589 [50%] to ticagrelor and 6610 [50%] to aspirin).

68 Pharmacokinetic profiles of ticagrelor and AR-C124910XX were consistent with previou

69 Ticagrelor and CAM, when applied to a 3-dimentional prin

70 o significant differences were found between ticagrelor and clopidogrel for reduction of cardiovascul

71 Ticagrelor and clopidogrel had no direct impact on adeno

72 <14.0 ng/L, there was no difference between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in the noninvasive group

73 <14.0 ng/L, there was no difference between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in the noninvasive group CONC

74 Ticagrelor and dipyridamole inhibit platelet function by

75 A2AR blockade abrogated the effects of ticagrelor and dipyridamole on osteoclast and osteoblast

76 troponin assays, a preference for prasugrel/ticagrelor and fondaparinux for anticoagulation therapy,

77 ed in 751 of 6930 patients (10.8%) receiving ticagrelor and in 740 of 6955 (10.6%) receiving clopidog

78 Plasma levels of ticagrelor and its active metabolite AR-C124910XX were d

79 pidogrel, and the pharmacokinetic profile of ticagrelor and its metabolite AR-C124910XX, in black pat

80 ent Ischaemic Attack Treated with Aspirin or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcomes (SOCRATES) trial.

81 cute coronary syndrome (ACS) is complicated: Ticagrelor and prasugrel are novel alternatives to clopi

82 ead comparison of the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel has been published in the 7 yea

83 The oral P2Y12 antagonists ticagrelor and prasugrel have higher recommendations tha

84 dependently neutralized the free fraction of ticagrelor and reversed its antiplatelet activity both i

85 aintenance of dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor and the influence of timing on this strategy.

86 of four drugs (Tranylcypromine, Tasimelteon, Ticagrelor, and a TRPV1 inhibitor) in high yield and wit

87 re examined: generic clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, and genotyping for polymorphisms of CYP2C19

88 otent P2Y12 inhibitors, including prasugrel, ticagrelor, and intravenous cangrelor.

89 ents receiving 90 mg of ticagrelor, 60 mg of ticagrelor, and placebo, respectively, discontinued trea

90 -generation antiplatelet drugs prasugrel and ticagrelor, and, in terms of anticoagulants, inhibitors

91 of efficacy and safety between prasugrel and ticagrelor; and 2) the risk of major ischemic events rel

92 Ticagrelor appears to provide higher value for patients

93 It has been documented that prasugrel and ticagrelor are able to provide effective platelet inhibi

94 onary syndrome have shown that prasugrel and ticagrelor are more effective than standard-dose clopido

95 Prasugrel and ticagrelor are similarly effective during the first year

96 2Y12 inhibitors, clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor, are administered in fixed doses without labo

97 In the ticagrelor-ASA >300 mg cohort, all-cause and vascular mo

98 ASA, regardless of treatment (clopidogrel or ticagrelor) assignment.

99 VerifyNow were similar between prasugrel and ticagrelor at 30 minutes and 2 hours post-LD.

100 ultiplate were similar between prasugrel and ticagrelor at each time point, including at 1 week.

101 This study was undertaken to determine if ticagrelor augments adenosine-induced coronary blood flo

102 dergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor augments CBFV to a greater extent than prasug

103 ce: The optimal timing of discontinuation of ticagrelor before cardiac surgery is controversial.

104 This additional effect of ticagrelor beyond P2Y12R antagonism was in part as a con

105 Ticagrelor, beyond its antiplatelet efficacy, exerts car

106 In these cells, ticagrelor blocked the constitutive agonist-independent

107 bind covalently, and the nucleoside analogue ticagrelor (Brilinta) that acts directly on the receptor

108 Whether prehospital administration of ticagrelor can improve coronary reperfusion and the clin

109 ct-acting platelet P2Y12 receptor antagonist ticagrelor can reduce the incidence of major adverse car

110 100 mg daily, in addition to clopidogrel or ticagrelor (chosen at investigator discretion before ran

111 ts in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspiri

112 ts in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspiri

113 ts in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspiri

114 ts in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspiri

115 ts in Patients with Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspiri

