ライフサイエンスコーパス: ticagrelor

1 Severe bleeding was more frequent with ticagrelor.

2 uld benefit from treatment with aspirin plus ticagrelor.

3 event was 59% higher for patients receiving ticagrelor.

4 peripheral artery disease to clopidogrel or ticagrelor.

5 nd offers strategies to improve adherence to ticagrelor.

6 he use of oral P2Y(12) inhibition induced by ticagrelor.

7 arged with a prescription for clopidogrel or ticagrelor.

8 ifyNow P2Y12 at 1 week between prasugrel and ticagrelor.

9 7% (HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.77-0.89]) lower with ticagrelor.

10 and safety difference between prasugrel and ticagrelor.

11 the primary end point between prasugrel and ticagrelor.

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

13 ifferences in mortality (HR prasugrel versus ticagrelor, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.94-1.29] and 1.12 [95% CI, 0

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

15 n patients with ticagrelor versus prasugrel (ticagrelor, -13.9 U; prasugrel, -13.5 U; P=0.96).

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

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

18 All patients received ticagrelor 180-mg loading dose administered as crushed t

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

20 ratio, to receive a 30-day regimen of either ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice

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

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

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

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

25 n ticagrelor- or prasugrel-treated patients (ticagrelor, 21 [interquartile range, 15-39] U; prasugrel

26 served less frequently in patients receiving ticagrelor (23% versus 43%; P=0.04).

27 obstruction was not different in patients on ticagrelor (28%) or prasugrel (41%; P=0.35).

28 combined with either clopidogrel (60.2%) or ticagrelor (39.8%) after a MI between 2010 and 2017 regi

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

30 >1 year previously, long-term treatment with ticagrelor 60 mg + low-dose ASA yields a cost-effectiven

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

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

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

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

35 $163; p = 0.54); after inclusion of a daily ticagrelor 60 mg cost of $10.52, total costs were higher

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

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

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

39 29%, and 21% of patients receiving 90 mg of ticagrelor, 60 mg of ticagrelor, and placebo, respective

40 no difference in infarct size was observed (ticagrelor, 7.6 [interquartile range, 3.7-14.4] g, prasu

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

49 e coronary artery disease, and previous PCI, ticagrelor added to aspirin reduced cardiovascular death

50 ypass Grafting Surgery) investigated whether ticagrelor added to standard aspirin improves SVG patenc

51 ing and can inform future efforts to improve ticagrelor adherence.

52 the strongest clinical predictor for use of ticagrelor (adjusted odds ratio, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.09-1.18

53 ght to compare the antithrombotic potency of ticagrelor alone versus ticagrelor plus ASA among high-r

54 It included 1,179 patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1,186 assigned to prasugrel.

55 sis occurred in 1.3% of patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1.0% of patients assigned to prasugrel, a

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

57 l bleeding in 6 (0.1%) of 5536 patients with ticagrelor and 6 (0.1%) of 5564 with placebo (1.13 [0.36

58 red in 111 (2.0%) of 5536 patients receiving ticagrelor and 62 (1.1%) of 5564 patients receiving plac

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

60 The effect of the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin on prevention of stroke has not b

61 Ticagrelor and aspirin or aspirin alone in acute ischemi

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

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

64 (A Study Comparing Cardiovascular Effects of Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel in Patients With Peripheral A

65 Ticagrelor and dipyridamole inhibit platelet function by

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

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

68 dpoint occurred in 49 (5.2%) patients in the ticagrelor and in 41 (4.7%) patients in the prasugrel gr

69 nt was reached in 101 (8.7%) patients in the ticagrelor and in 73 (6.3%) patients in the prasugrel gr

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

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

72 Background Ticagrelor and prasugrel are potent P2Y12 inhibitors wit

73 bosis risk was significantly reduced by both ticagrelor and prasugrel versus clopidogrel (28%-50% ran

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

75 ardial infarction received a loading dose of ticagrelor and were randomized to maintenance therapy of

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

77 he efficacy and safety profile of prasugrel, ticagrelor, and clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome b

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

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

80 ived prasugrel than among those who received ticagrelor, and the incidence of major bleeding was not

81 ted uridine uptake and abacavir, nevirapine, ticagrelor, and uridine triacetate had different IC(50)

82 ], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.88-1.06]) was similar for ticagrelor- and clopidogrel-treated patients.

