Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor vs. Clopidogrel in East Asian Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction: A Nationwide Cohort Study

Ticagrelor improves clinical outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in East Asian patients with AMI. Between July 2013 and December 2015, patients with AMI prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy were identified from the National Health Insurance Research Database of Taiwan. Using propensity score weighting, ticagrelor was compared with clopidogrel for the primary efficacy end point (a composite of all‐cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke) and bleeding. A total of 32,442 patients with AMI (ticagrelor: 10,057; clopidogrel: 22,385) were eligible for analysis. After propensity score weighting, ticagrelor was comparable to clopidogrel in the incidence rate of the primary efficacy end point (23.6 vs. 22.76/100 patient‐years; hazard ratio (HR) 0.97; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89–1.06; P = 0.513). Ticagrelor was associated with a lower risk of stroke (1.78 vs. 2.66/100 patient‐years; HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.49–0.85; P = 0.002) and higher risks of overall (21.59 vs. 18.35/100 patient‐years; HR 1.16; 95% CI 1.06–1.27; P = 0.002) and Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2 bleeding (18.67 vs. 15.08/100 patient‐years; HR 1.22; 95% CI 1.11–1.36; P < 0.001). The risks of death, MI, and BARC 3 or 5 bleeding were comparable between ticagrelor and clopidogrel. In the present study, ticagrelor was comparable to clopidogrel in the composite of death, MI, and stroke, but had an increased risk of BARC type 2 bleeding. Ticagrelor may be beneficial in preventing post‐MI stroke in East Asian patients.