116 ts in Patients with Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspiri

117 e] in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspiri

118 ts in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspiri

119 ts in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspiri

120 ts in Patients with Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspiri

121 R rates were also significantly reduced with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel at the end of PCI (

122 The clinical benefit of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in ACS patients sug

123 Ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel reduces the inciden

124 In PLATO, treatment with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel resulted in a reduc

125 2AR-mediated mechanism we determined whether ticagrelor could regulate the cells involved in bone hom

126 the antidote proved effective in normalizing ticagrelor-dependent bleeding in a mouse model of acute

127 Ticagrelor, dipyridamole and the active metabolite of cl

128 his head-to-head comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor does not support the hypothesis that one is m

129 helping to explain the efficacy of the lower ticagrelor dose in PEGASUS-TIMI 54.

130 The choice of clopidogrel or ticagrelor during trial conduct was not randomised and w

131 The use of prasugrel or ticagrelor eliminated bleeding differences (OR, 0.80; 95

132 Ticagrelor enhanced adenosine-induced CBFV and the sensa

133 Clopidogrel and ticagrelor exerted a high and consistent antiplatelet ef

134 In DM patients with coronary artery disease, ticagrelor exerts similar or greater inhibition of ADP-i

135 icagrelor (180 mg); or (4) a loading dose of ticagrelor followed by an adenosine A1/A2-receptor antag

136 cutaneous coronary intervention for ACS, but ticagrelor for all patients may bean economically reason

137 with acute coronary syndromes, prasugrel and ticagrelor further reduce cardiovascular ischemic events

138 of loss-of-function alleles receiving either ticagrelor (genotyping with ticagrelor) or prasugrel (ge

139 ce of platelet transfusion was higher in the ticagrelor group (13.5% [29 of 215] vs 6.0% [13 of 215])

140 in the combined prasugrel groups versus the ticagrelor group (least-squares mean difference: 46 [95%

141 42 patients with ipsilateral stenosis in the ticagrelor group and 147 (9.6%) of 1539 patients with ip

142 let transfusion was 12.4% (24 of 193) in the ticagrelor group and 3.6% (1 of 28) in the aspirin-alone

143 in patients with ipsilateral stenosis in the ticagrelor group compared with the aspirin group.

144 stenosis, 339 (6.7%) of 5047 patients in the ticagrelor group had an occurrence of stroke, myocardial

145 were randomly assigned to a starting dose of ticagrelor (group 1, 90 mg; group 2, 180 mg).

146 79) and 275 (88 to 305) in the prasugrel and ticagrelor groups, respectively (p = NS), satisfying pre

147 3 +/- 2 h and 5 +/- 4 h in the prasugrel and ticagrelor groups, respectively.

148 vity rate between the combined prasugrel and ticagrelor groups.

149 Patients randomized to ticagrelor had 1057 total primary end point events versu

150 Patients receiving ticagrelor had significantly higher APC than patients re

151 The P2Y12 receptor antagonist ticagrelor has been shown to be clinically superior to c

152 Ticagrelor has been shown to inhibit cell uptake of aden

153 These data suggest that ticagrelor has the pharmacological profile of an inverse

154 al P2Y12 inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor) has enabled physicians to contemplate switch

155 e U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved ticagrelor in 2011 for reducing thrombotic cardiovascula

156 are the efficacy and safety of prasugrel and ticagrelor in acute myocardial infarction treated with p

157 The EUCLID trial (Examining Use of Ticagrelor In PAD) randomized 13 885 patients with perip

158 bition during the switch from clopidogrel to ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome rece

159 Prehospital administration of ticagrelor in patients with acute STEMI appeared to be s

160 ought to compare the action of prasugrel and ticagrelor in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

161 el showed to be noninferior as compared with ticagrelor in terms of residual platelet reactivity 2 h

162 n the PRAGUE-18 (Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in the Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarcti

163 (Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in the Treatment of Acute Myocardial Infarcti