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

84 Ticagrelor appears to provide higher value for patients

85 t a drug-drug interaction when cangrelor and ticagrelor are concomitantly administered.

86 Prasugrel and ticagrelor are similarly effective during the first year

87 The relative merits of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with a

88 ght to investigate the benefits and risks of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with n

89 ined reversal of the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor, as measured by multiple assays.

90 urgent invasive procedures are concerns with ticagrelor, as with other antiplatelet drugs.

91 atients underwent randomization (5523 in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and 5493 in the aspirin group).

92 troke occurred in 276 patients (5.0%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 345 patients (6.3%) in t

93 event occurred in 303 patients (5.5%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 362 patients (6.6%) in t

94 eeding occurred in 28 patients (0.5%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 7 patients (0.1%) in the

95 troke or death within 30 days was lower with ticagrelor-aspirin than with aspirin alone, but the inci

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

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

98 domly assigned to receive pre-treatment with ticagrelor before angiography (upstream group) or no pre

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

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

101 Ticagrelor, beyond its antiplatelet efficacy, exerts car

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

103 iplatelet therapy (APT; aspirin/clopidogrel, ticagrelor) but not nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug

104 Ticagrelor can be administered as a crushed formulation

105 The antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor cannot be reversed with platelet transfusion.

106 The randomized trials of ticagrelor captured adverse events, offering the opportu

107 100 mg daily, in addition to clopidogrel or ticagrelor (chosen at investigator discretion before ran

108 harged with prescriptions for clopidogrel or ticagrelor (clopidogrel prescribed to 2317 [36.0%] in th

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

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

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

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

119 sease that tested the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel for the prevention

120 -analysis of 4 randomized clinical trials of ticagrelor conducted between January 2007 and June 2017

121 s followed for a median 18 months, premature ticagrelor discontinuation was seen in 25%; bleeding was

122 dyspnea have been associated with premature ticagrelor discontinuation, which may limit any potentia

123 antify the incidence and causes of premature ticagrelor discontinuation.

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

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

126 Clopidogrel and ticagrelor exerted a high and consistent antiplatelet ef

127 with co-payment vouchers for clopidogrel or ticagrelor for 1 year (median voucher value for a 30-day

128 ignificant differences between prasugrel and ticagrelor for all outcomes explored.

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

130 42 patients with ipsilateral stenosis in the ticagrelor group and 147 (9.6%) of 1539 patients with ip

131 imaging was available in 220 patients in the ticagrelor group and 223 patients in the placebo group.

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

133 curred in 184 of 2012 patients (9.3%) in the ticagrelor group and in 137 of 2006 patients (6.9%) in t

134 eeding occurred in 46 patients (6.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 39 patients (5.1%) in the prasug

135 ale) was observed in 5.4% of patients in the ticagrelor group and in 4.8% of patients in the prasugre

136 point occurred in 83 patients (10.1%) in the ticagrelor group and in 64 patients (7.9%) in the prasug

137 l components of the primary end point in the ticagrelor group and the prasugrel group were as follows

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

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

140 ilure occurred in 35 (14.2%) patients in the ticagrelor group versus 29 (11.6%) patients in the place

141 The SVG occlusion rate in the ticagrelor group was 10.5% (51 of 484 SVGs) versus 9.1%

142 previous PCI group, fewer patients receiving ticagrelor had a primary efficacy outcome event than in

143 Ticagrelor has been reported to increase plasma adenosin

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

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

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

147 ugrel and 14.6% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (hazard ratio [HR], 0.82 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.1

148 sugrel and 7.3% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (HR, 0.65 [CI, 0.48 to 0.88]; P for interacti

149 ugrel and 10.6% of those assigned to receive ticagrelor (HR, 0.72 [0.46 to 1.12]), and in 3.7% and 3.

150 prasugrel (HR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.01-1.56]) and ticagrelor (HR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.04-1.55]) significantly

151 Ticagrelor improved net clinical benefit: 519/5558 (9.3%

152 clopidogrel in 2649 (16.5%) and prasugrel or ticagrelor in 13 408 (83.5%) patients.

153 his effect shows that long-term therapy with ticagrelor in addition to aspirin should be considered i

154 dose of prasugrel versus a standard dose of ticagrelor in elderly patients or those with a low body

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

156 limb events in the EUCLID (Examining Use of Ticagrelor in PAD) trial.

