↓ Skip to main content

Head to head comparison of Prasugrel versus Ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#43 of 442)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
49 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Head to head comparison of Prasugrel versus Ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials
Published in
BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s40360-017-0189-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Pravesh Kumar Bundhun, Jia-Xin Shi, Feng Huang

Abstract

Prasugrel and Ticagrelor are emerging antiplatelet drugs that might have the potential to replace currently used antiplatelet agents. Previous analyses comparing prasugrel with ticagrelor mainly focused on an indirect comparison whereas direct comparison was reported only in a few recently published trials. We aimed to systematically carry out a head to head comparison of the adverse clinical outcomes which were associated with prasugrel versus ticagrelor in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Studies comparing prasugrel with ticagrelor (head to head comparison) were searched from online databases. Adverse cardiovascular outcomes were considered as the primary endpoints whereas bleeding outcomes were considered as the secondary endpoints in this analysis. The latest version of the RevMan software was used to carry out subgroup analyses whereby odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the calculated probability (P) were generated. Four studies with a total number of 563 patients (2012 - 2016) were included (282 patients were treated with prasugrel and 281 patients were treated with ticagrelor). Results of this analysis did not show any significant difference in mortality between prasugrel and ticagrelor with OR: 1.52, 95% CI: 0.42 - 5.45; P = 0.52. In addition, myocardial infarction, major adverse cardiac events, stroke and stent thrombosis were also not significantly different with OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.08 - 4.58; P = 0.62, OR: 0.91, 95% CI: 0.37 - 2.21; P = 0.83, OR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.08 - 4.58; P = 0.62 and OR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.08 - 4.58; P = 0.62 respectively. Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) defined minor bleeding, and minimal bleeding were also not significantly different between these two newer antiplatelet agents with OR: 3.11, 95% CI: 0.48 - 19.94; P = 0.23, and OR: 2.39, 95% CI: 0.35 - 16.42; P = 0.38 respectively. Moreover, bleeding defined by the academic research consortium was also similarly manifested with OR: 0.92, 95% CI: 0.39 - 2.13; P = 0.84. In patients with ACS, both prasugrel and ticagrelor showed similar adverse cardiovascular outcomes and bleeding events. No significant difference was observed between these two newer antiplatelet agents during this head to head comparison. However, upcoming trials with long term follow up periods might be expected to completely solve this important clinical issue.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 49 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 49 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 14%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 4 8%
Other 3 6%
Other 8 16%
Unknown 15 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 35%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 9 18%
Mathematics 1 2%
Environmental Science 1 2%
Physics and Astronomy 1 2%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 19 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 August 2019.
All research outputs
#2,578,800
of 23,011,300 outputs
Outputs from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#43
of 442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,210
of 439,149 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology
#2
of 14 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,011,300 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 442 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 439,149 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 14 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.