Antiplatelet therapy: thrombin receptor antagonists

Activated platelets stimulate thrombus formation in response to rupture of an atherosclerotic plaque or endothelial cell erosion, promoting atherothrombotic disease. Multiple pathways contribute to platelet activation. Aspirin, an irreversible inhibitor of thromboxane A2 synthesis, in combination with clopidogrel, an inhibitor of P2Y(12) adenosine diphosphate platelet receptors, represent the current standard-of-care of antiplatelet therapy for patients with acute coronary syndrome and for those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Although these agents have demonstrated significant clinical benefit, the increased risk of bleeding and the recurrence of thrombotic events represent substantial limitations. Thrombin is one of the most important platelet activators. The inhibition of protease-activated receptor 1 showed a good safety profile in preclinical studies. In fact, phase II studies with vorapaxar (SCH530348) and atopaxar (E5555) showed no increase of bleeding events in addition to the current standard-of-care of antiplatelet therapy. Although the results of phase III trials for both drugs are awaited, this family is a promising new addition to the current clinical practice for patients with atherothrombotic disease, not only as an alternative, but also as additional therapy.     

Emerging antithrombotic drugs for acute coronary syndrome

Introduction: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) encompasses acute myocardial infarction (MI) and unstable angina. Activation of platelets and coagulation cascade plays a central role in the development of ACS. Over the past decade, there have been substantial improvements in the strategies for secondary prevention of ACS, including the development of more potent oral antiplatelet agents such as prasugrel and ticagrelor. However, therapies with even better efficacy and safety profiles and more rapid onset and offset of action would be desirable.

Areas covered: This review discusses the advantages and disadvantages of the currently available antithrombotic agents and describes the findings from recent clinical trials of three novel agents; cangrelor (an intravenous P2Y12 receptor antagonist), vorapaxar (protease-activated receptor-1 inhibitor) and rivaroxaban (an oral factor Xa inhibitor).

Expert opinion: Cangrelor appears more promising than clopidogrel when a very rapid onset and reversal of antiplatelet effect is needed. Vorapaxar in addition to standard oral antiplatelet therapy was effective in patients with prior MI, but was not safe in patients with a prior stroke. Low dose rivaroxaban decreased cardiovascular events and mortality in patients post-ACS compared to placebo, although bleeding was increased.     

Molecular requirements involving the human platelet protease-activated receptor-4 mechanism of activation by peptide analogues of its tethered-ligand

Thrombin is the most potent agonist of human platelets and its effects are primarily mediated through the protease-activated receptors (PARs)-1 and -4. Although PAR-1 has higher affinity for thrombin than PAR-4, both receptors contribute to thrombin-mediated actions on platelets. Recently, a potent and selective PAR-1 antagonist (vorapaxar) was approved for clinical use in selected patients. In contrast, despite the fact that several PAR-4 antagonists have been developed, few of them have been tested in clinical trials.

The aim of the present study was to elucidate the molecular requirements involving the PAR-4 mechanism of activation by peptide analogues of its tethered-ligand.

Eight synthetic PAR-4 tethered-ligand peptide analogues were synthesized and studied for their agonistic/antagonistic potency and selectivity toward human washed platelet aggregation, using light transmittance aggregometry. In addition, in silico studies were conducted to describe the receptor–peptide interactions that are developed following PAR-4 exposure to the above analogues. To provide a first structure-activity relationship rationale on the bioactivity profiles recorded for the studied analogues, molecular docking was applied in a homology model of PAR-4, derived using the crystal structure of PAR-1.

The following peptide analogues were synthesized: AYPGKF-NH₂ (1), GYPGKF-NH₂ (2), Ac-AYPGKF-NH₂ (3), trans-cinnamoyl-AYPGKF-NH₂ (4), YPGKF-NH₂ (5), Ac-YPGKF-NH₂ (6), trans-cinnamoyl-YPGKF-NH₂ (7), and caffeoyl-YPGKF-NH₂ (8). Peptide (1) is a selective PAR-4 agonist inducing platelet aggregation with an IC₅₀ value of 26.2 μM. Substitution of Ala-1 with Gly-1 resulted in peptide (2), which significantly reduces the agonistic potency of peptide (1) by 25-fold. Importantly, substitution of Ala-1 with trans-cinnamoyl-1 resulted in peptide (7), which completely abolishes the agonistic activity of peptide (1) and renders it with a potent antagonistic activity toward peptide (1)-induced platelet aggregation. All other peptides tested were inactive. Tyr-2, residue, along with its neighboring environment was a key determinant in the PAR-4 recognition mode. When the neighboring residues to Tyr-2 provided an optimum spatial ability for the ligand to enter into the binding site of the transmembrane receptor, a biological response was propagated. These results were compared with the predicted binding poses of small molecule antagonists of PAR-4, denoted as YD-3, ML-354, and BMS-986120. π–π stacking interaction with Tyr-183 appears to be critical and common for both small molecules antagonists and the peptide trans-cinnamoyl-YPGKF-NH₂.

