Randomized,double‐blind comparison of effects of abiciximab bolus only vs. on‐label regimen on ex vivo inhibition of platelet aggregation in responders to clopidogrel undergoing coronary stenting

Summary. Background: On top of aspirin, an abciximab bolus‐only regimen results in a 30% drop in platelet inhibition at 6 h as compared with the on‐label regimen. The concomitant administration of high loading dose clopidogrel, by bridging with abciximab bolus, may sustain suppression of platelet activity over time. Objectives: To investigate the non‐inferiority of abciximab bolus‐only and concomitant high loading dose clopidogrel vs. abciximab bolus + infusion with respect to the inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA) as determined by light transmission aggregometry. Patients/Methods: Seventy‐three patients with non‐ST segment elevation acute coronary syndromes underwent double‐blind randomization to abciximab bolus followed by a 12‐h placebo infusion and concomitant 600‐mg clopidogrel vs. abciximab bolus + a 12‐h infusion and 300 mg of clopidogrel. IPA was determined by light transmission aggregometry throughout 24 h. Clopidogrel poor responsiveness was defined as ≥ 50% 5 μmol L^?1 ADP‐induced maximum platelet aggregation. Results: In clopidogrel responders (n = 68), IPA after 20 μmol L^?1 ADP at 4 h was 89% ± 13% in the bolus‐only arm vs. 92% ± 14% in the bolus + infusion arm (P = 0.011 for non‐inferiority). IPA after 5 or 20 μmol L^?1 ADP and 5 or 15 μmol L^?1 TRAP and the proportion of patients showing ≥ 80% IPA did not differ at any time point, irrespective of clopidogrel responsiveness status. Thirty‐day outcomes were similar, whereas hemoglobin (0.91 ± 0.8 vs. 0.5 ± 0.7 g dL^?1; P = 0.01) and platelet count mean drop (41.7 ± 57 vs. 18.6 ± 34 10⁹ L^?1; P = 0.042) were significantly reduced in the bolus‐only arm. Conclusions: Withholding abciximab post‐bolus infusion in patients receiving high loading dose clopidogrel does not impair platelet inhibition throughout 24 h, and has the potential to improve the safety profile of the drug at reduced costs.     

Potentiation of clopidogrel active metabolite formation by rifampicin leads to greater P2Y12 receptor blockade and inhibition of platelet aggregation after clopidogrel

Summary. Background: The thienopyridine P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist clopidogrel reduces the risk of arterial thrombosis and individual pharmacodynamic responses to clopidogrel are believed to reflect the levels of active metabolite (AM) generated. Rifampicin increases the inhibitory effect of clopidogrel on platelet aggregation (PA). We studied the response to clopidogrel before and during administration of rifampicin in order to study the relationship between individual AM levels and P2Y₁₂ blockade. Methods: Healthy volunteers received a 600‐mg loading dose of clopidogrel followed by 75 mg daily for 7 days and, after a washout period and treatment with rifampicin [300 mg twice a day (b.i.d.)], received the same regimen of clopidogrel. Clopidogrel AM levels were determined over 4 h after the clopidogrel loading dose and unblocked P2Y₁₂ receptor number was assessed using a ³³P‐2MeSADP binding assay. PA was measured by optical aggregometry with ADP and TRAP. Results: Rifampicin enhanced clopidogrel AM production [area‐under‐the‐curve (AUC): clopidogrel 89 ± 22 ng h mL^?1, clopidogrel + rifampicin 335 ± 86 ng h mL^?1, P < 0.0001], and P2Y₁₂ blockade (unblocked receptors: clopidogrel 48 ± 24, clopidogrel + rifampicin 4 ± 2, P < 0.0001) and reduced PA (5 μmol L^?1 ADP: clopidogrel 20 ± 4, clopidogrel + rifampicin 5 ± 2, P < 0.01). Increasing numbers of unblocked receptors were required for an aggregation response with a decreasing concentration of ADP. PA induced by ADP 2 μmol L^?1 was particularly sensitive to low levels of receptor blockade. Conclusion: Potentiation of clopidogrel AM production by rifampicin leads to greater P2Y₁₂ blockade and consequently greater inhibition of PA. PA responses to low concentrations of ADP are more sensitive to P2Y₁₂ blockade.     

Aspirin withdrawal in patients treated with ticagrelor presenting with non‐ST elevation myocardial infarction

Essentials

• Strong P2Y₁₂ blockade may cause platelet inhibition that is only minimally enhanced by aspirin.
• We evaluated aspirin withdrawal on platelet reactivity in ticagrelor treated patients.
• Aspirin withdrawal resulted in increased platelet reactivity to arachidonic acid.
• Aspirin withdrawal caused little difference in adenosine diphosphate‐induced platelet aggregation.

Summary

Background

Recent studies have shown that the thromboxane A₂‐dependent pathway is dependent on the ADP–P2Y₁₂ pathway, and that strong P2Y₁₂ receptor blockade alone causes inhibition of platelet aggregation that is minimally enhanced by aspirin. Data from the PLATO trial suggested that, among ticagrelor‐treated patients, high‐dose versus low‐dose (< 100 mg day^?1) aspirin is associated with an increased risk fof ischemic events.

Objectives

To evaluate the impact of aspirin withdrawal on platelet reactivity in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated with a potent P2Y₁₂ blocker.

Patients/Methods

This was a current prospective, randomized, placebo‐controlled, double‐blind, cross‐over study. The study population comprised 22 consecutive ACS patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and were treated with aspirin (100 mg day^?1) and ticagrelor. Thirty days post‐ACS, open‐label aspirin was stopped, and patients were randomized to either blinded aspirin or placebo for 2 weeks, with each patient crossing over to the other arm for an additional 2 weeks. Platelet reactivity to arachidonic acid and ADP determined with light‐transmission aggregometry (LTA) and VerifyNow was evaluated at baseline, and 2 weeks and 4 weeks later.

Results

Aspirin withdrawal resulted in an increase in arachidonic‐acid induced platelet reactivity as determined with both LTA (77.0% ± 11.3% versus 20.8% ± 4.4%) and VerifyNow (607.7 ± 10.6 aspirin reaction units [ARU] versus 408.5 ± 14.4 ARU). Platelet response to ADP, as determined with both LTA and VerifyNow, did not differ with either aspirin or placebo (32.9% ± 2.6% versus 35.8% ± 3.6%, and 33.5 ± 6.4 P2Y₁₂ reaction units (PRU) versus 29.6 ± 5.7 PRU, respectively).

Conclusions

Aspirin withdrawal early post‐ACS results in increased platelet reactivity in response to arachidonic acid, despite concomitant treatment with the potent P2Y₁₂ blocker ticagrelor.

     

Reversibility of platelet P2Y12 inhibition by platelet supplementation: ex vivo and in vitro comparisons of prasugrel,clopidogrel and ticagrelor

Essentials

• Successful outcome of platelet transfusion depends on specific antiplatelet therapy in use.
• We assessed if ticagrelor, clopidogrel or prasugrel impacts on donor platelet activity ex vivo.
• Ticagrelor and/or its active metabolite in plasma or bound to platelets can inhibit donor platelets.
• This might compromise the effectiveness of platelet transfusion therapy.

Summary

Background

Platelet transfusion is the conventional approach to restore platelet function during acute bleeds or surgery, but successful outcome depends on the specific antiplatelet therapy. Notably ticagrelor is associated with inadequate recovery of platelet function after platelet transfusion. We examined whether plasma and/or platelets from ticagrelor‐treated patients influence donor platelet function, in comparison with clopidogrel and prasugrel.

Methods

Platelet transfusion was mimicked ex vivo by mixing naïve donor platelet‐rich plasma (PRP) or gel‐filtered platelets (GFP) in defined proportions with PRP, plasma or GFP from cardiovascular patients receiving standard care including medication with prasugrel, clopidogrel or ticagrelor (n = 20 each). Blood was taken 4 h after the previous dose. HLA2/HLA28 haplotyping let us distinguish net (all platelet) and individual patient/donor platelet reactivity in mixtures of patient/donor platelets, measured by flow cytometry analysis of ADP‐induced fibrinogen binding and CD62P expression.

