Antiplatelet function variability in clopidogrel-treated patients: need for new antiplatelet agents

Antiplatelet therapy is obligatory in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) both in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and in secondary prevention. Aspirin in combination with clopidogrel has been recommended as the main therapeutic regimen for many years. However, the high inter-individual variability of platelet aggregation seen with clopidogrel, caused by the underlying disease (more pronounced in diabetic patients and patients with ACS), drug interactions as well as by genetic variants leading to a reduced formation of the active metabolite of the prodrug clopidogrel, has confronted clinical practice with increasing numbers of adverse clinical events in patients following an ACS. Therefore, new antiplatelet agents have been investigated showing a more favorable efficacy/safety profile. Prasugrel as well as ticagrelor are meanwhile part of the recently published revascularization guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology based on their favorable results with respect to reducing a combined ischemic efficacy endpoint in patients with ACS in the TRITON-TIMI-38 (prasugrel) and PLATO (ticagrelor) trials. Different to clopidogrel, their effects are independent of genetic variants and also drug interactions seem neglectable. This article discusses the reasons for antiplatelet function variability of clopidogrel and presents clinical data of the new ADP-receptor inhibitors by reviewing the recently published trials and prespecified post hoc analyses of these trials as well as the potential use of the new antiplatelet agents in the near future.     

Platelet reactivity tests for assessing antiplatelet drug response: what the clinician needs to know

Antiplatelet therapy is a cornerstone in the treatment of cardiovascular disease to prevent ischemic events. Various tests have become clinically available to measure platelet function after antiplatelet treatment. A wide interpatient variability in the magnitude of platelet inhibition has been demonstrated in numerous studies, especially in response to clopidogrel. Several reasons including clinical, pharmacological and genetic factors have been identified. High on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity has been linked to adverse clinical outcome, in particular to stent thrombosis after percutaneous coronary interventions. New antiplatelet drugs including prasugrel and ticagrelor have been advocated to overcome the limitations of clopidogrel. Several studies addressed the concept of tailored antiplatelet treatment according to the results of platelet function testing. Within this review, we summarize the current status of personalized antiplatelet therapy for cardiovascular disease.     

Diseases of the Thyroid

To provide the general practitioner, as well as the specialist with concise, readily available information on the latest, proved methods of treatment of conditions commonly encountered in an average practice, Postgraduate Medicine offers this department to its readers. It is not, of course, intended to present these discussions as the only acceptable therapeutic procedures to be used, but rather to offer simple regimens and recommendations based on the extensive experience of the physicians who prepared these summaries.     

Oral anticoagulant use in addition to antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention in acute coronary syndrome: current perspectives

Patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) are typically managed with long-term dual antiplatelet therapy of acetylsalicylic acid plus a P2Y₁₂ platelet receptor antagonist; however, although effective, the risk of another vascular event within 12 months remains at approximately 10%. Considerable efforts have been made to find improved therapeutic approaches to secondary prevention in ACS. The ATLAS ACS 2-TIMI 51 trial demonstrated that rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) significantly reduced recurrent vascular events, increased the risk of major bleeding but not the risk of fatal bleeding, and resulted in reduced rates of death from cardiovascular causes. These results formed the basis for approval in Europe of rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) in conjunction with standard antiplatelet therapy for the secondary prevention of ACS.     

Genotype- and phenotype-directed antiplatelet therapy selection in patients with acute coronary syndromes

Although dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) has been a standard treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) for over a decade, only recently have therapeutic options beyond aspirin and clopidogrel become available. Additional treatment options are particularly useful because of the documented history of variability in antiplatelet response. This article reviews the current treatment options for DAPT in ACS, and reviews both genotype- and phenotype-guided methods for determining optimal antiplatelet therapy for patients with ACS. Additionally, recommendations from current guidelines as well as expert commentary are provided for the use of available testing methods to determine optimal DAPT for ACS patients.     