Conclusively, the lipophilicity, size, and aromatic nature of the residue preceding Tyr-2 are determining factors on whether a human platelet PAR-4 tethered-ligand peptide analogue will exert an agonistic or antagonistic activity.     

凝血酶受体拮抗剂的研究进展

血栓栓塞性疾病严重威胁人类健康,应用抗血小板药物是当前主要的治疗手段之一。研究证明,凝血酶受体(又称蛋白酶激活受体-1,PAR-1)被凝血酶激活后,可诱导血小板活化。此外,PAR-1主要参与病理性血栓的形成,对人体正常的止血过程影响很小。因此,PAR-1已成为抗血小板药物研发的新兴靶点。目前,已有多个PAR-1拮抗剂如vorapaxar、F16618、F16357、ML161、RWJ-58259、PZ-128已上市或进入临床研究。综述了PAR-1的结构和作用机制以及小分子拮抗剂和多肽类拮抗剂的研究进展。     

Combination antiplatelet treatment in coronary artery disease patients: A necessary evil or an overzealous practice?

In seeking to improve care in coronary artery disease patients, further platelet inhibition has been occasionally applied beyond that provided by aspirin and a P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist. This review aims to offer insights about the rationale, the efficacy and safety of combination antiplatelet therapy, involving three or more agents. Overall, the use of glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors did not significantly modify the treatment effect of different antiplatelet strategies, including double vs standard clopidogrel, prasugrel vs clopidogrel, ticagrelor vs clopidogrel, cangrelor vs clopidogrel, and vorapaxar vs placebo. With the caveat that the use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor was not randomized, adding such an agent to aspirin and a P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist appears to carry a significantly increased bleeding potential. Moreover, adding vorapaxar to aspirin- and clopidogrel-treated patients is associated with more bleeding events, while the bleeding potential is further exacerbated in cases of quadruplicate antiplatelet treatment including aspirin, clopidogrel, vorapaxar, and a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor. In ST-segment elevation, myocardial infarction patients’ administration of an intravenous antiplatelet agent (GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor or cangrelor), in addition to aspirin and a P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist, efficiently bridges the pharmacodynamic gap of oral agents. Cilostazol on top of aspirin and clopidogrel appears to be safe, although of questionable clinical benefit. In conclusion, combination antiplatelet therapy should be reserved only for selected cases and following thoughtful consideration of the associated risk/benefit ratio.     

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.     

Modern antiplatelet agents in coronary artery disease

Dual antiplatelet therapy is well recognized in the prevention of thrombotic complications of acute coronary syndrome and percutaneous coronary interventions. Despite clinical benefits of aspirin and clopidogrel therapy, a number of limitations curtail their efficacy: slow onset of action, variability in platelet inhibitory response and potential drug–drug interactions. Furthermore, the single platelet-activation pathway targeted by these agents allows continued platelet activation via other pathways, ensuring incomplete protection against ischemic events, thus, underscoring the need for alternate antiplatelet treatment strategies. A number of novel antiplatelet agents are currently in advance development and many have established superior effects on platelet inhibition, clinical outcomes and safety profile than clopidogrel in high-risk patients. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the current status of P2Y12 receptor inhibition and PAR-1 antagonists in determining a future strategy for individualized antiplatelet therapy.     

Review of vorapaxar for the prevention of atherothrombotic events

Introduction: Atherosclerosis is frequently caused by clot blockage of the coronary or peripheral arteries, and may lead to myocardial infarction (MI) or peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Despite advancements in management of atherosclerosis, mortality and ischemic rates remain high. Vorapaxar is a protease activated receptor-1 (PAR-1) antagonist, and prevents thrombin activation of PAR-1 receptors on platelets.

Areas covered: Vorapaxar was studied in 2 landmark trials in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and in those with history of atherosclerosis. For patients with ACS, vorapaxar did not significantly reduce rates of the primary efficacy outcome as compared to placebo. For patients with a history of atherosclerosis, vorapaxar significantly reduced rates of primacy outcome. However, in both landmark trials, vorapaxar significantly increased risks of bleeding, and significantly increases risks of intracranial hemorrhage in patients with a history of stroke. Vorapaxar was approved in 2014 in the US for patients with a history of MI or PAD, and in the European Union for patients with a history of MI.

Expert opinion: Use of vorapaxar may be limited due to its high potential for causing bleeding. Efficacy of vorapaxar in addition to aspirin and prasugrel or ticagrelor for the management of ACS should be studied in the future.     

氘代沃拉帕沙的设计与合成

沃拉帕沙(vorapaxar)是一种新型蛋白酶激活受体1(PAR-1)拮抗剂,可抑制凝血过程。氘代沃拉帕沙作为内标可满足临床样品分析检测的需要。本文以未标记的沃拉帕沙为起始原料,经过水解、缩合、酯交换和氢氘交换4步反应首次高效地合成以D₈为主的氘代沃拉帕沙。所有中间体和终产物均经过核磁和高分辨质谱确证,所制备氘代化合物［D₈］沃拉帕沙满足内标化合物的使用要求。     

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.