Results

ADP responsiveness of donor platelets was dramatically reduced by even low (10%) concentrations of PRP or plasma from ticagrelor‐treated patients. Clopidogrel and prasugrel were associated with more modest donor platelet inhibition. GFP from ticagrelor‐treated patients but not patients receiving clopidogrel or prasugrel also suppressed donor GFP function upon mixing, suggesting the transfer of ticagrelor from patient platelets to donor platelets. This transfer did not lead to recovery of ADP responsiveness of patient's platelets.

Conclusion

Collectively, these observations support the concept that ticagrelor and/or its active metabolite in plasma or bound to platelets can inhibit donor platelets, which might compromise the effectiveness of platelet transfusion therapy.

     

Decreased platelet inhibition by P2Y12 receptor blockers in anaemia

Background

Anaemic patients undergoing angioplasty and stenting are at an increased risk of ischaemic events, which may be caused by an inadequate response to antiplatelet therapy with adenosine diphosphate (ADP) P2Y₁₂ inhibitors. In the current study, we investigated the associations between anaemia and on‐treatment platelet reactivity in clopidogrel‐treated (group 1, n = 306) and prasugrel‐/ticagrelor‐treated (group 2, n = 109) patients undergoing elective and acute angioplasty with stent implantation, respectively.

Materials and methods

Monocyte‐platelet aggregate (MPA) formation was determined by flow cytometry in both groups. On‐treatment residual platelet reactivity in response to ADP was assessed by light transmission aggregometry (LTA) in both groups, and by the VerifyNow P2Y₁₂ assay and the Impact‐R in group 1. P‐selectin expression was measured by flow cytometry in group 2.

Results

In both groups, anaemia was associated with significantly higher MPA formation in response to ADP (both P ≤ .02). Moreover, by LTA maximal aggregation in response to ADP was significantly higher in patients with anaemia in both groups (both P < .05), and anaemic patients in group 1 had a significantly higher on‐treatment platelet reactivity by the VerifyNow P2Y₁₂ assay and the Impact‐R than those without anaemia (both P < .001). In group 2, significantly higher platelet surface expression of P‐selectin was seen in anaemia after stimulation with ADP (P = .02).

Conclusion

Anaemia is associated with decreased platelet inhibition by ADP P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonists after elective and acute percutaneous interventions with stent implantation. However, due to inconsistencies between different platelet function tests additional data are needed to clarify the role of anaemia for platelet inhibition.     

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.     

Clinical implications of drug–drug interactions with P2Y12 receptor inhibitors

Polypharmacy in patients undergoing coronary artery stenting or in those presenting with an acute coronary syndrome is common. Nevertheless, the risk of drug–drug interactions in patients treated simultaneously with P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors is less well considered in routine clinical practice. Whereas the irreversible P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors clopidogrel and prasugrel are prodrugs requiring cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes for metabolic activation, such activation is not necessary for the direct‐acting reversible P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor ticagrelor. Several drugs frequently used in cardiology have been shown to interact with the metabolism of P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors in pharmacodynamic studies. Whereas several drug–drug interactions have been described for clopidogrel and ticagrelor, prasugrel seems to have a low potential for drug–drug interactions. The clinical implications of these interactions have raised concern. In general, concomitant administration of P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonists and strong inhibitors or inducers of CYP3A/CYP2C19 should be performed with caution in patients treated with clopidogrel/ticagrelor. Under most circumstances, clinicians have the option of prescribing alternative drugs with less risk of drug–drug interactions when used concomitantly with P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors.     

Bleeding risk with AZD6140, a reversible P2Y12 receptor antagonist,vs. clopidogrel in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting in the DISPERSE2 trial

