In Reply Dr Kim and colleagues state that the results of our study1 are not comparable with those of PLATO and suggest that our findings may differ because patients enrolled in PLATO had a higher proportion of prior myocardial infarction. First, as we mention in our article, PLATO failed to show benefit in North America and included few Asian patients. It did show that ticagrelor reduced ischemic events and increased the rate of nonprocedural bleeding. However, several studies have demonstrated that high-risk patients with ACS do not have a net benefit with ticagrelor. For example, the SWEDEHEART registry showed that ticagrelor was associated with higher rates of bleeding and increased mortality in patents with ACS who were aged 80 years or older. A reduction in ischemic outcomes from ticagrelor was also not observed in this study.2 The open-label randomized clinical trial POPular AGE demonstrated that clopidogrel is favored for older patients with non–ST-elevation ACS, a high-risk subgroup.3 The TICA-KOREA trial showed that ticagrelor use was not associated with fewer ischemic events but was associated with increased risk of bleeding in Korean patients with ACS treated with PCI.4
You SC, Gupta A, Krumholz HM. Ticagrelor vs Clopidogrel for Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Intervention—Reply. JAMA. 2021;325(9):890–891. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.26023
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: