Prasugrel in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Currently, dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel represents the key treatment strategy for the prevention of ischemic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, there is a broad inter-individual response variability to such treatment strategy, and a considerable number of patients persist with inadequate platelet inhibition, which has been associated with an increased risk of ischemic events. Overall, these findings underscore the need for novel antiplatelet agents able to achieve greater platelet inhibition; this can potentially reduce ischemic event rates. Prasugrel (CS-747; LY 640315), a novel third-generation oral thienopyridine, is a specific, irreversible antagonist of the platelet adenosine diphosphate P2Y₁₂ receptor. Laboratory studies have shown prasugrel to be associated with more prompt, potent and predictable degrees of platelet inhibition compared with clopidogrel. In a large-scale clinical study, which was comprised of high-risk ACS patients undergoing PCI, prasugrel was shown to significantly reduce the short- and long-term risk of ischemic events, including stent thrombosis. However, such significant reduction in ischemic events occurred at the expense of a higher risk of bleeding. Recent clinical trial data analyses have led to a better understanding of the efficacy and safety of prasugrel. This article reviews the currently available data regarding the efficacy and safety of prasugrel in ACS patients.     

Prasugrel hydrochloride for the treatment of acute coronary syndrome patients

Introduction: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin combined with either a thienopyridine (clopidogrel or prasugrel) or acyclopentyl-triazolo-pyrimidine (ticagrelor) plays a vital role in the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) especially in those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) but even those being managed medically. Observational studies and some formal studies have shown patients on the standard dual antiplatelet regimen (clopidogrel and aspirin) continue to have further ischemic events and can suffer stent thrombosis. It has been demonstrated that clopidogrel is associated with a delayed onset of action with a considerable inter-individual variation to treatment thus making it difficult to achieve an optimal level of platelet inhibition.

Areas covered: This article will review the current evidence that is available regarding the effectiveness and safety of prasugrel in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Expert commentary: Prasugrel is an oral third-generation inhibitor of platelet activation and aggregation. Laboratory studies and early phase clinical trials show prasugrel has a faster onset of action, is more potent and has reduced inter-patient response variability compared to clopidogrel. The published studies so far demonstrated that prasugrel when compared to clopidogrel also shows a higher degree of effectiveness in the prevention of platelet-initiated thrombotic events in patients with ACS undergoing PCI, however these benefits are offset somewhat by an increased bleeding risk.     

Influence of high‐density lipoprotein and paraoxonase‐1 on platelet reactivity in patients with acute coronary syndromes receiving clopidogrel therapy

Summary. Background: The paraoxonase activity of the enzyme paraoxonase‐1 (PON‐1) associated with high‐density lipoprotein (HDL) may significantly influence clopidogrel’s antiplatelet and clinical efficacy as a result of its involvement in the clopidogrel biotransformation to the pharmacologically active thiol metabolite. We evaluated the possible relationships of HDL levels as well as PON‐1 activities and the Q192R genotype with clopidogrel’s antiplatelet efficacy in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. Methods and results: The platelet aggregation, P‐selectin expression and platelet/leukocyte conjugates as well as the clopidogrel response variability (evaluated by the VASP phosphorylation test and expressed as platelet reactivity index, PRI) were assessed in 74 ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in relation to the PON‐1 Q192R genotype and to serum HDL‐cholesterol levels, and PON‐1 (paraoxonase and arylesterase) activities. Patients were loaded with 600 mg of clopidogrel followed by 75 mg per day. HDL‐cholesterol levels and PON‐1 activities at baseline (before clopidogrel loading) were not altered at 5‐ and 30‐day post‐clopidogrel loading, whereas baseline platelet activation parameters were significantly attenuated. At 5 days, 17 patients were clopidogrel non‐responders (PRI: 64.2 ± 11.1%). HDL‐cholesterol was inversely associated with platelet activation parameters independently on platelet response variability to clopidogrel whereas a negative association between platelet activation parameters and paraoxonase activity was observed in patients adequately responding to clopidogrel but not in clopidogrel non‐responders. Similarly, the platelet activation markers were significantly higher in PON‐1 Q192Q genotype carriers compared with those having one or two R alleles only in patients adequately responding to clopidogrel. Conclusions: PON‐1 is an important determinant of clopidogrel antiplatelet efficacy only in patients adequately responding to clopidogrel. These findings may be clinically important in ACS patients receiving clopidogrel therapy, especially the first days after the episode.     