Antiplatelet options for secondary prevention in acute coronary syndromes

Current guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy, a combination of aspirin and a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor, for 6–12 months after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation in all patients and for 1 year in all patients after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), irrespective of revascularization strategy. Clopidogrel has a pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile that results in a delayed and/or subtherapeutic antiplatelet effect, and wide variability in antiplatelet response. New P2Y₁₂ inhibitors, such as prasugrel and ticagrelor, have favorable pharmacodynamics and clinical efficacy over clopidogrel and offer an alternative antiplatelet treatment strategy in specific patients. Prasugrel has more potent, rapid, and consistent effects on inhibiting ADP-induced platelet aggregation than clopidogrel. Ticagrelor also appears to have more rapid and consistent antiplatelet effects than clopidogrel. The higher levels of antiplatelet inhibition provided by prasugrel and ticagrelor compared with standard-dose clopidogrel result in improved ischemic outcomes in patients with ACS. Despite an increase in bleeding risk, prasugrel and ticagrelor appear to have a better net clinical benefit, especially in higher-risk patients with ACS.     

Dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with diabetes mellitus: special considerations

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with higher rates of ischemic events in patients suffering from an acute coronary syndrome and/or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, thereby underscoring the need to develop more effective and specific strategies toward mitigation of the cardiovascular burden associated with DM. Platelet hyper-reactivity associated with DM is a central contributor to this high risk, since platelets are the key players in the processes underpinning atherothrombotic complications, thereby representing a specific therapeutic target. Oral dual antiplatelet therapy comprising the combination of aspirin (75–100 mg) and clopidogrel (75 mg) has been, for years, the standard antithrombotic treatment for patients with acute coronary syndrome and/or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, despite the use of this therapy, high rates of cardiovascular events continue to occur, especially within the cohort of patients with DM. These observations could be in part explained by an inadequate clopidogrel-induced platelet inhibition, which has been associated with impaired clinical outcomes. In particular, DM is associated with a higher prevalence of reduced responsiveness to standard dual antiplatelet therapy, which may contribute to the higher rates of ischemic events seen in this population. These findings have prompted the identification of alternative dual antiplatelet treatment regimens to optimize platelet inhibition. The present review aims to describe benefits and limitations of oral dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel (75 mg) and to appraise the evidence regarding alternative oral dual antiplatelet therapy regimens, which include higher doses of aspirin and clopidogrel or the combination of prasugrel or ticagrelor with aspirin, focusing on patients with DM.     

Safety and efficacy of protease‐activated receptor‐1 antagonists in patients with coronary artery disease: a meta‐analysis of randomized clinical trials

Summary. Background: Thrombin receptor antagonists blocking protease‐activated receptor‐1 (PAR‐1) on platelets represent a new class of oral antiplatelet agents for patients with atherothrombotic disease manifestations. Objectives: We investigated the safety and efficacy of PAR‐1 antagonists in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Patients/Methods: Randomized, placebo‐controlled trials of the PAR‐1 antagonists atopaxar or vorapaxar in CAD patients were identified. The primary safety endpoint was the composite of Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) clinically significant bleeding. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or stroke. Results: A total of 41 647 patients from eight trials were included. PAR‐1 antagonists were associated with higher risks of TIMI clinically significant (odds ratio [OR] 1.48, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.39–1.57, P < 0.001), major (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.28–1.67, P < 0.001) and minor (OR 1.67, 95% CI 1.40–2.00, P < 0.001) bleeding than placebo in the fixed‐effects model. PAR‐1 antagonists reduced the composite of death, MI or stroke as compared with placebo (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.81–0.92, P < 0.001), driven by a lower risk of MI (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.78–0.92, P < 0.001). Conversely, PAR‐1 antagonists and placebo did not differ in terms of risk of death (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.90–1.09, P = 0.81) or stroke (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.84–1.10, P = 0.59). Conclusions: PAR‐1 antagonists decrease ischemic events in patients with CAD as compared with placebo, mainly driven by a reduction in MI, at the cost of an increased risk of clinically significant bleeding.     

