This page shows what was measured, who it was measured in, and what that does not settle.
What Ticagrelor does in the body
Platelets call each other in with a chemical signal called ADP, and blocking the receiver stops a small clot from becoming a big one.
Ticagrelor differs from the older drugs in two ways. It is active the moment you swallow it, so it does not depend on liver enzymes to switch it on and works within an hour. And it does not sit in the ADP slot — it binds elsewhere on the same receptor and holds it in a shape that cannot respond, then lets go again. Because it lets go, platelet function returns within a few days rather than waiting for new platelets, and because it is short-acting it has to be taken twice a day.
Why people take it. Preventing heart attacks, strokes and stent clots after a heart attack or unstable angina
What happened in people
Cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke 9.8% against 11.7% on clopidogrel, and all-cause death 4.5% against 5.9%, in 18,624 randomised patients
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The recorded finding that sits closest to something a person would notice. Written into the record, not signed off, and it carries no population or interval.
The only P2Y12 inhibitor with an all-cause mortality reduction in its registration trial, and the one whose registration trial has drawn the most published scrutiny
Where it acts
The surface membrane of circulating platelets, and through them the coronary and cerebral arteries
Kind of result
Living longer, or avoiding a major event
Supervision
Professional supervision is normally required. A regulator classifies this substance in a way that restricts how it is supplied.
What the registries record it as
The substance registry classes this as chemical.
FDA substance registry · GLH0314RVC · read 2026-08-29
Where each sentence above came from
A person wrote this explanation into the record, with the studies named in the path below.
The recorded use, written for a reader without medical training. Not signed off.
A limit recorded against this substance. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The four opening statements run to 157 words.
Words this page uses
Four words worth knowing first
Chosen from what this page shows, with each one explained before the word it depends on.
Comparator
A comparator is whatever the treatment was measured against.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like the other runner in a race.
Where that stops being true. A race has one winner. A study can show both arms improved.
What people get wrong. Results are read without asking what the other group got. Beating nothing is not beating a treatment.
The control condition against which the experimental intervention is assessed.
Randomisation
Randomisation means chance decides who gets which treatment.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a coin toss deciding the groups.
Where that stops being true. A coin toss is fair once. Fairness here comes from doing it for everyone.
What people get wrong. It is thought to make groups identical. It makes them similar on average, including on things nobody measured.
Allocation of participants to arms by a chance process, so that unmeasured factors are balanced in expectation.
Absolute difference
An absolute difference is how many more people in a hundred were affected.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like counting heads in two rooms of a hundred.
Where that stops being true. Heads are easy to count. Study results carry a margin of error too.
What people get wrong. It is confused with a percentage change, which can look far larger.
The arithmetic difference in event rates between arms.
Confidence interval
A confidence interval is the range the true answer is likely to sit in.
A picture of it, and where the picture fails
It is like a weather forecast giving a range rather than one number.
Where that stops being true. A forecast range covers tomorrow. This one covers what the study could resolve.
What people get wrong. The middle number is read as the answer. A range crossing zero means no change is still possible.
An interval estimate that would contain the true parameter in a stated proportion of repeated studies.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What happened in people
Each card is one study: the exact question it asked, who was in it, and whether it showed what it set out to show.
Composite of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction or stroke at 12 months, ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome
9.8% vs 11.7%, hazard ratio 0.84 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.92), p<0.001. All-cause death 4.5% vs 5.9%, p<0.001. Stroke alone 1.5% vs 1.3%, p=0.22
Repeated elsewhere
Partially Replicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. The United States label records a significant US/non-US interaction (p=0.009) with the North American result numerically inferior to clopidogrel. Non-bypass major bleeding 4.5% vs 3.8% (p=0.03) with more fatal intracranial bleeding. Aspirin maintenance dose was left to investigator choice and differed sharply by region.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet, twice daily, with low-dose aspirin
Interval reported. 95% CI 0
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke, ticagrelor 90 mg or 60 mg twice daily versus placebo, 1 to 3 years after myocardial infarction
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (NCT01225562)
How many people
21162
Study design
Phase 3 randomised double-blind placebo-controlled three-arm trial, median 33 months
Compared against
A dummy treatment
Kind of result
Living longer, or avoiding a major event
What was found
Three-year rates 7.85% (90 mg), 7.77% (60 mg) and 9.04% (placebo); hazard ratio 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.96, p=0.008) and 0.84 (0.74 to 0.95, p=0.004)
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. TIMI major bleeding 2.60% and 2.30% against 1.06% on placebo, p<0.001 for each. Intracranial haemorrhage or fatal bleeding was 0.63%, 0.71% and 0.60% — no difference. Dyspnoea led to discontinuation in 4.3%.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet, twice daily, with low-dose aspirin
Interval reported. 95% CI 0
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke, ticagrelor plus aspirin versus placebo plus aspirin in stable coronary disease with type 2 diabetes and no prior infarct or stroke
✓ The study showed what it set out to show
Who was studied
THEMIS (NCT01991795)
How many people
19220
Study design
Phase 3 randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial, median 39.9 months
Compared against
A dummy treatment
Kind of result
Living longer, or avoiding a major event
What was found
7.7% vs 8.5%, hazard ratio 0.90 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99), p=0.04. TIMI major bleeding 2.2% vs 1.0%, hazard ratio 2.32 (1.82 to 2.94), p<0.001
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. The exploratory irreversible-harm composite — death, myocardial infarction, stroke, fatal bleeding or intracranial haemorrhage — was 10.1% vs 10.8%, hazard ratio 0.93 (0.86 to 1.02): no significant difference. Intracranial haemorrhage 0.7% vs 0.5% (p=0.005). Permanent discontinuation 34.5% vs 25.4%.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet, twice daily, with low-dose aspirin
Interval reported. 95% CI 0
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Time to stroke, myocardial infarction or death within 90 days, ticagrelor versus aspirin after non-severe ischaemic stroke or high-risk transient ischaemic attack
✗ The study did not show it
Who was studied
SOCRATES (NCT01994720)
How many people
13199
Study design
Phase 3 international double-blind randomised trial, 90-day endpoint
Compared against
Not recorded for this study
Kind of result
Living longer, or avoiding a major event
What was found
6.7% (442/6589) vs 7.5% (497/6610), hazard ratio 0.89 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.01), p=0.07 — superiority not demonstrated
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No offsetting safety advantage: major bleeding 0.5% vs 0.6%, intracranial haemorrhage 0.2% vs 0.3%, fatal bleeding 0.1% in both. Patients who had received thrombolysis or had cardioembolic stroke were excluded.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet, twice daily, with low-dose aspirin
Interval reported. 95% CI 0
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Composite of stroke or death within 30 days, ticagrelor plus aspirin versus aspirin alone after mild-to-moderate non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack
5.5% (303/5523) vs 6.6% (362/5493), hazard ratio 0.83 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.96), p=0.02. Ischaemic stroke 5.0% vs 6.3%, hazard ratio 0.79, p=0.004
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. Meeting one endpoint in one population does not carry to other goals or other people.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. The incidence of disability did not differ significantly between the groups. Severe bleeding 0.5% (28 patients) vs 0.1% (7 patients), p=0.001. Restricted to NIHSS 5 or less and to 30 days of treatment.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet, twice daily, with low-dose aspirin
Interval reported. 95% CI 0
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
Composite of death, myocardial infarction or stroke at one year, ticagrelor versus prasugrel in acute coronary syndrome with planned invasive evaluation
9.3% vs 6.9%, hazard ratio 1.36 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.70), p=0.006 — ticagrelor worse
Repeated elsewhere
Unreplicated
What this does not prove. A study that did not show an effect does not show that no effect exists anywhere.
