Comparison of hemorrhagic risk between prasugrel and clopidogrel: A retrospective study using adverse drug event reporting databases

Hiromi Hagiwara, Hidekatsu Fukuta, Takahiro Niimura, Yoshito Zamami, Keisuke Ishizawa, Kazunori Kimura, Takeshi Kamiya, Nobuyuki Ohte

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Prasugrel inhibits platelet aggregation more potently and exerts therapeutic action faster than clopidogrel. In the global phase III trial conducted in Western and South American countries that excluded Asian countries, prasugrel reduced ischemic events but increased hemorrhagic risk compared with clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome scheduled for percutaneous coronary intervention. In the Japanese phase III trial for similar patients, the efficacy of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel was comparable to the global trial, but the safety could not be confirmed because of an insufficient number of patients. Furthermore, given the strict enrollment criteria, the results of these trials may not be applicable to routine clinical practice. Accordingly, we compared the hemorrhagic risk of prasugrel and clopidogrel in real-world settings by analyzing adverse drug event reports in post-marketing stages provided by the Japanese regulatory authorities and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Methods: We analyzed a total of 3,970 reports for prasugrel (n = 518) or clopidogrel (n = 3,452) between 2014 and 2017 in the Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report (JADER) and a total of 91,914 reports for either prasugrel (n = 5,992) or clopidogrel (n = 85,922) between 2009 and 2019 in the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS). Results: In JADER and FAERS, prasugrel was more frequently and significantly associated with hemorrhagic event reports than clopidogrel. After adjustment for known confounders including age, sex, and concomitant medications (aspirin, anticoagulants, and proton pump inhibitors), the hemorrhagic risk of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel remained significant (adjusted reporting odds ratios [95% CI] for total, intracranial, and gastrointestinal hemorrhagic events = 2.42 [1.97–2.96], 2.45 [1.85–3.24], and 2.27 [1.73–2.97] in JADER, and 2.21 [2.09–2.34], 1.21 [1.09–1.33], and 1.41 [1.29–1.54] in FAERS). Conclusions: The hemorrhagic risk was found to be greater with prasugrel than clopidogrel in real-world patients, including Japanese patients.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)728-733
Number of pages6
JournalInternational journal of medical sciences
Volume17
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2020
Externally publishedYes

Keywords

  • Clopidogrel
  • FDA Adverse Event Reporting System
  • Hemorrhagic risk
  • Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report
  • Prasugrel

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Comparison of hemorrhagic risk between prasugrel and clopidogrel: A retrospective study using adverse drug event reporting databases'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this