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.     

Prasugrel vs. clopidogrel for cytochrome P450 2C19‐genotyped subgroups: integration of the TRITON‐TIMI 38 trial data

Summary. Background: Prasugrel is a newly marketed antiplatelet drug with improved cardiac outcomes as compared with clopidogrel for acute coronary syndromes involving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Analysis of a subset of the TRITON‐TIMI 38 trial demonstrated that cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) reduced‐function genotypes are associated with differential clinical responses to clopidogrel, but not prasugrel. Whether the CYP2C19 genotype has the potential to influence clinical choice of these drugs prior to PCI for individuals with unstable angina or non‐ST segment elevation myocardial infarction is currently uncertain. Methods and Results: An exploratory, secondary analysis was undertaken to estimate the clinical benefit of prasugrel over clopidogrel in subgroups defined by CYP2C19 genotype, by integrating the published results of the genetic substudy and the overall TRITON‐TIMI 38 trial. Individuals with a CYP2C19 reduced‐metabolizer genotype were estimated to have a substantial reduction in the risk of the composite primary outcome (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) with prasugrel as compared with clopidogrel [relative risk (RR) 0.57; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39–0.83]. For CYP2C19 extensive metabolizers (～ 70% of the population), however, the composite outcome risks with prasugrel and clopidogrel were not substantially different (RR 0.98; 95% CI 0.80–1.20). Conclusions: Integration of the TRITON‐TIMI 38 data suggests that the CYP2C19 genotype can discriminate between individuals who receive extensive benefit from using prasugrel instead of clopidogrel, and individuals with comparable clinical outcomes with prasugrel and clopidorel. Thus, CYP2C19 genotyping has the potential to guide the choice of antiplatelet therapy, and further research is warranted to validate this estimate.     

A risk-benefit assessment of prasugrel, clopidogrel, and genotype-guided therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

The objective of this study was to quantitatively evaluate the clinical benefits and harms of prasugrel, clopidogrel, and a CYP2C19 genotype-guided drug selection strategy for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and planned percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We used decision-analytic techniques to model the risks and benefits of alternative antiplatelet strategies. Sensitivity and scenario analyses were conducted to assess the uncertainty of the results. Prasugrel demonstrated little difference in net benefit as compared with clopidogrel (+0.02 quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs); 95% confidence range (CR), -0.23 to 0.21). The genotype-guided strategy had a 93% probability of greater net benefit as compared with clopidogrel (+0.05 QALYs; 95% CR, -0.02 to 0.11), and 66% probability of greater net benefit as compared with prasugrel (+0.03 QALYs; 95% CR, -0.13 to 0.24). Prasugrel and clopidogrel differ in their risk-benefit profiles but appear to offer similar net benefit on average. Use of patient-specific factors such as CYP2C19 genotype offers promise for developing a personalized medicine approach to antiplatelet treatment regimens.     

Antiplatelet options for secondary prevention in acute coronary syndromes

Current guidelines recommend dual antiplatelet therapy, a combination of aspirin and a P2Y(12) 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 P2Y(12) 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.     