164 In addition, ticagrelor increased platelet cAMP and VASP-P in the abs

165 Ticagrelor increases APC in ACS patients compared with c

166 The Complete Response Review for ticagrelor indicates that for U.S. PLATO patients, an AS

167 Serum-containing ticagrelor inhibited adenosine uptake by red blood cells

168 R antagonism was in part as a consequence of ticagrelor inhibiting the equilibrative nucleoside trans

169 studies describe 2 novel modes of action of ticagrelor, inhibition of platelet ENT1 and inverse agon

170 e background P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel or ticagrelor) intended to be used at the time of randomisa

171 Ticagrelor is a direct-acting P2Y12 inhibitor and, unlik

172 Ticagrelor is a direct-acting P2Y12-adenosine diphosphat

173 Ticagrelor is a direct-acting reversibly binding P2Y12 a

174 Ticagrelor is a P2Y(12) receptor antagonist that showed

175 Ticagrelor is a potent antagonist of the P2Y12 receptor

176 Ticagrelor is an effective antiplatelet therapy for pati

177 The efficacy of low-dose ticagrelor is consistent over time with a trend toward l

178 he use of maintenance ASA doses >100 mg with ticagrelor is inappropriate for patients with diabetes a

179 Understanding the mode of action of ticagrelor is of particular interest given that its clin

180 (PLATO) trial for all patients randomized to ticagrelor, it may not be necessary in patients receivin

181 educed significantly with both prasugrel and ticagrelor LD and maintenance dose.

182 macodynamic measurements after prasugrel and ticagrelor LD have been provided by assessing only healt

183 low-risk ACS patients undergoing ad hoc PCI, ticagrelor LD provides more prompt and potent platelet i

184 of the present study was to assess whether a ticagrelor loading dose is associated with a further pla

185 The authors evaluated cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor + low-dose ASA in patients with prior MI with

186 on (MI) 1 to 3 years earlier, treatment with ticagrelor + low-dose aspirin (ASA) reduces the risk of

187 ggested that the "pleiotropic" properties of ticagrelor may be related to an interaction with adenosi

188 gh the underlying mechanisms remain elusive, ticagrelor may exert off-target effects through adenosin

189 This specific antidote for ticagrelor may prove valuable as an agent for patients w

190 ntion receiving either prasugrel (n = 95) or ticagrelor (n = 205) loading dose had platelet reactivit

191 and clopidogrel (n=45), prasugrel (n=6), or ticagrelor (n=3).

192 h acute coronary syndromes randomly received ticagrelor (n=9333) or clopidogrel (n=9291).

193 Prasugrel and ticagrelor, new P2Y12-adenosine diphosphate receptor ant

194 his study aimed to investigate the impact of ticagrelor on adenosine plasma concentration (APC) in ac

195 s study evaluated the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor on major cardiovascular (CV) events and major

196 udy sought to report the treatment effect of ticagrelor on myocardial infarction (MI) and the strateg

197 mine the effect of antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor on recurrent ischemic events in patients with

198 tively randomized 60 ACS patients to receive ticagrelor or clopidogrel.

199 generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome

200 y artery disease were randomized to continue ticagrelor or switch to prasugrel 10-mg once-daily MD, w

201 receiving either ticagrelor (genotyping with ticagrelor) or prasugrel (genotyping with prasugrel) and

202 Ticagrelor outperforms clopidogrel in preventing cardiov

203 vated hs-TnT predicts substantial benefit of ticagrelor over clopidogrel both in invasively and nonin

204 on abolished the cardioprotective effects of ticagrelor over clopidogrel.

205 -generation P2Y12 antagonists, prasugrel and ticagrelor, overcome these limitations and have been sho

206 = 216) for prasugrel and 44.4% (n = 265) for ticagrelor (p = 0.003).

207 n serum of patients receiving clopidogrel or ticagrelor (p = 0.1).

208 ms 2 hours after the first administration of ticagrelor (P<0.001 for both), with no difference in agg

209 in 6.6% of prasugrel patients and in 5.7% of ticagrelor patients (hazard ratio: 1.167; 95% confidence

210 and without difference between prasugrel and ticagrelor patients.