AZD6140, the first reversible oral P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist, exhibits greater and more consistent inhibition of platelet aggregation than the irreversible thienopyridine clopidogrel. As a result of its reversible effect, AZD6140 may pose less risk for bleeding when antiplatelet treatment cannot be stopped at least 5 days before coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery or other invasive procedures. The Dose conflrmation Study assessing anti‐Platelet Effects of AZD6140 vs. clopidogRel in NSTEMI (DISPERSE2) trial showed overall comparable bleeding rates with antiplatelet treatment with AZD6140 90 mg twice daily or 180 mg twice daily vs. clopidogrel 75 mg once daily in 984 patients with non‐ST‐elevation acute coronary syndromes. A post hoc exploratory analysis of bleeding outcomes in the subset of 84 patients undergoing CABG in DISPERSE2 suggests reduced risk for total bleeding (41% and 58% vs. 62%), all major bleeding (38% and 50% vs. 62%), and life‐threatening bleeding (22% and 38% vs. 54%) with AZD6140 90 mg (n = 32) and 180 mg (n = 26) vs. clopidogrel (n = 26) respectively. Trends suggested that major bleeding rates were reduced with AZD6140 (combined groups) vs. clopidogrel when treatment was stopped ≤ 5 days prior to surgery (39% vs. 63%, p = 0.15) but not when treatment was stopped > 5 days before surgery (50% vs. 60%). This observation is consistent with the reversible binding of AZD6140 to the P2Y₁₂ receptor. Further prospective studies are planned to assess the relationship between this potential clinical benefit of AZD6140 and the reversibility of its antiplatelet effects.     

Current controversies in the use of aspirin and ticagrelor for the treatment of thrombotic events

Introduction: A P2Y₁₂ inhibitor plus aspirin is the most widely used antiplatelet strategy to prevent adverse outcomes in the setting of atherothrombotic vascular disease.

Areas covered: A paucity of robust evidence for an optimal dose, gastrointestinal toxicity, ineffectiveness in high-risk patients and interactions with other antiplatelet agents, are major controversies associated with aspirin therapy. Ticagrelor is a reversibly binding oral P2Y₁₂ receptor blocker that mediates potent inhibition of adenosine diphosphate-induced platelet function. It is more effective than clopidogrel in preventing thrombotic events in acute coronary syndrome patients. The absence of a beneficial effect for ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in ACS observed in the North American subgroup of the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial has been attributed to a higher concomitant aspirin dose.

Expert commentary: Ongoing studies are now investigating the plausibility of removing aspirin therapy in the setting of potent P2Y₁₂ receptor blockade via ticagrelor monotherapy or replacing aspirin with an oral anticoagulant.     

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.     

Lack of clinically significant pharmacological interactions between ticagrelor and enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin in healthy subjects

What is known and Objective: Patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) receive several pharmacological therapies concomitantly, including antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents. As unfractionated heparin (UFH) activates platelets in vitro and in vivo, co‐administration with an antiplatelet agent may lead to decreased clinical effectiveness of the latter. The aim was therefore to determine any potential drug–drug interactions between the new oral antiplatelet agent ticagrelor, and UFH or enoxaparin. Methods: In two open‐label, three‐period, crossover trials, healthy subjects were randomized to receive ticagrelor alone or with enoxaparin (study 1) or UFH (study 2), or enoxaparin or UFH alone. Ticagrelor plasma concentrations, inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA), anti‐factor Xa levels, activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) and activated coagulation time (ACT) were measured. Results: Thirty and 28 subjects completed studies 1 and 2, respectively. Study drugs were generally well tolerated, with no significant bleeding or serious adverse events. Co‐administration with enoxaparin or UFH had no significant effect on ticagrelor pharmacokinetics. The effect of ticagrelor on IPA was unimpaired by co‐administration of enoxaparin, except for a marginal (?2·9%; 908·7%.h, 881·9%.h) reduction in final extent area under the effect curve (AUEC)_2–12 (95% CI: ?51·6%.h, ?2·0%.h). Co‐administering UFH with ticagrelor caused small decreases in IPA_max (?3·8%; 94·6%, 91·0%) and AUEC_2–12 (?6·8%; 888·6%.h, 828·3%.h) vs. ticagrelor alone (95% CI: final extent IPA_max?5·7%, ?1·6%; AUEC_2–12?109·8%.h, ?10·8%.h). Ticagrelor had no clinically significant effects on enoxaparin as assessed by anti‐factor Xa (study 1), or UFH as assessed by aPTT or ACT (study 2). What is new and conclusions: Enoxaparin and UFH had no effect on the pharmacokinetics and no clinically significant effect on the pharmacodynamics of ticagrelor. Ticagrelor had no clinically significant effects on the pharmacodynamics of enoxaparin or UFH.     