The limits of this study, and where it came from
Main limit. No bleeding offset: BARC major bleeding 5.4% vs 4.8%, p=0.46. Open label, with the two drugs given on different schedules relative to angiography, so treatment strategies differed as well as molecules.
How far it carries. This study is recorded from the curated record, not from the registry match.
Form and route. Oral tablet, twice daily, with low-dose aspirin
Interval reported. 95% CI 1
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim.
RNAWiki holds 6 written-up human studies for this substance, each with the question it asked.
How we know it
Each card names the study, the number of people and what the study set out to measure.
What this does not prove
These summaries were written by a person and have not been signed off as reviewed claims.
Why it matters
A study that failed is as informative as one that worked, and both are here.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim exists, so no exact population, effect size or interval is published yet.
What it changes in the body◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
The path through the body
From what a person takes to what changes. A solid line is a step measured in people. A dashed line is a step nobody has measured that way.
Start
Ticagrelor
What a person takes: Oral tablet, twice daily, with low-dose aspirin.
The measurement behind this step
Film-coated tablets taken twice daily after a loading dose, alongside a daily aspirin maintenance dose the label restricts to 75 to 100 mg. Active as administered, with platelet inhibition measurable within 30 minutes and peak concentration in about 1.5 hours. Because binding is reversible, the twice-daily schedule matters more than for the irreversible agents: a missed dose leaves no reservoir of permanently blocked platelets to carry the effect.
Getting in
A tablet twice a day that is already active
Unlike clopidogrel and prasugrel, this drug does not need to be switched on by the liver. It starts blocking platelets within about half an hour.
──Measured in people. Written by a person from the study named beside the step. Not signed off as a reviewed claim.
The measurement behind this step
A cyclopentyltriazolopyrimidine, 522.60 g/mol, pharmacologically active as administered. Peak plasma concentration in about 1.5 hours with measurable platelet inhibition within 30 minutes. Its metabolite AR-C124910XX is also active and contributes roughly a third of the total effect. Twice-daily dosing is required because the effect is short.
No dependence on the enzyme that fails in some people
Clopidogrel needs a liver enzyme that a substantial minority carry a weak version of. This drug needs no such activation, so it works the same in everyone.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
No CYP2C19-dependent bioactivation step exists, so loss-of-function alleles that blunt clopidogrel do not blunt ticagrelor. It is however a CYP3A4 substrate — strong CYP3A inhibitors substantially raise exposure and are to be avoided — and a P-glycoprotein inhibitor, which is why digoxin levels are monitored.
Rather than competing with the platelet signal for the same slot, it grips a different part of the receptor and holds it in a shape that cannot respond.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Reversible, non-competitive binding at an allosteric site distinct from the ADP binding pocket of P2Y12, locking the receptor in an inactive conformation. Because binding is non-competitive, high local ADP concentrations at a growing thrombus do not out-compete the drug, which is a pharmacological difference from the thienopyridines that is measurable in aggregometry.
It lets go again, so platelets recover in days rather than a week
The block is not permanent. Stop the drug and platelet function returns over a few days, without waiting for the bone marrow to make new platelets.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
Reversible binding means the affected platelet recovers as drug concentration falls, rather than being permanently disabled as it is by the covalent thienopyridines. The label directs interruption five days before surgery with a major bleeding risk, against seven for prasugrel. The same reversibility means a missed dose matters more, because there is no reservoir of permanently blocked platelets carrying the effect.
Fewer deaths, more non-procedural bleeding, and breathlessness
Fewer deaths from any cause than clopidogrel, more bleeding unrelated to surgery, and breathlessness in about one patient in seven.
╌╌Described, with no measurement named. No measurement is named for this step, so it is drawn as an unconfirmed link.
The measurement behind this step
PLATO: primary composite 9.8% against 11.7%, all-cause death 4.5% against 5.9%, overall major bleeding not different (11.6% against 11.2%) but non-bypass major bleeding 4.5% against 3.8% (p=0.03), with more fatal intracranial bleeding and fewer fatal bleeds of other types. Dyspnoea 13.8% against 7.8%, with no measurable effect on pulmonary function. The label also records ventricular pauses, attributed to the same adenosine pathway.
No suggested links are held for this record, so nothing is hidden from this path.
What we know
The record describes 5 steps from taking it to an effect in a person.
How we know it
Each step names the study behind it in the technical detail beside it.
What this does not prove
A change inside the body is a reason to look. It is not a result in a person.
Why it matters
A reader can see exactly where the chain stops being measured in people.
What we still do not know
No reviewed claim binds any of these steps to a named population.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Were people like you studied?
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it, and where the result stops carrying.
Who was studied
People similar to this profile were included.