211 There was a significant correlation between ticagrelor plasma concentrations and increases in the ar

212 ntensive antiplatelet therapy (vorapaxar and ticagrelor pooled) significantly reduced the risk of VTE

213 Ticagrelor (pooled doses) reduced the risk of MALE (haza

214 ing treatment with a potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor, prasugrel, or cangrelor) without the planned

215 he marketed antiplatelet drugs cangrelor and ticagrelor, previously suggested to antagonize GPR17.

216 Initial studies showed that ticagrelor promoted a greater inhibition of adenosine 5'

217 Prasugrel and ticagrelor provide a superior anti-ischemic action than

218 CAD receiving low-dose acetylsalicylic acid, ticagrelor provided a faster onset and greater degree of

219 Prasugrel and ticagrelor reduce thrombotic complications to a greater

220 Additionally, in patients with diabetes, ticagrelor reduced cardiovascular death by 22% and coron

221 In PLATO, ticagrelor reduced cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke i

222 Yet, ticagrelor reduced infarct size to a significantly great

223 In these patients, ticagrelor reduced MACE, with a large absolute risk redu

224 Ticagrelor reduced stent thrombosis compared with clopid

225 In the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial, treatment with ticagrelor reduced the incidence of cardiovascular death

226 Ticagrelor reduces ischemic risk in patients with prior

227 We aimed to investigate whether ticagrelor reduces myocardial injury to a greater extent

228 or (eg, ticlopidine, clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor) reduces the risk of stent thrombosis and sub

229 and Drug Administration-approved lower-dose ticagrelor regimen (60 mg twice daily).

230 rsus aspirin plus ticagrelor showed that the ticagrelor regimen increased life expectancy at an incre

231 Ticagrelor regulates osteoblast and osteoclast function

232 e the potential contribution of adenosine in ticagrelor-related cardioprotection.

233 l 600 mg, clopidogrel 900 mg, prasugrel, and ticagrelor, respectively; P for trend <0.0001).

234 ticagrelor, which is 100 times stronger than ticagrelor's affinity for its target, P2Y12.

235 sis that ASA doses >100 mg somehow decreased ticagrelor's benefit in the Platelet Inhibition and Pati

236 chemic action than clopidogrel, with some of ticagrelor's benefits possibly attributed to adenosine-m

237 Despite ticagrelor's structural similarities to adenosine, the F

238 Ticagrelor seems to be an attractive option for patients

239 aspirin with clopidogrel versus aspirin plus ticagrelor showed that the ticagrelor regimen increased

240 Furthermore, in comparison with clopidogrel, ticagrelor significantly diminished myocardial edema by

241 Furthermore, ticagrelor significantly enhanced the sensation of dyspn

242 Ticagrelor significantly increased the area under the cu

243 Ticagrelor significantly reduced overall MI rates (12-mo

244 In patients with ACS, ticagrelor significantly reduced the incidence of MI com

245 en genotype and thrombotic outcomes rendered ticagrelor substantially less cost-effective ($104 800 p

246 d a characteristic adverse effect profile of ticagrelor) suggest that there is an unfulfilled medical

247 mal CBFV/baseline CBFV ratio was higher with ticagrelor than prasugrel at 50, 80, and 110 mug/kg per

248 ents prematurely discontinued treatment with ticagrelor than with placebo.

249 reaction units were significantly lower with ticagrelor than with prasugrel (52 [32-72] versus 83 [63

250 to assess the cost and cost effectiveness of ticagrelor therapy relative to clopidogrel in treating A

251 One year of ticagrelor therapy, relative to that of generic clopidog

252 Compared with continued ticagrelor therapy, switching from ticagrelor to prasugr

253 patients with diabetes with prior MI, adding ticagrelor to aspirin significantly reduces the risk of

254 continued ticagrelor therapy, switching from ticagrelor to prasugrel therapy was associated with an i

255 codynamic effects of switching patients from ticagrelor to prasugrel.