Succinate independently stimulates full platelet activation via cAMP and phosphoinositide 3‐kinase‐β signaling

Summary. Background: The citric cycle intermediate succinate has recently been identified as a ligand for the G‐protein‐coupled receptor (GPCR) SUCNR1. We have previously found that this receptor is one of the most highly expressed GPCRs in human platelets. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the role of SUCNR1 in platelet aggregation and to explore the signaling pathways of this receptor in platelets. Methods and Results: Using real‐time‐PCR, we demonstrated that SUCNR1 is expressed in human platelets at a level corresponding to that of the P2Y₁ receptor. Light transmission aggregation experiments showed dose‐dependent aggregation induced by succinate, reaching a maximum response at 0.5 mm . The effect of succinate on platelet aggregation was confirmed with flow cytometry, showing increased surface expression of activated glycoprotein IIb–IIIa and P‐selectin. Intracellular SUCNR1 signaling was found to result in decreased cAMP levels, Akt phosphorylation mediated by phosphoinositide 3‐kinase‐β activation, and receptor desensitization. Furthermore, succinate‐induced platelet aggregation was demonstrated to depend on Src, generation of thromboxane A₂, and ATP release. Platelet SUCNR1 is subject to desensitization through both homologous and heterologous mechanisms. In addition, the P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor ticagrelor completely prevented platelet aggregation induced by succinate. Conclusions: Our experiments show that succinate induces full aggregation of human platelets via SUCNR1. Succinate‐induced platelet aggregation depends on thromboxane A₂ generation, ATP release, and P2Y₁₂ activation.     

Enhanced antiplatelet effect of clopidogrel in patients whose platelets are least inhibited by aspirin: a randomized crossover trial

Summary. Objective: We aimed to determine whether adding clopidogrel to aspirin in patients at high risk of future cardiovascular events would suppress laboratory measures of the antiplatelet effects of aspirin; and have greater platelet inhibitory effects in patients with the least inhibition of platelets by aspirin. Methods: We performed a randomized, double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, crossover trial, comparing clopidogrel 75 mg day^?1 versus placebo, in 36 aspirin‐treated patients with symptomatic objectively confirmed peripheral arterial disease. Results: The addition of clopidogrel to aspirin did not suppress platelet aggregation induced by arachidonic acid, urinary 11 dehydro thromboxane B₂ concentrations, or soluble markers of platelet activation markers (P‐selectin, CD40‐ligand) and inflammation (high sensitivity serum C‐reactive protein, interleukin‐6). Clopidogrel significantly inhibited platelet aggregation induced by ADP (reduction 26.2%; 95% CI: 21.3–31.1%, P < 0.0001) and collagen (reduction 6.2%; 95% CI: 3.2–9.3%, P = 0.0003). The greatest inhibition of collagen‐induced platelet aggregation by clopidogrel was seen in patients with the least inhibition of arachidonic acid induced aggregation by aspirin [lower tertile of arachidonic acid‐induced platelet aggregation: 2.8% (95% CI: ?0.8 to 6.3%) reduction in mean collagen‐induced aggregation by clopidogrel; middle tertile: 4.0% (95% CI: 0.4–7.6%); upper tertile 12.6% (95% CI: 4.5–20.8%); P‐value for interaction 0.01]. Conclusions: The greatest platelet inhibitory effect of clopidogrel occurs in patients with the least inhibition of arachidonic acid‐induced platelet aggregation by aspirin. This raises the possibility that the clinical benefits of adding clopidogrel to aspirin may be greatest in patients whose platelets are least inhibited by aspirin. Confirmation in clinical outcome studies may allow these patients to be targeted with antiplatelet drugs that inhibit the ADP receptor, thereby overcoming the problem of laboratory aspirin resistance.     