Patients after an acute coronary syndrome, with or without a stent; patients more than a year past a heart attack who remain at high risk; patients with high-risk coronary disease; and patients in the first 30 days after a minor stroke or high-risk transient ischaemic attack.
Who is missing from the studies
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What the label states about particular groups
On pediatric, the label states: “The safety and effectiveness of ticagrelor tablets have not been established in pediatric patients.”
US prescribing information · fc333c4a-ad63-4d67-a3f7-431ac469d116 · read 2026-08-30
On older people, the label states: “About half of the patients in PLATO, PEGASUS, THEMIS, and THALES were ≥ 65 years of age and at least 15% were ≥ 75 years of age.”
US prescribing information · fc333c4a-ad63-4d67-a3f7-431ac469d116 · read 2026-08-30
On people who are pregnant, the label states: “Risk Summary Available data from case reports with ticagrelor tablets use in pregnant women have not identified a drug-associated risk of major birth defects, miscarriage, or adverse maternal or fetal outcomes.”
US prescribing information · fc333c4a-ad63-4d67-a3f7-431ac469d116 · read 2026-08-30
On people who are breastfeeding, the label states: “Risk Summary There are no data on the presence of ticagrelor or its metabolites in human milk, the effects on the breastfed infant, or the effects on milk production.”
US prescribing information · fc333c4a-ad63-4d67-a3f7-431ac469d116 · read 2026-08-30
On people with reduced liver function, the label states: “Ticagrelor is metabolized by the liver and impaired hepatic function can increase risks for bleeding and other adverse events.”
US prescribing information · fc333c4a-ad63-4d67-a3f7-431ac469d116 · read 2026-08-30
On people with reduced kidney function, the label states: “No dosage adjustment is needed in patients with renal impairment [see Clinical Pharmacology (12.3) ].”
US prescribing information · fc333c4a-ad63-4d67-a3f7-431ac469d116 · read 2026-08-30
Where the result stopped carrying
The North American subset of PLATO, numerically inferior to clopidogrel with an interaction test at p=0.009
SOCRATES, where superiority over plain aspirin after stroke was not demonstrated (p=0.07)
The net benefit in THEMIS, where major bleeding more than doubled and irreversible harm did not differ
ISAR-REACT 5, the only head-to-head against prasugrel, lost with no bleeding offset
The stroke component of PLATO itself, 1.5% against 1.3%, p=0.22 — numerically the wrong way
This is a scope explorer, not a diagnosis engine.
It shows who was studied so you can see whether people similar to you were included.
RNAWiki cannot tell whether a study fits you. It can show who was in it.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Why it might seem to do nothing
A real effect and a noticed effect are different things. These are the recorded reasons the two come apart.
It was studied in different people
The people in the studies were not much like the reader.
On this record: Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
The evidence may simply be wrong
Small early studies often do not hold up.
On this record: RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Other reasons RNAWiki checked and found nothing for (11)
It was studied for a different goal
The studies measured something else entirely. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
A different form was studied
The studied form is not the form on the shelf. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
There was nothing to correct
Where a level is already normal, topping it up may change nothing. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else had to happen too
In the studies it was paired with training, a diet or another treatment. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The change is too small to feel
A real change can still sit below what a person notices. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Day-to-day swing hides it
Sleep, food, stress and time of day move most numbers more than this would. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Not enough time yet
The studies ran longer than the person has waited. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
It was not taken as studied
Missed days change the result, and studies count them. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
Something else changed at the same time
Two changes at once cannot be told apart afterwards. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
The product may not be what it says
Contents of a sold product are not always what the label states. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
No recorded reason
RNAWiki has nothing stored that would explain it. Nothing in this record points to this reason.
None of these is a reason to take more. Taking more is not a step this page ever suggests.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What taking it involves
The recorded facts about getting hold of it and using it. Nothing here is a suggestion about what you should do.
How it is supplied
Prescription only
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Read from the recorded approval status.
No source is stored against this line.
Form and route
Oral tablet, twice daily, with low-dose aspirin
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form and route recorded on this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
Who oversees it
Professional supervision is normally required. A regulator classifies this substance in a way that restricts how it is supplied.
❝ Quoted from a source
Where this came from
Copied from a source RNAWiki stored, with the source named.
Suppression classes recorded: S6.
No source is stored against this line.
What is in the pack
Film-coated tablets taken twice daily after a loading dose, alongside a daily aspirin maintenance dose the label restricts to 75 to 100 mg. 5 hours. Because binding is reversible, the twice-daily schedule matters more than for the irreversible agents: a missed dose leaves no reservoir of permanently blocked platelets to carry the effect.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on how this is sold and what that means for what is in the pack.
No source is stored against this line.
Where it is registered
Regulatory records are listed in the technical disclosure at the foot of this page.
# Counted from records
Where this came from
A count of rows RNAWiki holds. It describes our records, not your body.
Register entries are stored per jurisdiction and shown with their dates.
No source is stored against this line.
Why people stop
Not recorded.
∅ Nothing recorded
Where this came from
RNAWiki holds nothing here and says so rather than guessing.
No record of why people stopped taking it is stored for this substance.
No source is stored against this line.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What can go wrong
Sorted by where each line came from. A regulator's label and a report somebody sent in are not the same kind of fact.
·Worth asking a clinician aboutWritten into the record from the studies named on this page
The United States label carries a boxed warning for bleeding risk, and ticagrelor must not be used in active pathological bleeding or in anyone with a history of intracranial haemorrhage, nor started before urgent bypass surgery. Where possible it is interrupted five days before surgery with a major bleeding risk. Stopping it increases the risk of subsequent cardiovascular events, so discontinuation is itself a hazard. Dyspnoea affects roughly 14% of patients and is self-limiting, with no demonstrable effect on pulmonary function. Ventricular pauses and bradyarrhythmias including AV block are described. Strong CYP3A inhibitors are to be avoided; digoxin levels require monitoring; daily aspirin should not exceed 100 mg. False negative results have been reported on platelet functional testing for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia.
Nobody counted how many people took this and were fine, so this cannot be turned into a rate.
Over a long time. No completed tested study window is recorded, so long-term effects are not established by the registry record.
