Stent thrombosis with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes: an analysis from the prospective, randomized PLATO trial

BACKGROUND We aimed to describe the effects of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel on stent thrombosis in the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. METHODS AND RESULTS Of 18 624 patients hospitalized for acute coronary syndromes, 11 289 (61%) had at least 1 intracoronary stent. Ticagrelor reduced stent thrombosis compared with clopidogrel across all definitions: definite, 1.37% (n=71) versus 1.93% (n=105; hazard ratio [HR], 0.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.90; P=0.0091); definite or probable, 2.21% (n=118) versus 2.87% (n=157; HR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.59-0.95; P=0.017); and definite, probable, and possible, 2.94% (n=154) versus 3.77 (n=201; HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.62-0.95). The reduction in definite stent thrombosis was consistent regardless of acute coronary syndrome type, presence of diabetes mellitus, stent type (drug-eluting or bare metal stent), CYP2C19 genetic status, loading dose of aspirin, dose of clopidogrel before randomization, and use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors at randomization. The reduction in stent thrombosis with ticagrelor was numerically greater for late (>30 days; HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.24-0.96) and subacute (4 hours-30 days; HR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.39-0.93) compared with acute (<24 hours; HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.43-2.05) stent thrombosis or for patients compliant to therapy (ie, taking blinded study treatment ≥80% of the time) compared with less compliant patients. Randomization to ticagrelor was a strong independent inverse predictor of definite stent thrombosis (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.48-0.88). CONCLUSION Ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel reduces the incidence of stent thrombosis in patients with acute coronary syndromes, with consistent benefit across a broad range of patient, stent, and treatment characteristics.

Safety profile of prasugrel and clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes in Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE To assess safety up to 1 year of follow-up associated with prasugrel and clopidogrel use in a prospective cohort of patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). METHODS Between 2009 and 2012, 2286 patients invasively managed for ACS were enrolled in the multicentre Swiss ACS Bleeding Cohort, among whom 2148 patients received either prasugrel or clopidogrel according to current guidelines. Patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) preferentially received prasugrel, while those with non-STEMI, a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attack, age ≥75 years, or weight <60 kg received clopidogrel or reduced dose of prasugrel to comply with the prasugrel label. RESULTS After adjustment using propensity scores, the primary end point of clinically relevant bleeding events (defined as the composite of Bleeding Academic Research Consortium, BARC, type 3, 4 or 5 bleeding) at 1 year, occurred at a similar rate in both patient groups (prasugrel/clopidogrel: 3.8%/5.5%). Stratified analyses in subgroups including patients with STEMI yielded a similar safety profile. After adjusting for baseline variables, no relevant differences in major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were observed at 1 year (prasugrel/clopidogrel: cardiac death 2.6%/4.2%, myocardial infarction 2.7%/3.8%, revascularisation 5.9%/6.7%, stroke 1.0%/1.6%). Of note, this study was not designed to compare efficacy between prasugrel and clopidogrel. CONCLUSIONS In this large prospective ACS cohort, patients treated with prasugrel according to current guidelines (ie, in patients without cerebrovascular disease, old age or underweight) had a similar safety profile compared with patients treated with clopidogrel. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER SPUM-ACS: NCT01000701; COMFORTABLE AMI: NCT00962416.

A review of antithrombotic therapy and the rationale and design of the randomized edoxaban in patients with peripheral artery disease (ePAD) trial adding edoxaban or clopidogrel to aspirin after femoropopliteal endovascular intervention.