Antiplatelet effects of clopidogrel and bleeding in patients undergoing coronary stent placement

Summary. Background: In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), a link between bleeding and excess mortality has been demonstrated. A potential association of platelet response to clopidogrel and bleeding has not been well established yet. Objectives: The aim of the present study was to assess the impact of clopidogrel responsiveness on the risk of bleeding in clopidogrel‐treated patients undergoing PCI. Methods: Patients (n = 2533) undergoing PCI after pretreatment with 600 mg of clopidogrel were enrolled in this study. Blood was obtained directly before PCI. Adenosine‐diphosphate (ADP)‐induced platelet aggregation was assessed on a Multiplate analyzer. The primary endpoint was the incidence of in‐hospital Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding and the secondary endpoint was in‐hospital TIMI minor bleeding. Receiver‐operator curve (ROC) analysis was used to derive the optimal platelet aggregation value defining enhanced clopidogrel responders for the association of measurements with major bleeding. Results: Thirty‐four (1.3%) major bleeding events and 137 (5.4%) minor bleeding events were observed. The risk of a major bleeding was significantly higher in patients (n = 975) with an enhanced response to clopidogrel as compared with the remaining patients (n = 1558) (2.2 vs. 0.8%, unadjusted odds ratio (OR) 2.6, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.3–5.2, P = 0.005; adjusted OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.6–7.3, P = 0.001). No significant differences between both groups were observed for the occurrence of minor bleeding events (P = 0.68). Conclusions: Enhanced clopidogrel responsiveness is associated with a higher risk of major bleeding. Whether guidance of antiplatelet treatment based on platelet function testing proves useful for avoiding bleeding events warrants further investigation.     

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.     

New Antiplatelet Agents and the Role of Platelet Function Testing in Acute Coronary Syndromes

Background

Dual antiplatelet therapy is a guideline mandated for patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Despite its use, thrombotic events continue to occur both early and late. Platelet function testing has been used to define the in vitro effects of new antiplatelet agents, and it has been suggested that it be used to choose therapy. The role of platelet function testing, particularly with newer antiplatelet agents, remains unclear.

Objective

We review the rationale for platelet function testing and its application in monitoring patients on antiplatelet therapy. We also review recent clinical trials of newer antiplatelet agents. On the basis of this review, we reach conclusions on the current role of antiplatelet function testing in monitoring modern antiplatelet therapy and the role of the new antiplatelet agents in the treatment of ACS.

Methods

We reviewed recent publications on platelet function testing and clinical trials of newer antiplatelet therapies compared with clopidogrel.

Results

Platelet function testing is complex, but there is now a bedside test, VerifyNow. High platelet reactivity has been associated with worse cardiovascular outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Recent clinical trials have not found any advantage in outcomes in patients who have their therapy adjusted by monitoring their platelet function. Newer agents, prasugrel, ticagrelor, and cangrelor, produce more rapid, complete, less variable effects on platelet function than clopidogrel. Prasugrel was found to improve outcomes compared with clopidogrel in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous intervention. Ticagrelor is beneficial in all patients with ACS and reduces cardiovascular mortality compared with clopidogrel. Cangrelor improves outcomes in patients undergoing stenting. Recent studies to assess the role of platelet function monitoring of the effects of clopidogrel and modifying treatments have not been successful.

Conclusion

Recent clinical trials have indicated that newer antiplatelet agents have advantages over clopidogrel in the treatment of ACS. Platelet function testing gives us a guide to the timing, efficacy, and variability of therapy and can correlate with poor patient outcomes; however, the use of antiplatelet function testing to tailor therapy does not seem appropriate.     

Randomized Assessment of Ticagrelor Versus Prasugrel Antiplatelet Effects in Patients With Diabetes

OBJECTIVE

It has been postulated that prasugrel might be the preferred treatment option in diabetes mellitus (DM) patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We aimed to compare the pharmacodynamic action of ticagrelor versus prasugrel.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

In a prospective, single-center, single-blind, crossover study, 30 consecutive ACS patients with DM who had been pretreated with clopidogrel were randomized to either 90 mg ticagrelor twice daily or 10 mg prasugrel once daily with a 15-day treatment period. Platelet reactivity (PR) was assessed with the VerifyNow P2Y12 function assay, measured in P2Y12 reaction units (PRU).

RESULTS

PR was significantly lower after ticagrelor (45.2 PRU [95% CI 27.4–63.1]) compared with prasugrel (80.8 PRU [63.0–98.7]), with a least squares mean difference of –35.6 PRU (−55.2 to −15.9, P = 0.001). High PR rate was 0% for ticagrelor and 3.3% for prasugrel (P = 1.0).