Groups the studies covered thinly. Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded for this substance. Pregnancy, breastfeeding, children, older adults, and people with liver or kidney conditions are commonly excluded from trials; nothing here says whether they were.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Does the exact form matter?
Evidence belongs to the exact thing that was tested. A different salt, a different mixture or a different preparation is a different question.
The form that was studied
Oral tablet, twice daily, with low-dose aspirin
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
The form used in the studies cited on this page.
No source is stored against this line.
What is sold
5 hours. Because binding is reversible, the twice-daily schedule matters more than for the irreversible agents: a missed dose leaves no reservoir of permanently blocked platelets to carry the effect.
✎ Source-linked record
Where this came from
A person wrote this into the record with the study named beside it. No reviewer has signed it off.
Recorded notes on which forms are sold and how they compare.
No source is stored against this line.
What is recorded as being sold
85 products list this as an active ingredient in the United States drug directory. 85 of them contain it and nothing else.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 72603-941 · read 2026-08-29
They are sold as powder, tablet and tablet, film coated, taken oral.
FDA National Drug Code directory · 72603-941 · read 2026-08-29
The regulator's established pharmacologic class for it is cytochrome p450 3a4 inhibitors [moa], decreased platelet aggregation [pe] and p-glycoprotein inhibitors [moa].
FDA National Drug Code directory · 72603-941 · read 2026-08-29
36 published labels name it as an active ingredient. 36 of them describe this substance alone, which is where its own label text on this page comes from.
US prescribing information · fc333c4a-ad63-4d67-a3f7-431ac469d116 · read 2026-08-29
Those labels are classed as human prescription drug.
US prescribing information · fc333c4a-ad63-4d67-a3f7-431ac469d116 · read 2026-08-29
Ticagrelor is oral at 3 DOSAGE FORMS AND STRENGTHS Ticagrelor Tablets are available containing 60 mg or 90 mg of ticagrelor. • The 60 mg tablets are yellow, film-coated, round, unscored tablets debossed with M on one side of the tablet and T…, recorded as fda label in effect 2025-04-14 in the United States.
US prescribing information · fc333c4a-ad63-4d67-a3f7-431ac469d116 · read 2026-08-30
Recorded price in US: 0.26343–0.30317 USD per one unit as the pricing file counts it — a tablet, capsule, patch or single item, across 33 priced products whose strengths and pack forms differ, as of 2026-08-26, paid by retail pharmacies buying the product, as surveyed by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. It is not a list price, an insurance price, or what anyone pays at a counter..
Recorded source · 2026-08-26 · read 2026-08-28
Evidence carries across two names for one substance. It does not carry across a salt, a mirror form or a mixture.
What it would be like to take◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What you could measure
This one is decided with a clinician, so this section holds questions to ask rather than a plan to run.
Self-experiment planning is not offered for a prescription or clinician-supervised medicine. The questions below are for a clinician or pharmacist.
Questions worth asking
Which of the trials of Ticagrelor studied people like me?
What was measured, and for how long?
Was the result a laboratory value or a health outcome?
What would we watch for, and when would we stop?
Tracking can show whether something changed for you. It cannot show what caused it.
RNAWiki records evidence. It does not say whether this substance is right for you.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Claims that go past the evidence
Things said about this substance that sound reasonable, and the exact step that is missing between the evidence and the claim.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the PLATO mortality benefit applies uniformly — the regional interaction was significant and North America ran the other way
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That higher aspirin doses explain the North American result — an unplanned subset analysis on a variable investigators chose after randomisation
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the counted strokes prevented in THALES translated into less disability — disability was measured directly and did not differ
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the marginal ischaemic gain in stable diabetes is a net benefit — the trialists’ own irreversible-harm composite showed no difference
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
✗Goes past the evidence
That the dyspnoea is proven to be adenosine-mediated — a coherent pharmacological explanation, not a demonstrated cause in patients
Why it sounds right. It follows from something real on this page: a body step, an animal result or a related finding.
The missing step. Nobody measured this in people for this use, or the study that did measure it did not show it.
What would change this
A study in people, for this exact use, measuring this exact thing, that a reviewer signs off.
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
What nobody knows yet
Open questions, each with why it is open and what would close it.
Missing populations
Which groups were under-represented in the studies has not been recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing long-term data
No completed tested study window is recorded.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
No reviewed conclusion
RNAWiki has not yet published a reviewed conclusion for this use.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Missing interaction studies
No interaction was found in the registers checked. Not finding one is not the same as showing there is none.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Formulation uncertainty
Several salts, forms or products of Ticagrelor are recorded. Results from one form may not transfer to another.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
Mechanism not reviewed
No reviewed mechanism story exists for this substance.
Why it matters. Recorded by the evidence model as a gap on this record.
What would answer it
A study that measures it, and a reviewer to sign it off.
Last checked 2026-09-04. Searched: The sources listed in the receipts at the foot of this page.
What happened in people◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
Check any of this yourself
Every line above traced back to the study it came from. This is the technical layer, and the vocabulary changes here.
Every line above can be traced to the study named beside it. Follow the link and read it.
PLATO: all-cause death fell from 5.9% to 4.5%, which nothing else in the class has shown
In plain words
In 18,624 patients admitted with a heart attack or unstable angina, ticagrelor prevented more deaths, heart attacks and strokes than clopidogrel — and fewer people died from any cause at all, which is the hardest result to achieve.
What was measured
Death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction or stroke at 12 months, and all-cause death 4.5% against 5.9%
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
PLATO (NCT00391872) was a multicentre double-blind randomised trial comparing ticagrelor with clopidogrel in 18,624 patients hospitalised with an acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation. At 12 months the primary composite of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction or stroke occurred in 9.8% on ticagrelor against 11.7% on clopidogrel, hazard ratio 0.84 (95% CI 0.77 to 0.92, p<0.001). Prespecified hierarchical testing showed myocardial infarction alone 5.8% against 6.9% (p=0.005) and vascular death 4.0% against 5.1% (p=0.001), but stroke alone 1.5% against 1.3% (p=0.22) — not significant, and numerically the wrong way. Death from any cause was 4.5% against 5.9% (p<0.001). An all-cause mortality reduction in a head-to-head antiplatelet comparison is rare and is the single strongest claim ticagrelor has; the entries below are about how well it has held up.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The label itself records that the North American result was numerically inferior to clopidogrel
In plain words
The trial worked everywhere except North America, and the difference between regions was statistically significant. The American approved label says so in its own words.