Mild Hypertension

PREVIEW

Rheumatoid arthritis can cause joint erosion and deformity, pain, stiffness, and decreased function and range of motion. Early diagnosis is crucial to prevent permanent joint damage. In this article, Drs Williams and Fye discuss articular and extra articular manifestations of rheumatoid arthritis as well as the evolving treatment approaches to this complex disease.     

Personalizing antiplatelet prescribing using genetics for patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Introduction. Clopidogrel is commonly prescribed with aspirin to reduce the risk for adverse cardiovascular events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, there is significant inter-patient variability in clopidogrel response. The CYP2C19 enzyme is involved in the biotransformation of clopidogrel to its pharmacologically active form, and variation in the CYP2C19 gene contributes to clopidogrel response variability.

Areas covered. This article describes the impact of CYP2C19 genotype on clopidogrel pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and effectiveness. Examples of clinical implementation of CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy for patients undergoing PCI are also described as are emerging outcomes data with this treatment approach.

Expert commentary. A large clinical trial evaluating outcomes with CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy after PCI is on-going. In the meantime, data from pragmatic and observational studies and smaller trials support improved outcomes with genotyping after PCI and use of alternative antiplatelet therapy in patients with a CYP2C19 genotype associated with reduced clopidogrel effectiveness.     

Earlier recovery of platelet function after discontinuation of treatment with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in patients with high antiplatelet responses

Summary. Background: The rate of recovery of platelet function after discontinuation of P2Y₁₂ inhibitors depends on the reversibility of the antiplatelet effect and the extent of the on‐treatment response. P2Y₁₂ inhibition increases the bleeding risk in patients requiring surgery. Objectives: To evaluate recovery of platelet function after discontinuation of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in stable coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with high levels of platelet inhibition (HPI) during the ONSET/OFFSET study. Methods: Patients received aspirin 75–100 mg per day and either ticagrelor 90 mg twice‐daily or clopidogrel 75 mg daily for 6 weeks. This subanalysis included patients with HPI after the last dose of maintenance therapy, defined as: inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA) > 75% 4 h post‐dose (ADP 20 μm , final extent); < 120 P2Y₁₂ reaction units 8 h post‐dose (VerifyNow P2Y₁₂ assay); or platelet reactivity index < 50% 8 h post‐dose (VASP‐P assay). Results: IPA > 75% was observed in 39 out of 47 ticagrelor‐treated and 17 out of 44 clopidogrel‐treated patients. The rate of offset of IPA over 4–72 h was greater with ticagrelor (IPA %/hour slope: ?1.11 vs. ?0.67 for clopidogrel; P < 0.0001). Mean IPA was significantly lower with ticagrelor than clopidogrel between 48 and 168 h post‐dose (P < 0.01). Similar findings were observed with the other assays. The average time for IPA to decline from 30% to 10% was 50.8 h with ticagrelor vs. 110.4 h with clopidogrel. Conclusions: In patients with HPI, recovery of platelet function was more rapid after discontinuation of ticagrelor than clopidogrel leading to significantly greater platelet reactivity by 48 h after the last dose in the ticagrelor group.     

Aggressive chronic platelet inhibition with prasugrel and increased cancer risks: revising oral antiplatelet regimens?

The TRITON-TIMI 38 was a head-to-head trial to assess the efficacy and safety of the experimental antiplatelet agent prasugrel vs. standard care with clopidogrel on top of aspirin. Besides some ischemic protection at expense of overwhelming bleeding disadvantage, prasugrel treated patients experienced three times higher rate of colonic neoplasms then after clopidogrel, and this difference was significant. Importantly, known gastrointestinal bleeding preceded the diagnosis of colonic neoplasms only in half of the patients. Three potential mechanisms responsible for such harmful association are reviewed, namely: (i) direct hazard of the experimental drug on cancer occurrence and progression; (ii) indirect modulation of tumor growth; and (iii) enhanced metastatic dissemination due to instability of platelet-tumor cell aggregates, or/and inability to keep the disease locally due by much more potent long-term platelet inhibition should be considered. Significant excess of cancer after prasugrel is alarming, and can be reasonably explained, with critical clinical implications not only for prasugrel further development, but also for existing and future chronic antiplatelet strategies. If the hypothesis that oral aggressive platelet inhibition cause higher cancer risks will turn out to be true, then intensity of platelet inhibition, and especially duration of chronic antiplatelet therapy should be reconsidered. More delicate platelet inhibition, and shorter exposure to oral antiplatelet agents will prevail.     