A case–control study on platelet reactivity in patients with coronary stent thrombosis

Summary. Background: The pathophysiology of stent thrombosis (ST) has evolved from the identification of single causative factors to a complex multifactorial model. Objectives: The aim of the present study was to investigate whether patients with a history of ST exhibit heightened platelet reactivity to clopidogrel and aspirin. Patients/methods: Pretreatment and on‐treatment platelet reactivity to clopidogrel and aspirin, as well as dual antiplatelet therapy resistance, was determined in 84 patients with a history of definite ST (cases: 41 early ST; 43 late ST) and in 103 control patients with a previously implanted coronary stent but no ST after the index procedure. Platelet function was evaluated with optical aggregometry, the VerifyNow P2Y12 and aspirin assays, the PFA‐100 Innovance P2Y* cartridge, the flow cytometric vasodilator‐stimulated phosphoprotein assay and urine 11‐dehydrothromboxane B₂ measurement before and after the administration of a 600‐mg loading dose of clopidogrel and 100 mg of aspirin. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01012544. Results: Patients with a history of early ST clearly demonstrated higher on‐clopidogrel platelet reactivity than controls. Patients with both early and late ST exhibited heightened on‐aspirin platelet reactivity status, and dual antiplatelet therapy resistance was more frequent. Conclusions: Patients with a history of early ST exhibit a poor response to clopidogrel. Furthermore, both early and late ST are strongly and independently associated with heightened on‐aspirin platelet reactivity, and dual antiplatelet therapy resistance is more frequent.     

Clopidogrel discontinuation and platelet reactivity following coronary stenting

See also Lordkipanidzé M, Harrison P. Beware of being caught on the rebound. This issue, pp 21–3. Summary. Aims: Antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel is recommended for 1 year after drug‐eluting stent (DES) implantation or myocardial infarction. However, the discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy has become an important issue as recent studies have suggested a clustering of ischemic events within 90 days of clopidogrel withdrawal. The objective of this investigation was to explore the hypothesis that there is a transient ‘rebound’ increase in platelet reactivity within 3 months of clopidogrel discontinuation. Methods and Results: In this prospective study, platelet function was assessed in patients taking aspirin and clopidogrel for at least 1 year following DES implantation. Platelet aggregation was measured using a modification of light transmission aggregometry in response to multiple concentrations of adenosine diphosphate (ADP), epinephrine, arachidonic acid, thrombin receptor activating peptide and collagen. Clopidogrel was stopped and platelet function was reassessed 1 week, 1 month and 3 months later. Thirty‐two patients on dual antiplatelet therapy were recruited. Discontinuation of clopidogrel increased platelet aggregation to all agonists, except arachidonic acid. Platelet aggregation in response to ADP (2.5, 5, 10, and 20 μm ) and epinephrine (5 and 20 μm ) was significantly increased at 1 month compared with 3 months following clopidogrel withdrawal. Thus, a transient period of increased platelet reactivity to both ADP and epinephrine was observed 1 month after clopidogrel discontinuation. Conclusions: This study demonstrates a transient increase in platelet reactivity 1 month after clopidogrel withdrawal. This phenomenon may, in part, explain the known clustering of thrombotic events observed after clopidogrel discontinuation. This observation requires confirmation in larger populations.     

Lack of significant food effect on the pharmacokinetics of ticagrelor in healthy volunteers

What is known and Objective: Ticagrelor is the first reversibly binding oral P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist and has been approved in the European Union and the USA for the reduction of clinical thrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndromes. This study aimed to assess the effect of food on ticagrelor pharmacokinetics. Methods: The study was an open‐label, randomized, 2‐period crossover single‐centre trial; 26 healthy volunteers received a single 270 mg (3 × 90 mg tablets) ticagrelor dose orally following: (i) a 10‐h overnight fast; and (ii) after a standard high‐fat, high‐calorie breakfast. Ticagrelor and AR‐C124910XX (a major pharmacologically active metabolite) plasma concentrations were quantified for pharmacokinetic analysis. Results: Ticagrelor median time to maximum concentration (t_max; 2·5 h vs. 1·5 h) was slightly delayed in the fed vs. fasting state. Maximum concentration of ticagrelor (C_max) was comparable between the two states with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of the geometric least‐squares (GLS) mean ratio (0·85–1·03) being within no‐effect limits (0·80–1·25). Ticagrelor exposure was slightly higher with food intake; area under the plasma concentration–time curve from zero to infinity (AUC) was 21% higher compared with fasting state (95% CI of GLS mean ratio = 1·13–1·30). For AR‐C124910XX, AUC (95% CI of GLS mean ratio = 0·93–1·07) was unaffected by food consumption. Median t_max of the metabolite was slightly longer in the fed than fasting state (3·5 h vs. 1·5 h). Mean C_max for AR‐C124910XX was slightly lower (22%) with food intake vs. fasting (95% CI of GLS mean ratio 0·69–0·88). What is new and Conclusion: Food effects on ticagrelor AUC and AR‐C124910XX C_max were small and are considered to be of minimal clinical significance. Thus, ticagrelor can be administered with or without food.     