What was measured
US versus non-US interaction test for the primary composite endpoint, p=0.009, with the North American result numerically inferior to clopidogrel
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
Under the heading "Regional Differences", the United States prescribing information states that results in the rest of the world compared with North America "show a smaller effect in North America, numerically inferior to the control and driven by the US subset", that "the statistical test for the US/non-US comparison is statistically significant (p=0.009)", and that "the same trend is present for both CV death and non-fatal MI". It adds that the consistency across both components "supports the possibility that the finding is reliable" while cautioning that subset analyses need careful interpretation. The prespecified regional analysis was published separately in Circulation in 2011. A regulator writing into an approved label that the pivotal trial was numerically inferior to its comparator in the country the label governs is not a routine event, and it is the reason this drug sits under a contested flag rather than a verified one.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The aspirin-dose explanation is itself an unplanned analysis of a non-baseline variable
In plain words
The accepted explanation for the American result is that American doctors used higher aspirin doses. The label records the dose difference as fact — and also records that this analysis was not planned in advance.
What was measured
That higher aspirin doses caused the North American result — an unplanned subset analysis on a variable chosen by investigators after randomisation rather than assigned by it
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The label reports the numbers precisely: the PLATO protocol left aspirin maintenance dose to the investigator, about 8% of non-United States investigators used doses above 100 mg and about 2% above 300 mg, while in the United States 57% of patients received doses above 100 mg and 54% above 300 mg. Overall results favoured ticagrelor with maintenance aspirin at 100 mg or less, and results analysed by aspirin dose were similar in the United States and elsewhere. A wide range of other baseline and procedural differences was examined and, with this one exception, did not appear to account for the regional difference. The label then states the limitation itself: "Like any unplanned subset analysis, especially one where the characteristic is not a true baseline characteristic..." — aspirin dose was chosen by the investigator during the trial, not assigned at randomisation, so patients on high-dose aspirin are not a randomised group. The dose interaction became a labelled instruction to keep aspirin at or below 100 mg. That is a defensible precaution built on an inference, and it is the load-bearing explanation for the one region where the drug did not work.
Source
BRILINTA (ticagrelor) United States prescribing information, section 14 Clinical Studies, Aspirin Dose
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
contested
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
The trial has been questioned in the BMJ, most recently in December 2024
In plain words
The trial that made this drug standard has been examined twice by the BMJ, most recently in a December 2024 investigation whose title is "Doubts over landmark heart drug trial".
What was measured
That the PLATO dataset is settled — its conduct and reporting remain under published scrutiny, and this file has not independently assessed those claims
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
PLATO’s conduct and reporting have been the subject of published scrutiny in the BMJ, most recently in an investigation by Doshi published on 11 December 2024 under the title "Doubts over landmark heart drug trial: ticagrelor PLATO study". This entry records that the scrutiny exists and where to find it; it deliberately does not summarise the investigation’s specific allegations, because the article itself is behind a paywall that this file could not read at the time of writing, and characterising claims from a title would be exactly the kind of second-hand reporting this repository is built to avoid. Readers who need the detail should read the source. What can be stated from documents this file did read in full is the paragraph above: the approved United States label records a significant regional interaction and a North American result numerically inferior to the comparator, and the explanation offered for it is an unplanned analysis of a non-randomised variable.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
SOCRATES: it failed to beat plain aspirin after a stroke
In plain words
In 13,199 patients with a recent minor stroke or mini-stroke, ticagrelor was not better than aspirin. The primary endpoint missed at p=0.07.
What was measured
Stroke, myocardial infarction or death within 90 days, 6.7% against 7.5% on aspirin, p=0.07
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
SOCRATES (NCT01994720) randomised 13,199 patients with a non-severe ischaemic stroke or high-risk transient ischaemic attack, within 24 hours of onset, to 90 days of ticagrelor or aspirin, across 674 centres in 33 countries. Stroke, myocardial infarction or death within 90 days occurred in 442 of 6,589 ticagrelor patients (6.7%) against 497 of 6,610 aspirin patients (7.5%), hazard ratio 0.89 (95% CI 0.78 to 1.01, p=0.07) — superiority not demonstrated. Ischaemic stroke was 5.8% against 6.7%, hazard ratio 0.87 (95% CI 0.76 to 1.00). Major bleeding was 0.5% against 0.6%, intracranial haemorrhage 0.2% against 0.3%, fatal bleeding 0.1% in both. The published conclusion states it plainly: ticagrelor "was not found to be superior to aspirin". This is a clean negative in a large trial with no offsetting safety story.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
THALES worked, and the disability it was meant to prevent did not change
In plain words
Adding ticagrelor to aspirin after a minor stroke cut the combined rate of stroke or death from 6.6% to 5.5%. The amount of disability at 30 days was no different, and severe bleeding was five times higher.
What was measured
Stroke or death within 30 days, 5.5% against 6.6%; disability with no significant difference; severe bleeding 0.5% against 0.1%
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
THALES (NCT03354429) randomised 11,016 patients with mild-to-moderate non-cardioembolic ischaemic stroke (NIHSS 5 or less) or transient ischaemic attack, within 24 hours of onset, to 30 days of ticagrelor plus aspirin or placebo plus aspirin. Stroke or death within 30 days occurred in 303 patients (5.5%) against 362 (6.6%), hazard ratio 0.83 (95% CI 0.71 to 0.96, p=0.02), with ischaemic stroke 5.0% against 6.3%, hazard ratio 0.79 (p=0.004). Two results sit alongside that: "the incidence of disability did not differ significantly between the two groups", and severe bleeding occurred in 28 patients (0.5%) against 7 (0.1%), p=0.001. So the trial prevented strokes that were counted and did not measurably change how disabled the population was, at a fourfold to fivefold increase in severe bleeding. That combination is the whole argument for restricting the regimen to 30 days, and it is why the result reads differently from the headline hazard ratio.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
THEMIS: the irreversible-harm composite showed no net gain in stable diabetes
In plain words
In 19,220 people with stable heart disease and diabetes, ticagrelor prevented a few ischaemic events and caused more than twice as much serious bleeding. Adding the irreversible outcomes together, the two groups came out the same.
