New England Journal of Medicine November 15, 2007

Prasugrel versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes

Stephen D. Wiviott, Eugene Braunwald, Carolyn H. McCabe, Gilles Montalescot, Witold Ruzyllo, Shmuel Gottlieb, Franz-Joseph Neumann, Diego Ardissino, Stefano De Servi, Sabina A. Murphy, Jeffrey Riesmeyer, Govinda Weerakkody, C. Michael Gibson, Elliott M. Antman

Source: View publication →

Bottom Line

In patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, prasugrel significantly reduced ischemic events and stent thrombosis compared to clopidogrel, but at the cost of a significantly increased risk of major and fatal bleeding.

Key Findings

1. The primary efficacy endpoint (composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) occurred in 9.9% of the prasugrel group versus 12.1% of the clopidogrel group (HR 0.81; 95% CI, 0.73-0.90; P<0.001).

2. Prasugrel significantly reduced the rates of myocardial infarction (7.4% vs. 9.7%; P<0.001), urgent target-vessel revascularization (2.5% vs. 3.7%; P<0.001), and stent thrombosis (1.1% vs. 2.4%; P<0.001).

3. Major bleeding (TIMI criteria) was significantly more frequent in the prasugrel group compared to the clopidogrel group (2.4% vs. 1.8%; HR 1.32; 95% CI, 1.03-1.68; P=0.03).

4. Prasugrel was associated with an increased risk of life-threatening bleeding (1.4% vs. 0.9%; P=0.01) and fatal bleeding (0.4% vs. 0.1%; P=0.002) compared to clopidogrel.

5. Overall mortality did not differ significantly between the two treatment groups.

Study Design

Design

Randomized Controlled Trial

Double-Blind

Sample

13,608

Patients

Duration

14.5 months

Median

Setting

Multicenter, international

Population Patients with moderate-to-high-risk acute coronary syndromes (ACS) scheduled for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)

Intervention Prasugrel (60 mg loading dose, followed by 10 mg daily maintenance dose) plus aspirin

Comparator Clopidogrel (300 mg loading dose, followed by 75 mg daily maintenance dose) plus aspirin

Outcome Composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke

Study Limitations

• The clopidogrel loading dose of 300 mg was lower than the 600 mg dose that subsequently became the standard of care for PCI, which may have artificially widened the early efficacy gap in favor of prasugrel.

• The protocol largely required study drug administration after the diagnostic angiogram, limiting the ability to assess the risks and benefits of an upstream pretreatment strategy.

• The trial exposed highly vulnerable patient subgroups (those with a history of stroke/TIA, age ≥75 years, or body weight <60 kg) to unacceptable bleeding hazards, which only became apparent through post-hoc subgroup analysis.

Clinical Significance

TRITON-TIMI 38 established prasugrel as a potent P2Y12 inhibitor that reliably reduces ischemic events—particularly stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction—in ACS patients undergoing PCI. By clearly demonstrating enhanced ischemic protection at the direct expense of an elevated major and fatal bleeding risk, the trial crystallized the modern paradigm of tailoring antithrombotic intensity to individual patient profiles. Its findings led directly to the FDA approval of prasugrel, but heavily informed clinical guidelines and the subsequent black-box warning contraindicating the drug in patients with a history of stroke or TIA.

Historical Context

Before 2007, dual antiplatelet therapy consisting of aspirin and clopidogrel was the undisputed standard for secondary prevention after PCI, based on trials like CURE and PCI-CURE. However, clopidogrel's clinical efficacy was hindered by a delayed onset of action, variable interpatient pharmacodynamic response, and susceptibility to CYP2C19 loss-of-function polymorphisms, leaving some patients vulnerable to catastrophic stent thrombosis (a major concern with first-generation drug-eluting stents). TRITON-TIMI 38 investigated a third-generation thienopyridine designed to achieve faster, more potent, and more consistent platelet inhibition, ushering in the modern era of potent P2Y12 blockade.

Guided Discussion

High-yield insights from every perspective

Med Student

Medical Student

How do the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of prasugrel differ from clopidogrel, and how does this explain both the primary efficacy and safety outcomes of the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial?

Key Response

Prasugrel is a prodrug requiring only one CYP450 dependent step for activation, whereas clopidogrel requires two. This leads to faster, more consistent, and more potent P2Y12 inhibition, explaining the lower ischemic event rate but the higher bleeding risk observed in the trial.

Resident

Based on the TRITON-TIMI 38 results, what are the three specific patient populations where prasugrel has distinct safety concerns, and how should this alter your antiplatelet choice in the CCU?