CONCLUSIONS

In DM patients with ACS who had been pretreated with clopidogrel and who undergo PCI, ticagrelor achieves a significantly higher platelet inhibition than prasugrel. Both antiplatelet agents effectively treat high PR. The relevance of these findings to the clinical efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and prasugrel in DM patients needs further elucidation.Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) suffering from acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and/or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have an increased platelet reactivity (PR) and prothrombotic potential, a lower response to clopidogrel, and a higher risk of cardiovascular complications and recurrent atherothrombotic events than non-DM patients (1–8).Prasugrel and ticagrelor are newer and more potent than clopidogrel antiplatelet agents, which have been introduced recently into our armamentarium while treating ACS patients undergoing PCI (9,10). In the Prasugrel Optimizing Antiplatelet Therapy in Diabetes Mellitus (OPTIMUS-3) study, in patients with DM and coronary artery disease (CAD), prasugrel provided a higher inhibitory platelet activity than high-dose clopidogrel (11). A prespecified, subgroup analysis of the Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition with Prasugrel–Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 38 (TRITON-TIMI 38) showed that prasugrel significantly reduced the incidence of the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke compared with clopidogrel (12.2 and 17.0%, respectively, HR 0.70; P < 0.001) among DM patients, although without significant DM status-by-treatment interaction (12). Of note, no benefit on mortality was observed with prasugrel over clopidogrel. Furthermore, in the subgroup analyses of the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial, the reduction in the primary composite end point, all-cause mortality, and stent thrombosis with no increase in major bleeding in DM patients by ticagrelor was consistent with the overall cohort (3,13). While interpreting the above subanalyses, it has been proposed that prasugrel may be the preferred treatment option in DM patients (14), although a word of caution has been raised by others for comparison between PLATO and TRITON regarding early ischemic events in such patients (3).There are no direct clinical outcome comparisons of ticagrelor versus prasugrel. In a pharmacodynamic comparison of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in ACS patients undergoing PCI and exhibiting high PR (HPR) while on clopidogrel, ticagrelor reduced PR to a lower level than prasugrel (15). In ST segment elevation myocardial infarction patients undergoing primary PCI, both ticagrelor and prasugrel appeared similarly effective in reducing PR during the first 24 h, with lower PR achieved with ticagrelor than prasugrel at day 5 (16). In the current study, we aimed to compare the pharmacodynamic action of ticagrelor versus prasugrel in DM patients with ACS undergoing PCI who had been pretreated with clopidogrel.     

Acute coronary syndromes: identifying the appropriate patient for prasugrel

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remains the leading cause of morbidity and mortality. More than half of patients presenting with ACS will experience a recurrent ischemic event; thus, preventing recurrent events is essential to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with ACS. While dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel has been the foundation of management for patients presenting with ACS, clopidogrel is limited by delayed antiplatelet effect and a variable patient response. Prasugrel is more potent, has a more rapid and consistent antiplatelet effect, and has been associated with improved outcomes compared with clopidogrel in select patients with ACS. Although prasugrel reduces the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events, it also increases the risk of major bleeding. Careful patient selection will improve the likelihood that patients treated with prasugrel will experience the benefit of this antiplatelet agent with the lowest possible risk of an adverse event. This article reviews the data supporting the use of prasugrel in ACS with an emphasis on characteristics that will help identify the most appropriate patient for this therapy.     

New P2Y12 blockers

Summary.  A number of new antiplatelet agents currently in development are anticipated to improve clinical outcomes and safety benefits in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). This article reviews the pharmacology and clinical development of three of these agents: prasugrel, cangrelor, and ticagrelor. Prasugrel, a third-generation, oral thienopyridine, has been shown to be superior to clopidogrel, the current gold standard, in preventing ischemic events in patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), although the bleeding rate was higher. Cangrelor, a chemical analog of adenosine triphosphate, is a potent direct platelet P2Y₁₂ antagonist. In development as an intravenous agent, cangrelor is currently being evaluated in two phase III studies in patients requiring PCI. Ticagrelor is the first of a new class of orally available antiplatelet agents antagonizing the effects of ADP mediated by P2Y₁₂; it is currently being studied in a phase III trial in patients with ACS.     