Compared with the coronary setting, knowledge about antithrombotic therapies after endovascular treatment (EVT) is inadequate in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Based on a review of trials and guidelines, which is summarized in this article, there is scant evidence that antithrombotic drugs improve outcome after peripheral EVT. To address this knowledge gap, the randomized, open-label, multinational edoxaban in patients with Peripheral Artery Disease (ePAD) study (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT01802775) was designed to explore the safety and efficacy of a combined regimen of antiplatelet therapy with clopidogrel and anticoagulation with edoxaban, a selective and direct factor Xa inhibitor, both combined with aspirin. As of July 2014, 203 patients (144 men; mean age 67 years) from 7 countries have been enrolled. These patients have been allocated to once-daily edoxaban [60 mg for 3 months (or 30 mg in the presence of factors associated with increased exposure)] or clopidogrel (75 mg/d for 3 months). All patients received aspirin (100 mg/d) for the 6-month duration of the study. The primary safety endpoint is major or clinically relevant nonmajor bleeding; the primary efficacy endpoint is restenosis or reocclusion at the treated segment(s) measured at 1, 3, and 6 months using duplex ultrasound scanning. All outcomes will be assessed and adjudicated centrally in a masked fashion. The ePAD study is the first of its kind to investigate a combined regimen of antiplatelet therapy and anticoagulation through factor Xa inhibition with edoxaban.

Safety of Prasugrel Loading Doses in Patients Pre-Loaded With Clopidogrel in the Setting of Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Results of a Nonrandomized Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to assess the safety of the concurrent administration of a clopidogrel and prasugrel loading dose in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. BACKGROUND Prasugrel is one of the preferred P2Y12 platelet receptor antagonists for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients. The use of prasugrel was evaluated clinically in clopidogrel-naive patients. METHODS Between September 2009 and October 2012, a total of 2,023 STEMI patients were enrolled in the COMFORTABLE (Comparison of Biomatrix Versus Gazelle in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction [STEMI]) and the SPUM-ACS (Inflammation and Acute Coronary Syndromes) studies. Patients receiving a prasugrel loading dose were divided into 2 groups: 1) clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose; and 2) a prasugrel loading dose. The primary safety endpoint was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium types 3 to 5 bleeding in hospital at 30 days. RESULTS Of 2,023 patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, 427 (21.1%) received clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose, 447 (22.1%) received a prasugrel loading dose alone, and the remaining received clopidogrel only. At 30 days, the primary safety endpoint was observed in 1.9% of those receiving clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose and 3.4% of those receiving a prasugrel loading dose alone (adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.25 to 1.30, p = 0.18). The HAS-BLED (hypertension, abnormal renal/liver function, stroke, bleeding history or predisposition, labile international normalized ratio, elderly, drugs/alcohol concomitantly) bleeding score tended to be higher in prasugrel-treated patients (p = 0.076). The primary safety endpoint results, however, remained unchanged after adjustment for these differences (clopidogrel and a subsequent prasugrel loading dose vs. prasugrel only; HR: 0.54 [95% CI: 0.23 to 1.27], p = 0.16). No differences in the composite of cardiac death, myocardial infarction, or stroke were observed at 30 days (adjusted HR: 0.66, 95% CI: 0.27 to 1.62, p = 0.36). CONCLUSIONS This observational, nonrandomized study of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients suggests that the administration of a loading dose of prasugrel in patients pre-treated with a loading dose of clopidogrel is not associated with an excess of major bleeding events. (Comparison of Biomatrix Versus Gazelle in ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction [STEMI] [COMFORTABLE]; NCT00962416; and Inflammation and Acute Coronary Syndromes [SPUM-ACS]; NCT01000701).

Comparison of prasugrel and clopidogrel-treated patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A propensity score-matched analysis of the Acute Myocardial Infarction in Switzerland (AMIS)-Plus Registry