Key Response

Prasugrel is contraindicated in patients with a history of TIA or stroke due to increased intracranial hemorrhage risk. Caution and dose reduction are advised for patients aged 75 years or older and those weighing less than 60 kg due to a lack of net clinical benefit and increased bleeding risk.

Fellow

The TRITON-TIMI 38 trial demonstrated a significant reduction in stent thrombosis with prasugrel. How does the pathophysiology of stent thrombosis differ between the acute and late phases, and why is a rapid-acting, potent P2Y12 inhibitor particularly crucial during the acute phase of PCI in ACS?

Key Response

Acute and subacute stent thrombosis are largely driven by mechanical factors and high platelet reactivity, which is heavily amplified in the inflammatory milieu of ACS. Prasugrel's rapid and potent inhibition overcomes the delayed and variable inhibition of clopidogrel, making it highly effective at preventing early stent thrombosis.

Attending

Considering the net clinical benefit concept highlighted in TRITON-TIMI 38, how do you weigh the competing risks of ischemia versus bleeding in a complex PCI patient, and how does this trial influence your shared decision-making process for P2Y12 inhibitor selection today?

Key Response

Attendings must balance the upfront reduction in MI against the irreversible risk of fatal bleeding. The trial teaches that more potent antiplatelet therapy is not universally better; it requires a tailored approach using bleeding risk scores to customize therapy, shifting clinical practice from a one-size-fits-all approach to precision medicine.

Scholarly Review

Critical appraisal through the lens of expert reviewers and guideline development

PhD

TRITON-TIMI 38 employed a net clinical benefit analysis that combined efficacy (death, MI, stroke) and safety (TIMI major bleeding) outcomes. What are the statistical limitations of using such composite endpoints, particularly when the components have vastly different clinical severities?

Key Response

Composite endpoints often implicitly treat components equally, but a non-fatal periprocedural MI does not carry the same patient-centered weight as a fatal intracranial hemorrhage. If one component disproportionately drives the composite, it can mask the null or harmful effect of another, complicating the interpretation of the intervention's true utility.

Journal Editor

As a peer reviewer evaluating the TRITON-TIMI 38 manuscript, how would you scrutinize the trial's definition of periprocedural MI, and could the use of highly sensitive cardiac biomarkers disproportionately drive the primary efficacy endpoint in favor of the more potent agent?

Key Response

A rigorous reviewer would note that the primary endpoint was heavily driven by a reduction in non-fatal MI, many of which were periprocedural. If the definition relies heavily on small, clinically silent biomarker leaks rather than clinically significant infarctions, the magnitude of the drug's real-world benefit might be overstated compared to its tangible bleeding risks.

Guideline Committee

How did the findings of TRITON-TIMI 38 influence the ACC/AHA and ESC guidelines regarding the hierarchy of P2Y12 inhibitors in ACS, and what level of evidence supports the specific recommendation against prasugrel in patients with prior stroke or TIA?

Key Response

Current ACC/AHA and ESC guidelines give a Class IIa (or Class I in ESC) recommendation for potent P2Y12 inhibitors over clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing PCI. The explicit Class III (Harm) recommendation against using prasugrel in patients with a history of TIA or stroke is directly derived from the TRITON-TIMI 38 subgroup analysis showing a net hazard, supported by Level of Evidence B-R.

Clinical Landscape

Noteworthy Related Trials

2001

CURE Trial

n = 12,562 · NEJM

Tested

Clopidogrel plus aspirin

Population

Patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes

Comparator

Placebo plus aspirin

Endpoint

Composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke

Key result: The addition of clopidogrel to aspirin significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke compared to aspirin alone, though with an increase in major bleeding.

2009

PLATO Trial

n = 18,624 · NEJM

Tested

Ticagrelor 90mg twice daily

Population

Patients with acute coronary syndromes

Comparator

Clopidogrel 75mg daily

Endpoint

Composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke

Key result: Ticagrelor significantly reduced the rate of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke without an increase in the rate of overall major bleeding.

2019

ISAR-REACT 5 Trial

n = 4,018 · NEJM

Tested

Prasugrel

Population

Patients with acute coronary syndromes planned for invasive evaluation

Comparator

Ticagrelor

Endpoint

Composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year

Key result: Prasugrel was superior to ticagrelor in reducing the composite ischemic endpoint without a significant increase in major bleeding.

Tailored to your role

Want this tailored to you?

Add your specialty or training stage to get role-specific takeaways and more questions.

Personalize this analysis