The evolution of dual antiplatelet therapy in the setting of acute coronary syndrome: ticagrelor versus clopidogrel

Review of: Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Eng J Med 2009; 361(11): 1045–1057.

For acute coronary syndrome (ACS), a dual antiplatelet regimen comprised of treatment with aspirin and either P2Y12 adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonists, clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor is usually employed. This article compares clopidogrel with ticagrelor for the prevention of vascular events and death in broad population of ACS patients ranging from UA, NSTEMI to STEMI, utilizing planned strategies of medical or invasive treatment strategy.     

Unmet needs in oral antiplatelet therapy with ADP receptor blocking agents

Antiplatelet agents like aspirin and clopidogrel are treatment cornerstones for acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Drawbacks of dual therapy with these agents include slow onset and offset of effect and wide response variability. Clopidogrel may provide little benefit if administered too close to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and increase major bleeding risk if given too close to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or other surgery. It may not provide sufficient antiplatelet coverage prior to CABG if stopped too long before intervention and leave patients without antiplatelet coverage due to hyporesponsiveness. Prasugrel has made steps towards addressing these limitations by exhibiting more efficient metabolism, more rapid onset of effect, and greater and more consistent platelet inhibition than clopidogrel. The TRITON-TIMI38 trial in ACS patients undergoing PCI showed prasugrel produced greater ischemic event protection than clopidogrel but significantly increased major bleeding risk. AZD6140, the first reversible oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitor, provides more rapid onset of effect and greater and more consistent platelet inhibition than clopidogrel. In DISPERSE2, a phase II trial in ACS patients, AZD6140 did not increase bleeding risk, reduced bleeding risk among CABG patients, and produced numerical reductions in myocardial infarction risk. AZD6140 is being compared with clopidogrel in PLATO, a phase III trial in approximately 18000 ACS patients.     

Troponin level and efficacy of abciximab in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing early intervention after clopidogrel pretreatment

Objective We investigated how does troponin level (TnT) affect the benefit achieved by abciximab in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) after pretreatment with a high loading dose of clopidogrel. Methods The Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment (ISAR-REACT 2) trial included 2,022 patients with non-ST elevation ACS undergoing PCI who were randomized to abciximab or placebo after pretreatment with 600 mg of clopidogrel. The patients were divided into groups with elevated TnT level (n = 1,049) and no elevated TnT level (n = 973). The primary end point of the trial was the composite of death, myocardial infarction and urgent reintervention at 30 days. Results In patients with elevated TnT level the incidence of the primary end point was 13.1% in the abciximab group Vs. 18.3% in the placebo group [relative risk (RR): 0.70; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52–0.95, P = 0.02]. The combined incidence of death or myocardial infarction was 12.9% in the abciximab group vs. 17.9% in the placebo group (RR: 0.71; 95% CI, 0.52–0.96, P = 0.03). In contrast, the incidence of the primary end point in patients with no elevated TnT level was identical in both treatment groups (4.6%). The risk of bleeding was not related to TnT level. Conclusions Baseline troponin level affects the benefit of abciximab in patients with ACS undergoing PCI after pretreatment with a high loading dose of clopidogrel. Abciximab reduces the risk of ischemic events only in patients with ACS and elevated troponin level.     

Clopidogrel Versus Aspirin for the Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndrome After a 12-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy: A Cost-effectiveness Analysis From China Payer's Perspective

Purpose

Monotherapy with either aspirin or clopidogrel is recommended for long-term use after discontinuation of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) management after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The present study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel versus aspirin after 12-month DAPT for patients with ACS who underwent PCI in China.