Preoperative platelet transfusions to reverse antiplatelet therapy for urgent non‐cardiac surgery: an observational cohort study

Essentials

• An increasing number of patients requiring surgery receive antiplatelet therapy (APT).
• We analyzed 181 patients receiving presurgery platelet transfusions to reverse APT.
• No coronary thrombosis occurred after platelet transfusion.
• This justifies a prospective trial to test preoperative platelet transfusions to reverse APT.

Summary

Background

Patients receiving antiplatelet therapy (APT) have an increased risk of perioperative bleeding and cardiac adverse events (CAE). Preoperative platelet transfusions may reduce the bleeding risk but may also increase the risk of CAE, particularly coronary thrombosis in patients after recent stent implantation.

Objectives

To analyze the incidence of perioperative CAE and bleeding in patients undergoing non‐cardiac surgery using a standardized management of transfusing two platelet concentrates preoperatively and restart of APT within 24–72 h after surgery.

Methods

A cohort of consecutive patients on APT treated with two platelet concentrates before non‐cardiac surgery between January 2012 and December 2014 was retrospectively identified. Patients were stratified by the risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). The primary objective was the incidence of CAE (myocardial infarction, acute heart failure and cardiac troponine T increase). Secondary objectives were incidences of other thromboembolic events, bleedings, transfusions and mortality.

Results

Among 181 patients, 88 received aspirin, 21 clopidogrel and 72 dual APT. MACCE risk was high in 63, moderate in 103 and low in 15 patients; 67 had cardiac stents. Ten patients (5.5%; 95% CI, 3.0–9.9%) developed a CAE (three myocardial infarctions, four cardiac failures and three troponin T increases). None was caused by coronary thrombosis. Surgery‐related bleeding occurred in 22 patients (12.2%; 95% CI, 8.2–17.7%), making 12 re‐interventions necessary (6.6%; 95% CI, 3.8–11.2%).

Conclusion

Preoperative platelet transfusions and early restart of APT allowed urgent surgery and did not cause coronary thromboses, but non‐thrombotic CAEs and re‐bleeding occurred. Randomized trials are warranted to test platelet transfusion against other management strategies.

     

冠心病患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗术后抗血小板药物治疗监测及平均血小板体积变化

目的比较血栓弹力图(TEG)和光学比浊法(LTA)在监测冠心病患者经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)术后抗血小板药物中的相关性;观察PCI术后双联抗血小板治疗患者平均血小板体积(MPV)变化。方法回顾2013年3月至2014年5月在北京大学第一医院行PCI并接受规范双联抗血小板治疗的患者177例;回顾分析其TEG测定的二磷酸腺苷(ADP)、花生四烯酸(AA)诱导的血小板抑制率,服用抗血小板药物前后MPV,以及其中99例患者LTA测定的血小板聚集率。结果 ADP、ARA诱导的LTA血小板聚集率与TEG血小板抑制率无相关性(P均0.05)。氯吡格雷低反应性LTA和TEG检出率分别为30.3%和45.5%,阿司匹林低反应性检出率分别为19.2%和31.3%,低反应性检出率LTA低于TEG法(P0.05)。177例患者中,氯吡格雷低反应组和敏感组、阿司匹林低反应性组和敏感组服药后MPV均较服药前降低(P均0.01);服药前及服药后氯吡格雷低反应性组MPV均低于敏感组(P均0.05);氯吡格雷及阿司匹林低反应组服药后PLT高于服药前(P均0.05)。结论 TEG和LTA两种方法相关性较差,抗血小板药物低反应检出率均较高,值得临床医生注意;服用双联抗血小板药物后MPV降低;服药后PLT上升患者更易发生药物低反应性;MPV偏低患者氯吡格雷低反应性发生可能性更大。     

Clopidogrel,prasugrel, ticagrelor or vorapaxar in patients with renal impairment: do we have a winner?