What was measured
Exploratory composite of irreversible harm, 10.1% against 10.8%, hazard ratio 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.02)
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
THEMIS (NCT01991795) randomised 19,220 patients aged 50 or over with stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes but no prior myocardial infarction or stroke, to ticagrelor plus aspirin or placebo plus aspirin, median follow-up 39.9 months. Cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke occurred in 7.7% against 8.5%, hazard ratio 0.90 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.99, p=0.04) — a marginal positive. TIMI major bleeding was 2.2% against 1.0%, hazard ratio 2.32 (95% CI 1.82 to 2.94, p<0.001), and intracranial haemorrhage 0.7% against 0.5%, hazard ratio 1.71 (95% CI 1.18 to 2.48, p=0.005). Fatal bleeding did not differ significantly (0.2% against 0.1%, p=0.11). The trialists then did the arithmetic themselves, in an exploratory composite of irreversible harm — death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, fatal bleeding or intracranial haemorrhage — which was 10.1% against 10.8%, hazard ratio 0.93 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.02): no significant difference. Permanent treatment discontinuation was 34.5% against 25.4%. A drug that moves a soft composite at p=0.04, doubles major bleeding, and leaves irreversible harm unchanged is a drug whose net benefit in that population has not been demonstrated.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
PEGASUS: real long-term benefit, at more than double the major bleeding
In plain words
Continuing ticagrelor one to three years after a heart attack prevented about one event in every 80 patients over three years, and roughly doubled serious bleeding.
What was measured
Three-year cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke 7.77% at 60 mg against 9.04% on placebo, with TIMI major bleeding 2.30% against 1.06%
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (NCT01225562) randomised 21,162 patients who had had a myocardial infarction 1 to 3 years earlier, all on low-dose aspirin, to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily, ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily or placebo, median follow-up 33 months. Three-year Kaplan-Meier rates of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke were 7.85%, 7.77% and 9.04% — hazard ratio 0.85 (95% CI 0.75 to 0.96, p=0.008) for 90 mg and 0.84 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.95, p=0.004) for 60 mg. TIMI major bleeding was 2.60%, 2.30% and 1.06%, p<0.001 for each dose against placebo. Intracranial haemorrhage or fatal bleeding was 0.63%, 0.71% and 0.60% — essentially identical, which is the finding that makes the bleeding excess tolerable. Both doses worked about equally, and the lower dose bled and caused dyspnoea less, which is why the 60 mg strength is the one used long term. Dyspnoea in the 60 mg arm was 14.2% against 5.5% on placebo.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
It lost the only head-to-head trial against prasugrel
In plain words
When the two strongest platelet drugs were compared directly in 4,018 patients, ticagrelor came off worse — more deaths, heart attacks and strokes, with no bleeding advantage to show for it.
What was measured
Death, myocardial infarction or stroke at one year, 9.3% on ticagrelor against 6.9% on prasugrel
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
This entry records a failure.
From the source
ISAR-REACT 5 (NCT01944800) randomised 4,018 acute coronary syndrome patients with planned invasive evaluation to ticagrelor or prasugrel, open label. Death, myocardial infarction or stroke at one year occurred in 184 of 2,012 ticagrelor patients (9.3%) against 137 of 2,006 prasugrel patients (6.9%), hazard ratio 1.36 (95% CI 1.09 to 1.70, p=0.006). Components: death 4.5% against 3.7%, myocardial infarction 4.8% against 3.0%, stroke 1.1% against 1.0%. Definite stent thrombosis 1.1% against 0.6%. BARC major bleeding was 5.4% against 4.8%, hazard ratio 1.12 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.51, p=0.46) — no offsetting safety benefit. Two caveats belong on the result: the trial was open label, and the drugs were given on different schedules relative to angiography, reflecting how each is licensed, so it compares strategies as well as molecules. It has not been replicated.
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
Roughly one patient in seven gets breathless, and it is not a lung problem
In plain words
Breathlessness affects about one in seven people on this drug. Lung function testing in the trial found nothing wrong with the lungs — the sensation appears to come from the drug acting on a nerve signalling pathway.
What was measured
Dyspnoea 13.8% against 7.8% on clopidogrel in PLATO, with no adverse effect on pulmonary function in a 199-subject substudy
Effect estimate
No reviewed effect estimate exists for this record.
Limits
See the technical detail.
From the source
The label reports dyspnoea in about 14% of patients in PLATO and PEGASUS and 21% in THEMIS. In PLATO the rate was 13.8% on ticagrelor against 7.8% on clopidogrel; in PEGASUS at 60 mg it was 14.2% against 5.5% on placebo. It led to discontinuation in 0.9% (PLATO), 1.0% (THALES), 4.3% (PEGASUS) and 6.9% (THEMIS). A PLATO substudy performed pulmonary function testing in 199 subjects irrespective of whether they reported dyspnoea and found "no indication of an adverse effect on pulmonary function" after one month or after at least six months of treatment. The leading mechanistic explanation is inhibition of the equilibrative nucleoside transporter ENT1, which raises local adenosine — the same pathway implicated in the ventricular pauses the label describes under bradyarrhythmias. That mechanism is inferred from pharmacology rather than demonstrated as the cause of the symptom in patients, and the negative lung function result is the measured part.
Source
BRILINTA (ticagrelor) United States prescribing information, sections 5.3, 5.4 and 6.1
Role in the trial
Not matched to a registered study
Identity check
no open identity hold
Audit mark
verified
Review state
Written into the record, not signed off as a reviewed claim
How many documents were read
36 documents were read for this substance.
RNAWiki source record
36 of them state the same bioavailability, and they agree.
RNAWiki source record
36 of them state the same tMax, and they agree.
RNAWiki source record
36 of them state the same proteinBinding, and they agree.
RNAWiki source record
36 of them state the same volumeOfDistribution, and they agree.