157 ffects of cangrelor used in combination with ticagrelor in patients undergoing primary percutaneous c

158 ensified platelet inhibition by prasugrel or ticagrelor in patients with unstable angina (UA) or non-

159 ysis from the EUCLID trial (Examining Use of Ticagrelor in Peripheral Artery Disease) aimed to descri

160 The EUCLID trial (Examining the Use of Ticagrelor in Peripheral Artery Disease) included 13 885

161 ations in the EUCLID trial (Examining Use of Ticagrelor in Peripheral Artery Disease) population, sub

162 EUCLID (Examining Use of Ticagrelor in Peripheral Artery Disease) randomized pati

163 EUCLID (Examining Use of Ticagrelor in Peripheral Artery Disease) was a randomize

164 alysis of the EUCLID trial (Examining Use of Ticagrelor in Peripheral Artery Disease), we examined th

165 ACS, we found that prasugrel was superior to ticagrelor in reducing the combined 1-year risk of death

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

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

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

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

170 Ticagrelor is a cornerstone of modern antithrombotic the

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

172 Ticagrelor is a potent antagonist of the P2Y12 receptor

173 Ticagrelor is an effective antiplatelet therapy for pati

174 Ticagrelor is an oral P2Y(12) inhibitor that is used wit

175 prasugrel compared with the standard dose of ticagrelor is associated with maintained anti-ischemic e

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

177 ing these potential barriers to adherence to ticagrelor is crucial for informed patient-physician dec

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

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

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

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

182 We investigated whether ticagrelor maintenance therapy after revascularized ST-s

183 ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction, ticagrelor maintenance therapy was not superior to prasu

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

185 owed statistically significant advantage for ticagrelor monotherapy (rate ratio, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.85-0

186 Ticagrelor monotherapy after 1-month DAPT was noninferio

187 recurrence of ischemic and bleeding events, ticagrelor monotherapy appeared to be beneficial after p

188 epeated events or event severity showed that ticagrelor monotherapy consistently reduced ischemic and

189 rs after percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor monotherapy demonstrated a 6% risk reduction,

190 Long-term ticagrelor monotherapy following 1-month DAPT can favora

191 t-event analysis did not show superiority of ticagrelor monotherapy following one-month dual antiplat

192 luting stents, the antithrombotic potency of ticagrelor monotherapy is similar to that of ticagrelor

193 platelet therapy (DAPT) followed by 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy or conventional 12-month DAPT fol

194 lytical approaches to analyze the benefit of ticagrelor monotherapy over conventional DAPT.

195 Effect of ticagrelor monotherapy vs ticagrelor with aspirin on maj

196 platelet therapy [DAPT] followed by 23-month ticagrelor monotherapy) versus a reference regimen (12-m

197 rpose 571 consecutive ACS patients receiving ticagrelor (n = 258, 45%) or prasugrel (n = 313, 55%) un

198 8 mg (n = 24) or 16 mg (n = 23) followed by ticagrelor (n = 43) or clopidogrel (n = 1).

199 nd were randomized to maintenance therapy of ticagrelor (n=56) or prasugrel (n=54) after primary perc

200 The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in diabEtes Mellitus patie

201 The POPular CABG trial (The Effect of Ticagrelor on Saphenous Vein Graft Patency in Patients U

202 ficant mortality reduction was observed with ticagrelor only.

203 relationship between randomized treatment to ticagrelor or clopidogrel and ALI.

204 s were randomly assigned (1:1) after CABG to ticagrelor or placebo added to standard aspirin (80 mg o

205 ients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either ticagrelor or placebo, by use of an interactive voice-re

206 domly assigned to receive a standard dose of ticagrelor or prasugrel (reduced dose in the elderly or

207 ded group) or standard treatment with either ticagrelor or prasugrel (standard-treatment group) for 1

208 y was noninferior to standard treatment with ticagrelor or prasugrel at 12 months with respect to thr

209 Clopidogrel versus ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients aged 70 years or old

210 myocardial infarction randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel in the setting of the ISAR REACT

211 se events and event-driven costs with use of ticagrelor or prasugrel versus clopidogrel according to

212 Simulated changes in adverse events with ticagrelor or prasugrel were calculated by applying trea

213 CYP2C19*3 loss-of-function alleles received ticagrelor or prasugrel, and noncarriers received clopid

214 rocedure and during maintenance therapy with ticagrelor or prasugrel.