The optimal utilization of antiplatelet therapy in patients with renal impairment (RI) following acute coronary syndromes (ACS) represents an urgent, unmet and yet unsolved need with regards to the choice of agents, duration of treatment and potential dose/regimen adjustment. The lack of any large randomized trials designed and powered specifically in such high-risk patients, absence of the uniformed efficacy and safety data reporting policy to the FDA and endless overoptimistic publications based on post hoc analyses of primary trials sometimes exaggerating benefits and hiding risks, clouds reality. In addition, triaging RI patients is problematic due to ongoing kidney deterioration and the fact that such patients are prone to both vascular occlusions and bleeding. The authors summarize available FDA-confirmed evidence from the latest trials with approved antiplatelet agents, namely clopidogrel (CAPRIE, CURE, CREDO, CLARITY, CHARISMA); prasugrel (TRITON, TRILOGY); ticagrelor (PLATO, and PEGASUS); and vorapaxar (TRACER and TRA2P) in RI patient cohorts on top of aspirin as part of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT). We deliberately avoided any results unless they were verified by the FDA, with the exception of the recent PEGASUS, since Agency reviews are not yet available. Despite differences among the trials and DAPT choices, RI patients universally experience much higher (HR = 1.3–3.1) rates of primary endpoint events, and bleeding risks (HR = 1.7–3.6). However, only ticagrelor increases creatinine and uric acid levels above that of clopidogrel; has the worst incidence of serious adverse events, more adverse events, and inferior outcomes in patients with severe (eGFR <30 ml/min), especially in the lowest (eGFR <15 ml/min) RI subsets. Clopidogrel, prasugrel and vorapaxar appear safer. Moreover, less aggressive half dose (5 mg/daily) prasugrel and strict DAPT, are well justified in RI, but not predominantly triple strategies with vorapaxar as tested in TRA2P and especially in TRACER. In conclusion, data from clinical trials, their sub-studies and affiliated FDA reviews indicate that RI cause more vascular occlusions and bleeding in ACS patients treated with DAPT. Among the novel antiplatelet agents, prasugrel and vorapaxar, but probably not ticagrelor, offer advantage in RI patients.     

Pharmacokinetic basis of the antiplatelet action of prasugrel

Prasugrel is the most recent development of thienopyridine-type antiplatelet drugs. Like the earlier-generation thienopyridines, i.e. ticlopidine and clopidogrel, prasugrel is also an inactive prodrug that requires metabolic processing in vivo to generate the active antiplatelet metabolite. The efficacy of this bioactivation is the key determinant for the pharmacodynamic potency of the compound, i.e. the irreversible blockade of the platelet P2Y12-ADP receptor. Prasugrel is rapidly absorbed from the gut. After oral administration of standard-loading doses of 60 mg, maximum plasma levels of the active metabolite are achieved within 1 h, effective, maximum inhibition of platelet aggregation at 1-2 h. Bioconversion of prasugrel into the active metabolite requires two metabolic steps that occur in sequence. The first is the generation of a thiolactone-intermediate, mainly by carboxyesterases-2 in the intestine, the second the cytochrome (CYP)-dependent conversion of the thiolactone into the active metabolite. This second step involves several cytochromes, most notably CYP3A4, CYP2C19, CYP2B6, and CYP2C9. The enzymatic generation of the active metabolite of prasugrel is much more effective than that of clopidogrel where only about 5% of oral clopidogrel is transformed into the active compound by two-step CYP-dependent procedures. About 70% of prasugrel metabolites are excreted in the urine and 30% in the feces. The molar potency of the respective active metabolites of prasugrel and clopidogrel is identical. Thus, the more rapid onset, higher potency and lower interindividual variability of antiplatelet effects of prasugrel as compared to clopidogrel in vivo are entirely because of its more efficient pharmacokinetics.