PURPOSE: This review aims to gather existing literature on the clinical effects of ticagrelor after inhibiting adenosine uptake.
METHODOLOGY: The current study reviewed literature related to the effects of ticagrelor on adenosine metabolism. The review also examined the drug's biological effects and clinical characteristics to see how it could be used in a clinical setting.
RESULTS: Many studies have shown that ticagrelor can inhibit equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 (ENT1). This inhibition leads to intracellular adenosine uptake, increased adenosine half-life and plasma concentration levels and an enhanced adenosine-mediated biological effect.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the studies reviewed, it was found that ticagrelor essentially inhibits adenosine absorption of adenosine into cells through ENT1, which increases the concentration in the blood and subsequently increases the protection of the heart muscle by adenosine. It also prevents platelet aggregation, and extends the biological effects of coronary arteries. Moreover, it leads to a lower mortality rate in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients.
METHODS: This prospective study employed a parallel design, single-center design, and randomized approach. Genotyping for the CYP2C19*2 and *3 polymorphisms was conducted using the Nested Allele-Specific Multiplex PCR (NASM-PCR) technique. Patients meeting the inclusion criteria underwent genotyping for CYP2C19 polymorphisms. Following PCI, patients were randomly assigned to receive either ticagrelor or clopidogrel. PRI assessments were performed four hours after loading dose administration. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov under the identifier NCT05516784.
RESULTS: Among the 94 patients recruited for the study, 40 (42.55%) were identified as carriers of the LOF allele for CYP2C19*2 and *3 (*1/*2, *2/*2, *1/*3). Out of the 84 patients evaluated for PRI (44 receiving clopidogrel and 40 receiving ticagrelor), 21 (47.7%) of the clopidogrel group and 39 (97.5%) of the ticagrelor group exhibited a favorable response to antiplatelet therapy (PRI
METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted, involving AIS cases admitted to a tertiary hospital in Jordan between 2015 and 2020. Lab data were collected upon admission, and the primary outcome was ICU admission during hospitalization. Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed using SPSS version 29.
RESULTS: In this study involving 364 AIS patients, a subset of 77 (21.2%) required admission to the ICU during their hospital stay, most frequently within the first week of admission. Univariable analysis revealed significantly higher NPAR levels in ICU-admitted ischemic stroke patients compared to those who were not admitted (23.3 vs. 15.7, p
METHODOLOGY: We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to compare the effectiveness and safety of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in elderly patients with CHD. We selected eligible RCTs based on specified study criteria following a systematic search of PubMed and Scopus databases from January 2007 to May 2021. Primary efficacy outcomes assessed were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis (ST), and all-cause death. The secondary outcome assessed was major bleeding events. We used RevMan 5.3 software to conduct a random-effects meta-analysis and estimated the pooled incidence and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for ticagrelor and clopidogrel.
RESULTS: Data from 6 RCTs comprising 21,827 elderly patients were extracted according to the eligibility criteria. There was no significant difference in the MACE outcome (incidence: 9.23% vs. 10.57%; RR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.70-1.28, p = 0.72), MI (incidence: 5.40% vs. 6.23%; RR = 0.94, 95% CI= 0.69-1.27, p = 0.67), ST (incidence: 2.33% vs. 3.17%; RR = 0.61, 95% CI= 0.32-1.17, p = 0.13), and all-cause death (4.29% vs. 5.33%; RR = 0.86, 95% CI = 0.65-1.12, p = 0.25) for ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel, respectively. In addition, ticagrelor was not associated with a significant increase in the rate of major bleeding (incidence: 9.98% vs. 9.33%: RR = 1.37, 95% CI = 0.97-1.94, p = 0.07) vs. clopidogrel.
CONCLUSIONS: This study did not find evidence that ticagrelor is significantly more effective or safer than clopidogrel in elderly patients with CHD.