P2Y12 protects platelets from apoptosis via PI3k‐dependent Bak/Bax inactivation

Summary. Background: Platelet ADP receptor P2Y₁₂ is well studied and recognized as a key player in platelet activation, hemostasis and thrombosis. However, the role of P2Y₁₂ in platelet apoptosis remains unknown. Objectives: To evaluate the role of the P2Y₁₂ receptor in platelet apoptosis. Methods: We used flow cytometry and Western blotting to assess apoptotic events in platelets treated with ABT‐737 or ABT‐263, and stored at 37 °C, combined with P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonists or P2Y₁₂‐deficient mice. Results: P2Y₁₂ activation attenuated apoptosis induced by ABT‐737 in human and mouse platelets in vitro, evidenced by reduced phosphatidylserine (PS) exposure, diminished depolarization of mitochondrial inner transmembrane potential (ΔΨm) and decreased caspase‐3 activation. Through increasing the phosphorylation level of Akt and Bad, and changing the interaction between different Bcl‐2 family proteins, P2Y₁₂ activation inactivated Bak/Bax. This antiapoptotic effect could be abolished by P2Y₁₂ antagonism or PI3K inhibition. We also observed the antiapoptotic effect of P2Y₁₂ activation in platelets stored at 37 °C. P2Y₁₂ activation improved the impaired activation responses of apoptotic platelets stressed by ABT‐737. In platelets from mice dosed with ABT‐263 in vivo, clopidogrel or deficiency of P2Y₁₂ receptor enhanced apoptosis along with increased Bak/Bax activation. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that P2Y₁₂ activation protects platelets from apoptosis via PI3k‐dependent Bak/Bax inactivation, which may be physiologically important to counter the proapoptotic challenge. Our findings that P2Y₁₂ blockade exaggerates platelet apoptosis induced by ABT‐263 (Navitoclax) also imply a novel drug interaction of ABT‐263 and P2Y₁₂ antagonists.     

Reversal of the anti‐platelet effects of aspirin and clopidogrel

Summary. Background: Guidelines recommend stopping aspirin and clopidogrel 7 to 10 days before surgery to allow time for replacement of permanently inhibited platelets by newly released uninhibited platelets.Objectives: The purpose of the present study was to determine the rate of offset of the anti‐platelet effects of aspirin and clopidogrel after stopping treatment and the proportion of untreated donor platelets that are required to reverse their anti‐platelet effects.Methods: Cohort 1 consisted of 15 healthy subjects who received aspirin 81 mg day^?1 or clopidogrel 75 mg day^?1 for 7 days and underwent serial blood sampling until platelet function testing results normalized. Cohort 2 consisted of 36 healthy subjects who received aspirin 325 mg day^?1, clopidogrel 75 mg day^?1, aspirin 81 mg day^?1 plus clopidogrel 75 mg day^?1 or no treatment for 7 days and underwent a single blood sampling.Results: In cohort 1, arachidonic acid (AA)‐induced light transmission aggregation (LTA) returned to baseline levels in all subjects within 4 days of stopping aspirin, coinciding with the partial recovery of plasma thromboxane B₂ concentrations. ADP‐induced LTA did not return to baseline levels until 10 days after stopping clopidogrel. In cohort 2, AA‐induced LTA in patient treated with aspirin reached control levels after mixing with 30% untreated donor platelets whereas ADP‐induced LTA in patients treated with clopidogrel reached control levels only after the addition of 90% or more donor platelets.Conclusions: Platelet aggregation recovers within 4 days of stopping aspirin but clopidogrel must be stopped for 10 days to achieve a normal aggregatory response.     