256 MRI analysis revealed that clopidogrel- and ticagrelor-treated animals had a significantly smaller e

257 Platelet reactivity of ticagrelor-treated patients can be restored using concen

258 mal CBFV area under the curve was higher for ticagrelor-treated than for prasugrel-treated patients,

259 nnualized for patients who received 90 mg of ticagrelor twice daily (hazard ratio [HR], 2.00 [95% CI,

260 rd years) and patients who received 60 mg of ticagrelor twice daily (HR, 1.59 [95% CI, 1.46-1.73] for

261 nfarction were randomly assigned to 90 mg of ticagrelor twice daily, 60 mg of ticagrelor twice daily,

262 to 90 mg of ticagrelor twice daily, 60 mg of ticagrelor twice daily, or placebo, with all of the pati

263 th those receiving aspirin alone, continuing ticagrelor up to the time of surgery or discontinuing it

264 andomised, double-blind, controlled trial of ticagrelor versus aspirin in patients aged 40 years or o

265 h, PRU levels were significantly lower with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel (98.4 +/- 95.4 vs. 257.5 +

266 Pharmacodynamic (PD) studies comparing ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients undergoing ad

267 This study sought to assess PD effects of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel loading dose (LD) in the p

268 We aimed to describe the effects of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel on stent thrombosis in the

269 Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel reduced the rate of cardio

270 Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel reduced the rate of cardio

271 ivotal clinical trials testing prasugrel and ticagrelor versus clopidogrel showed DM patients to have

272 GDF-15) in relation to randomized treatment (ticagrelor versus clopidogrel) and management strategy (

273 ity during loading and maintenance dosing of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel, and the pharmacokinetic p

274 rom baseline was statistically greater, with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel.

275 to compare the effect of maintenance dose of ticagrelor versus prasugrel on coronary blood flow veloc

276 se-2 increased in the ischemic myocardium of ticagrelor- versus clopidogrel-treated animals (P<0.05).

277 No differences in ticagrelor- versus clopidogrel-treated patients were fou

278 Preoperative use of ticagrelor was associated with a similar risk of bleedin

279 Over a lifetime horizon, ticagrelor was associated with QALY gains of 0.078 and i

280 The relative risk reduction in MACE with ticagrelor was consistent for the pooled doses versus pl

281 eas the relative risk reduction in MACE with ticagrelor was consistent, regardless of PAD, patients w

282 nfarction, discontinuation of treatment with ticagrelor was driven primarily by nonserious adverse ev

283 Genotyping with ticagrelor was more effective than genotyping with prasu

284 with symptomatic peripheral artery disease, ticagrelor was not shown to be superior to clopidogrel f

285 : In this prespecified exploratory analysis, ticagrelor was superior to aspirin at preventing stroke,

286 Ticagrelor was the most effective strategy($52 600 per Q

287 ach was used in 21.3% of patients, prasugrel/ticagrelor was used in 18.1% of patients, and GPI was us

288 Mean pre- and post-dose plasma levels of ticagrelor were 35% and 38% lower, respectively, with 60

289 hat led to discontinuation of treatment with ticagrelor were mild or moderate in severity.

290 led to the discontinuation of treatment with ticagrelor were nonmajor, and 86% of adverse events due

291 time and whether the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor were similar early and late after randomizati

292 n-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 54) (ticagrelor) were blinded, randomized placebo-controlled

293 The Fab has a 20 pM affinity for ticagrelor, which is 100 times stronger than ticagrelor'

294 igned across 14 sites to either prasugrel or ticagrelor, which was initiated before percutaneous coro

295 intervention were randomized to prasugrel or ticagrelor with an intended treatment duration of 12 mon

296 bition and Patient Outcomes) trial comparing ticagrelor with clopidogrel therapy, the U.S. Food and D

297 ACS undergoing CABG, the use of preoperative ticagrelor with or without aspirin compared with aspirin

298 o evaluate the safety of preoperative use of ticagrelor with or without aspirin in patients with acut

299 Exposures: Before surgery, patients received ticagrelor with or without aspirin or aspirin alone.

300 Switching from clopidogrel to ticagrelor without a reloading dose is feasible, and it