215 ive evaluation was planned to receive either ticagrelor or prasugrel.

216 differ significantly in patients assigned to ticagrelor or prasugrel.

217 ervention were further randomized to receive ticagrelor or prasugrel.

218 rocirculatory resistance was not superior in ticagrelor- or prasugrel-treated patients (ticagrelor, 2

219 , which may limit any potential advantage of ticagrelor over clopidogrel.

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

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

222 ated with voucher use included: discharge on ticagrelor, planned 1-year course of P2Y(12) inhibitor t

223 hrombotic potency of ticagrelor alone versus ticagrelor plus ASA among high-risk patients undergoing

224 rgoing PCI to ticagrelor plus placebo versus ticagrelor plus ASA following 3 months of dual antiplate

225 ticagrelor monotherapy is similar to that of ticagrelor plus ASA with respect to ex vivo blood thromb

226 which randomized patients undergoing PCI to ticagrelor plus placebo versus ticagrelor plus ASA follo

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

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

229 mulated utility-weighted event rates favored ticagrelor/prasugrel, whereas clopidogrel reduced utilit

230 primary outcome was the rate of prasugrel or ticagrelor prescribing in each arm.

231 lthy volunteers before and after 48 hours of ticagrelor pretreatment and again after the administrati

232 After 48 hours of ticagrelor pretreatment, platelet aggregation was suppre

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

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

235 In that large, easily identified population, ticagrelor provided a favourable net clinical benefit (m

236 ion of PB2452, a specific reversal agent for ticagrelor, provided immediate and sustained reversal of

237 l P2Y(12) inhibitors, including prasugrel or ticagrelor, provides suboptimal early inhibition of plat

238 Yet, ticagrelor reduced infarct size to a significantly great

239 Prasugrel and ticagrelor reduced ischemic events and increased bleedin

240 Ticagrelor reduces ischemic risk in patients with prior

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

242 Ticagrelor regulates osteoblast and osteoclast function

243 idence, causes, and biological mechanisms of ticagrelor-related adverse effects and offers strategies

244 at binds ticagrelor with high affinity, as a ticagrelor reversal agent.

245 Ticagrelor reversal occurred within 5 minutes after the

246 tion (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.67-0.98]), whereas ticagrelor showed no risk reduction (HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0

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

248 In comparison with clopidogrel, ticagrelor significantly reduced cardiovascular mortalit

249 ents prematurely discontinued treatment with ticagrelor than with placebo.

250 95% CI, 1.18-3.23]; P=0.010) was higher with ticagrelor than with prasugrel.

251 d, placebo-controlled trial, the addition of ticagrelor to standard aspirin did not reduce SVG occlus

252 Ticagrelor treated patients were significantly more like

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

260 Ticagrelor use among elderly patients with MI was associ

261 Rates of ticagrelor use increased from 18.0% to 44.0%, while rate

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

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

264 The comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in older patients with myo

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

266 A randomized study of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in the elderly is needed.

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

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

269 d patients with peripheral artery disease to ticagrelor versus clopidogrel.

270 ce over time was not better in patients with ticagrelor versus prasugrel (ticagrelor, -13.9 U; prasug

271 We assessed the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in a head-to-head comparison

272 (Prospective, Randomized Trial of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coron

273 ta on the comparative efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in patients with ST-segment-

274 ar in both treatment groups (174 [3.1%] with ticagrelor vs 183 (3.3%) with placebo; HR 0.96 [95% CI 0

275 Ticagrelor was associated with 15% (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.

276 Ticagrelor was associated with a 17% and 48% higher risk

277 Ticagrelor was associated with a significant increase in

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 In a previous trial, ticagrelor was not better than aspirin in preventing vas

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

285 The use of prasugrel or ticagrelor was significantly higher in the genotyped gro

286 Ticagrelor was started immediately after randomization a

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

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

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

290 Differences between prasugrel and ticagrelor were not statistically significant.

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 of STEMI patients by 2017 were discharged on ticagrelor while far fewer received prasugrel.

294 on allele carriers were started on prasugrel/ticagrelor, while 47% were started on clopidogrel.

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

296 Effect of ticagrelor monotherapy vs ticagrelor with aspirin on major bleeding and cardiovasc

297 a mechanistic substudy within the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients A

298 2, a monoclonal antibody fragment that binds ticagrelor with high affinity, as a ticagrelor reversal

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

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