Ticagrelor binds to human P2Y12 independently from ADP but antagonizes ADP-induced receptor signaling and platelet aggregation

Summary. Background: P2Y₁₂ plays an important role in regulating platelet aggregation and function. This receptor is the primary target of thienopyridine antiplatelet agents, the active metabolites of which bind irreversibly to the receptor, and of newer agents that can directly and reversibly modulate receptor activity. Objective: To characterize the receptor biology of the first reversibly binding oral P2Y₁₂ antagonist, ticagrelor (AZD6140), a member of the new cyclopentyltriazolopyrimidine (CPTP) class currently in phase III development. Methods: Ticagrelor displayed apparent non‐competitive or insurmountable antagonism of ADP‐induced aggregation in human washed platelets. This was investigated using competition binding against [³H]ADP, [³³P]2MeS‐ADP and the investigational CPTP compound [¹²⁵I]AZ11931285 at recombinant human P2Y₁₂. Functional receptor inhibition studies were performed using a GTPγS‐binding assay, and further binding studies were performed using membranes prepared from washed human platelets. Results: Radioligand‐binding studies demonstrated that ticagrelor binds potently and reversibly to human P2Y₁₂ with K_on and K_off of (1.1 ± 0.2) × 10^?4 nm ^?1 s^?1 and (8.7 ± 1.4) × 10^?4 s^?1, respectively. Ticagrelor does not displace [³H]ADP from the receptor (K_i > 10 μm ) but binds competitively with [³³P]2MeS‐ADP (K_i = 4.3 ± 1.3 nm ) and [¹²⁵I]AZ11931285 (K_i = 0.33 ± 0.04 nm ), and shows apparent non‐competitive inhibition of ADP‐induced signaling but competitive inhibition of 2MeS‐ADP‐induced signaling. Binding studies on membranes prepared from human washed platelets demonstrated similar non‐competitive binding for ADP and ticagrelor. Conclusions: These data indicate that P2Y₁₂ is targeted by ticagrelor via a mechanism that is non‐competitive with ADP, suggesting the existence of an independent receptor‐binding site for CPTPs.     

Antiplatelet effects of prasugrel vs. double clopidogrel in patients on hemodialysis and with high on‐treatment platelet reactivity

Summary. Background: High on‐treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) is frequent in patients on hemodialysis (HD) receiving clopidrogel. Objectives: The primary aim of this study was to determine the antiplatelet effects of prasugrel vs. high‐dose clopidogrel in patients on HD with HTPR. Patients/Methods: We performed a prospective, single‐center, single‐blind, investigator‐initiated, randomized, crossover study to compare platelet inhibition by prasugrel 10 mg day^?1 with that by high‐dose 150 mg day^?1 clopidogrel in 21 patients on chronic HD with HTPR. Platelet function was assessed with the VerifyNow assay, and genotyping was performed for CYP2C19*2 carriage. Results: The primary endpoint of platelet reactivity (PR, measured in P2Y12 reaction units [PRU]) was lower in patients receiving prasugrel (least squares [LS] estimate 156.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] 132.2–181.1) than in those receiving high‐dose clopidogrel (LS 279.9, 95% CI 255.4–304.3), P < 0.001). The LS mean differences between the two treatments were ? 113.4 PRU (95% CI ? 152.9 to ? 73.8, P < 0.001) and ? 163.8 PRU (95% CI ? 218.1 to ? 109.2, P < 0.001) in non‐carriers and carriers of at least one CYP2C19*2 allele, respectively. HTPR rates were lower for prasugrel than clopidogrel, in all patients (19% vs. 85.7%, P < 0.001) and in non‐carriers (25.7% vs. 80%, P = 0.003). All carriers continued to show HTPR while receiving high‐dose clopidogrel, but none showed it while receiving prasugrel. Conclusions: In HD patients exhibiting HTPR following standard clopidogrel treatment, prasugrel 10 mg day^–1 is significantly more efficient than doubling the clopidogrel dosage in achieving adequate platelet inhibition. Neither effect seems to be influenced by carriage of the loss‐of‐function CYP2C19*2 allele.