RNAWiki source record
Where else this substance is registered
FDA substance identifier (UNII)
GLH0314RVC
RxNorm concept
1116635
Checks this page had to pass
✓ Passed
Identity resolved
no open identity hold
✓ Passed
No unresolved merge across substance families
no quarantine open
✓ Passed
Every public sentence names a source
The opening statement carries the origin: Written into the record, not signed off.
✗ Not passed
Trial roles classified for highlighted evidence
No registered study is classified as testing this substance.
✓ Passed
No internal keys in reader text
enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
✓ Passed
Safety mode resolved
Suppression classes recorded: S6.
✓ Passed
Canonical metadata present
slug and display name present
What is missing or unclear◇Read from sources, not yet reviewed
How this medicine reached us
Kept near the foot of the page. A historical event moves up only when it changes something about this substance today.
Withdrawn in United States, 2017, for "Presence of Foriegn Tablets/Capsules: customer complaint that an 8-count professional sample bottle labeled as BRILINTA 90 mg tablets contained 5 ZURAMPIC 200 mg tablets, in addition to the expected…" (openFDA drug enforcement Class I recall)
What the approval register records
22 approved applications cover products containing this substance. The earliest was NDA022433, approved 20110720 to ASTRAZENECA.
This order is fixed in code and does not count clicks or time on the page.
What is not here
7 questions this page could not answer
These sections were prepared and left out because there was nothing to put in them. They are listed rather than hidden, so the gaps in this record are visible.
What was measured, goal by goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
How close this is to real life — found nothing in the sources checked.
Felt, measured, or meaningful — found nothing in the sources checked.
How long anything takes — found nothing in the sources checked.
What it may clash with — found nothing in the sources checked.
Other ways to the same goal — found nothing in the sources checked.
What changed on this page — found nothing in the sources checked.
The record as stored
The full record, for auditing
Everything above is built from what is below. This layer keeps the technical vocabulary, record identifiers and every stored row, so a reader who wants to check the page can.
The older medicine-wide conclusion held in this record
Written for a clinical reader, and about the medicine as a whole rather than about one indication, population and set of trials. RNAWiki does not treat it as a programme conclusion and no reviewer has signed it off in that form. It is here word for word because it is what the record holds.
A reversibly binding platelet blocker that cut cardiovascular death, heart attack or stroke from 11.7% to 9.8% and all-cause death from 5.9% to 4.5% against clopidogrel in 18,624 patients — a mortality result unmatched in its class, drawn from a trial whose own United States label records the North American arm as numerically inferior to the control, with a regional interaction significant at p=0.009.
Recorded evidence blocks (10)
Q2
On the Ticagrelor label: indicated for what?
"Ticagrelor is a P2Y 12 platelet inhibitor indicated • to reduce the risk of cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or a history of MI. For at least the first 12 months following ACS, it is superior to clopidogrel.": indications and usage on Ticagrelor's label. DailyMed label · 555d4e44-9bb2-474e-9bea-c549e3261dbb · 2026-08-26
Q3
341 registered trials of Ticagrelor — at which phases?
Registered studies posting no result
255 of 341
341 registered studies of Ticagrelor: 160 phase4, 73 phase3, 39 phase2, 32 phase1, 27 na or unstated, 21 na, 1 early phase1. CLINICALTRIALS_SNAPSHOT · 2026-09-01
722 with a PubMed record
Show the evidence
phase4
160
phase3
73
phase2
39
phase1
32
na or unstated
27
na
21
8 more recorded rows
early phase1
1
completed
217
unknown
68
recruiting
20
terminated
16
withdrawn
12
active not recruiting
5
not yet recruiting
3
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q4
25 of Ticagrelor's trials stopped: safety, futility/efficacy, accrual/recruitment, funding/business, other?
safety (1), futility/efficacy (1), accrual/recruitment (14), funding/business (2) and other (7): Ticagrelor's stop wording, clustered. CLINICALTRIALS_SNAPSHOT · 2026-09-01
"DSMB Interim Analyses"; 25 of 341 registered studies
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT01755520
terminated; "DSMB Interim Analyses"
NCT01826175
withdrawn; "Study terminated mutually by sponsor \& PI due to no enrollment"
NCT01998399
terminated; "poor enrollment, unable to meet recruitment goals"
NCT02037412
terminated; "The patient registration was not successful."
NCT02048085
withdrawn; "unable to get study up and enrolling"
NCT02052635
terminated; "Patient recruitment challenges, low enrolment, and a forecasted inability to complete the study in an acceptable timeframe"
14 further recorded trials
NCT02071966
terminated; "slow enrollment"
NCT02075125
terminated; "Enrolling participants has halted prematurely and will not resume"
NCT02230527
terminated; "Lack of enrollment"
NCT02291419
terminated; "Enrollment expectations were not met"
NCT02302508
withdrawn; "Funding"
NCT02507323
withdrawn; "collaborator withdrew the study"
NCT02626169
withdrawn; "Pharmaceutical company sponsor withdrew support prior to enrollment of subjects."
NCT03027934
withdrawn; "Study population difficult to recruit"
NCT03078465
withdrawn; "Competitive studies were conducted at the same time, and enrollment was suspended."
NCT03119012
terminated; "cannot use bioabsorbable scaffold"
NCT03224923
terminated; "Competing study to be started in November 2018"
NCT03476369
terminated; "Researcher stopped study due to slow accrual rate"
NCT03606642
terminated; "The DSMC March 16, 2022 reviewed of Interim Analysis and recommendation due to no glaring outcomes found to date."
NCT03615924
terminated; "Recommendation from an independent data monitoring committee (DMC) and accepted by AstraZeneca."