High post-treatment platelet reactivity identified low-responders to dual antiplatelet therapy at increased risk of recurrent cardiovascular events after stenting for acute coronary syndrome

Summary.  Background and objectives: Low response to antiplatelet therapy may be a risk factor for the development of ischemic complications in patients with non-ST segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE ACS) undergoing coronary stenting. Methods: We prospectively studied the platelet response to both clopidogrel and aspirin in 106 NSTE ACS consecutive patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stenting. A single post-treatment blood sample was obtained just before PCI and analyzed by platelet aggregometry using both ADP and arachidonic acid (AA) as agonists to explore the responses to clopidogrel and aspirin, respectively. Patients were divided into quartiles according to the ADP or AA induced maximal intensity of platelet aggregation. Patients of the highest quartile (quartile 4) were defined as the 'low-responders'. Results: Twelve recurrent cardiovascular (CV) events occurred during the 1-month follow-up. Clinical outcome was significantly associated with platelet response to clopidogrel [Quartile 4 vs. 1, 2, 3: OR (95% CI) 22.4 (4.6–109)]. Low platelet response to aspirin was significantly correlated with clopidogrel low response ( P  = 0.003) but contributed less to CV events [OR (95%CI): 5.76 (1.54–35.61)]. Conclusions: A post-treatment ADP-induced platelet aggregation performed just before PCI identifies low responders to dual antiplatelet therapy with an increased risk of recurrent CV events.     

急性冠状动脉综合征患者介入术后抗血小板药物抵抗的临床研究

目的 探讨急性冠状动脉综合征(ACS)患者经皮冠状动脉介入术(PCI)后阿司匹林和氯吡格雷抵抗的发生率及相关影响因素;根据血栓弹力图(TEG)结果指导ACS患者抗血小板药物的使用.方法 用TEG方法检测ACS患者服用阿司匹林和氯吡格雷的血小板抑制率.比较性别、年龄、吸烟、家族史、使用质子泵抑制剂(PPI)、高血压病、高脂血症、糖尿病等对PCI术后阿司匹林和氯吡格雷抵抗的影响,以及对阿司匹林和氯吡格雷抵抗的预测意义.结果 67例ACS患者中13例(19.4％)存在阿司匹林反应低下,9例(13.4％)患者存在氯吡格雷反应低下,3例(4.5％)同时存在阿司匹林反应低下和氯吡格雷反应低下.血小板药物反应低下者44.0％(11/25)合并糖尿病,血小板药物反应正常者11.9％(5/42)合并糖尿病,两者比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);血小板药物反应正常者女性比例(60.0％)明显高于血小板药物反应低下者(19.1％),两者比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).随着年龄的增长抗血小板药物的反应性会降低(P＜0.05).而两者在吸烟、家族史、使用PPI、合并高血压病、高脂血症比例等方面比较差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).二分变量线性回归分析结果表明,PCI术后阿司匹林和氯吡格雷抵抗的影响因素包括性别、年龄、糖尿病.结论 对不同性别、年龄的ACS合并糖尿病的患者采用个性化抗血小板治疗,可以减少临床缺血事件的发生.     

Antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of acute coronary syndrome, transient ischemic attack, and noncardioembolic stroke in an era of cost containment

Physicians are aware of the profound impact of oral antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of acute coronary syndrome (ACS), transient ischemic attack, and noncardioembolic stroke. Numerous clinical studies have compared the benefits of aspirin (ASA) alone with those of combination therapy with extended-release dipyridamole or with those of clopidogrel, with or without ASA, for secondary stroke prevention; and of ASA monotherapy compared with ASA plus clopidogrel combination therapy for secondary prevention in various ACS populations. More recently, ASA plus prasugrel has been compared with ASA plus clopidogrel in a high-risk ACS population. However, given the different treatment modalities and methods used in the various trials, it is difficult to make generalizations as to which therapy is most effective with the lowest risk of bleeding. Further complicating physician's decision making are cost considerations, particularly with the newer oral antiplatelet agents, which are considerably more expensive than ASA. This review provides a brief overview of the clinical data on each of the currently marketed oral antiplatelet agents and the available data on cost-effectiveness for the secondary prevention of ACS, transient ischemic attack, and noncardioembolic stroke.