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q5
Human studies of Ticagrelor used Ticagrelor 90 mg — over how long?
studies of Ticagrelor used the recorded amount. ClinicalTrials.gov · 2026-09-01
20 recorded entries; human; per os, orally; also "Ticagrelor 90 mg", "Ticagrelor 60 mg", "Ticagrelor 180mg"
Show the evidence
human
NCT01225562
Ticagrelor 90 mg
NCT01225562
Ticagrelor 60 mg
NCT01731041
Ticagrelor 180mg
NCT01731041
Ticagrelor 90mg
NCT01757262
90 mg Ticagrelor
NCT01898442
Ticagrelor 270mg
14 more recorded rows
humanNCT01898442
Ticagrelor 360mg
humanNCT02075125
Ticagrelor 180 mg
humanNCT02075125
Brilinta 180 mg
humanNCT02086903
Brilinta 90 mg
humanNCT02285751
per os; 180mg ticagrelor per os (loading dose)
humanNCT02406248
orally; Ticagrelor 180mg loading dose taken orally, followed by 90mg twice daily (bd)
humanNCT02518464
Ticagrelor 90 mg twice per day
humanNCT02943369
Ticagrelor 180 mg loading dose
humanNCT02944123
Ticagrelor 45 mg
humanNCT02944123
Brilinta 45 mg
humanNCT03224923
Ticagrelor 60mg
humanNCT03251859
Brilique 90 mg
humanNCT03251859
Brilique 60 mg
humanNCT03444012
ticagrelor 90 mg
recorded 2026-09-01 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q6
Which running trial of Ticagrelor could settle lifespan?
NCT03789916 measures Cardiac-related mortality, reading out 2026-12-31.
2 open trials; n 800; "SAPT Versus DAPT in Incomplete Revascularization After CABG"
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT03789916
"SAPT Versus DAPT in Incomplete Revascularization After CABG"; n 800; "Cardiac-related mortality"; 2026-12-31
NCT02735707
"Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community- Acquired Pneumonia"; n 20000; "All-cause mortality"; 2028-02
Q7
Which 133 trials of Ticagrelor posted no result?
Posted no result
133 of 133 completed trials
Registrations
NCT00738842, NCT00721448, NCT00733265, NCT00685906, NCT01226602 and NCT01360437, and 127 more
Completion dates
oldest 2008-07; newest 2024-06-16
Show the evidence
Trial
NCT00738842
2008-07
NCT00721448
2008-08
NCT00733265
2008-09
NCT00685906
2008-10
NCT01226602
2011-04
NCT01360437
2011-12
14 further recorded trials
NCT01511471
2012-02
NCT01350921
2012-03
NCT01463163
2012-04
NCT01504906
2012-06
NCT01588626
2012-06
NCT01642940
2012-09
NCT01642966
2012-09
NCT01510171
2013-01
NCT01575795
2013-02
NCT01805570
2013-04
NCT02163954
2013-08
NCT01543932
2013-12
NCT02120092
2013-12
NCT01846559
2014-01
Q8
At the median, Ticagrelor's trials enrolled 88 people — anything larger?
Median enrolment
88
Largest enrolment
377753
Registered trials counted
341
Q9
What do 3660 spontaneous reports say about Ticagrelor — and not say?
These are reports people sent to a regulator. They do not show the medicine caused the reaction. Nobody counted how many people took the medicine and reported nothing. The same event can be reported more than once, and many reports are incomplete. News coverage, lawsuits and new warnings change how often people report. A count is not a rate and not a risk.
Ticagrelor appears in spontaneous reports to regulators. Across the 10 most-reported reaction terms, 3660 reaction mentions were counted: dyspnoea 1073; vascular stent thrombosis 397; anaemia 361; gastrointestinal haemorrhage 353. FAERS via Open Targets · CHEMBL398435 · 2026-06-24
Show the evidence
dyspnoea
1073
vascular stent thrombosis
397
anaemia
361
gastrointestinal haemorrhage
353
chest pain
339
myocardial infarction
300
4 more recorded rows
acute myocardial infarction
281
haemorrhage
193
chest discomfort
190
melaena
173
recorded 2026-06-24 · last checked 2026-09-04
Q10
Which 10 reactions does Ticagrelor's label not list?
• Avoid use with strong CYP3A inhibitors or CYP3A inducers.
drug_interactions
( 7.5 ) 7.1 Strong CYP3A Inhibitors Strong CYP3A inhibitors substantially increase ticagrelor exposure and so increase the risk of dyspnea, bleeding, and other adverse events.
drug_interactions
Avoid use of strong inhibitors of CYP3A (e.g., ketoconazole, itraconazole, voriconazole, clarithromycin, nefazodone, ritonavir, saquinavir, nelfinavir, indinavir, atazanavir and telithromycin) [see Clinical Pharmacology (12.3) ].
drug_interactions
7.2 Strong CYP3A Inducers Strong CYP3A inducers substantially reduce ticagrelor exposure and so decrease the efficacy of ticagrelor.
drug_interactions
Avoid use with strong inducers of CYP3A (e.g., rifampin, phenytoin, carbamazepine and phenobarbital) [see Clinical Pharmacology (12.3) ].
drug_interactions
7.4 Simvastatin, Lovastatin, Rosuvastatin Ticagrelor increases serum concentrations of simvastatin and lovastatin because these drugs are metabolized by CYP3A4.
2 more recorded rows
Interaction statementdrug_interactions
Ticagrelor increases serum concentration of rosuvastatin because rosuvastatin is a BCRP substrate.
Interaction statementdrug_interactions
7.5 Digoxin Ticagrelor inhibits the P-glycoprotein transporter; monitor digoxin levels with initiation of or change in ticagrelor therapy [see Clinical Pharmacology (12.3) ].
Withdrawn in United States, 2017, for "Presence of Foriegn Tablets/Capsules: customer complaint that an 8-count professional sample bottle labeled as BRILINTA 90 mg tablets contained 5 ZURAMPIC 200 mg tablets, in addition to the expected…" (openFDA drug enforcement Class I recall)
ChEMBL 37 — CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported · ChEMBL ATC CC BY-SA · ClinicalTrials.gov — US Government work · Open Targets 26.06 — CC0 · mixed register set; per-register licences in docs/specs/corpus-20k-sources.md · openFDA / DailyMed — US Government work · openFDA enforcement — US Government work
✗ required summary fields resolved: 4 required field(s) not terminal: Why people use it, Best-supported result, Biggest unanswered question, Human evidence
✓ public claims reviewed: 0 reviewed claim(s); drafts are never rendered
✓ source coverage passed: 7 source rows
✓ no critical contamination: no quarantine open
✓ canonical metadata passed: slug and display name present
✓ no raw internal fields: enforced by the copy-contract test over the rendered page
This is a record of evidence. It is not medical advice, and it does not say this substance suits you. Nothing here says any substance on RNAWiki is appropriate for a child.