OBJECTIVE The purpose of this study was to investigate outcomes of patients treated with prasugrel or clopidogrel after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in a nationwide acute coronary syndrome (ACS) registry. BACKGROUND Prasugrel was found to be superior to clopidogrel in a randomized trial of ACS patients undergoing PCI. However, little is known about its efficacy in everyday practice. METHODS All ACS patients enrolled in the Acute Myocardial Infarction in Switzerland (AMIS)-Plus registry undergoing PCI and being treated with a thienopyridine P2Y12 inhibitor between January 2010-December 2013 were included in this analysis. Patients were stratified according to treatment with prasugrel or clopidogrel and outcomes were compared using propensity score matching. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, recurrent infarction and stroke at hospital discharge. RESULTS Out of 7621 patients, 2891 received prasugrel (38%) and 4730 received clopidogrel (62%). Independent predictors of in-hospital mortality were age, Killip class >2, STEMI, Charlson comorbidity index >1, and resuscitation prior to admission. After propensity score matching (2301 patients per group), the primary endpoint was significantly lower in prasugrel-treated patients (3.0% vs 4.3%; p=0.022) while bleeding events were more frequent (4.1% vs 3.0%; p=0.048). In-hospital mortality was significantly reduced (1.8% vs 3.1%; p=0.004), but no significant differences were observed in rates of recurrent infarction (0.8% vs 0.7%; p=1.00) or stroke (0.5% vs 0.6%; p=0.85). In a predefined subset of matched patients with one-year follow-up (n=1226), mortality between discharge and one year was not significantly reduced in prasugrel-treated patients (1.3% vs 1.9%, p=0.38). CONCLUSIONS In everyday practice in Switzerland, prasugrel is predominantly used in younger patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI. A propensity score-matched analysis suggests a mortality benefit from prasugrel compared with clopidogrel in these patients.

Upstream clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor for patients treated with primary angioplasty: Results of an angiographic randomized pilot study.

OBJETIVES The main objective of the present randomized pilot study was to explore the effects of upstream prasugrel or ticagrelor or clopidogrel for patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). BACKGROUND Administration of clopidogrel "as soon as possible" has been advocated for STEMI. Pretreatment with prasugrel and ticagrelor may improve reperfusion. Currently, the angiographic effects of upstream administration of these agents are poorly understood. METHODS A total of 132 patients with STEMI within the first 12 hr of chest pain referred to primary angioplasty were randomized to upstream clopidogrel (600 mg), prasugrel (60 mg), or ticagrelor (180 mg) while still in the emergency room. All patients underwent protocol-mandated thrombus aspiration. RESULTS Macroscopic thrombus material was retrieved in 79.5% of the clopidogrel group, 65.9% of the prasugrel group, and 54.3% of the ticagrelor group (P = 0.041). At baseline angiography, large thrombus burden was 97.7% vs. 87.8% vs. 80.4% in the clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor groups, respectively (P = 0.036). Also, at baseline, 97.7% presented with an occluded target vessel in the clopidogrel group, 87.8% in the prasugrel group and 78.3% in the ticagrelor group (P = 0.019). At the end of the procedure, the percentages of patients with combined TIMI grade III flow and myocardial blush grade III were 52.3% for clopidogrel, 80.5% for prasugrel, and 67.4% for ticagrelor (P = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS In patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI within 12 hr, upstream clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor have varying angiographic findings, with a trend toward better results for the latter two agents. © 2015 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A randomised controlled trial of triple antiplatelet therapy (Aspirin, Clopidogrel and Dipyridamole) in the secondary prevention of stroke: safety, tolerability and feasibility

Background: Aspirin, dipyridamole and clopidogrel are effective in secondary vascular prevention. Combination therapy with three antiplatelet agents might maximise the benefit of antiplatelet treatment in the secondary prevention of ischaemic stroke. Methodology/Principal Findings: A randomised, parallel group, observer-blinded phase II trial compared the combination of aspirin, clopidogrel and dipyridamole with aspirin alone. Adult patients with ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack (TIA) within 5 years were included. The primary outcome was tolerability to treatment assessed as the number of patients completing randomised treatment. Recruitment was halted prematurely after publication of the ESPRIT trial (which confirmed that combined aspirin and dipyridamole is more effective than aspirin alone). 17 patients were enrolled: male 12 (71%), mean age 62 (SD 13) years, lacunar stroke syndrome 12 (71%), median stroke/TIA onset to randomisation 8 months. Treatment was discontinued in 4 of 9 (44%) patients receiving triple therapy vs. none of 8 taking aspirin (p = 0.08). One recurrent stroke occurred in a patient in the triple group who was noncompliant of all antiplatelet medications. The number of patients with adverse events and bleeding complications, and their severity, were significantly greater in the triple therapy group (p,0.01). Conclusions/Significance: Long term triple antiplatelet therapy was asociated with a significant increase in adverse events and bleeding rates, and their severity, and a trend to increased discontinuations. However, the patients had a low risk of recurrence and future trials should focus on short term therapy in high risk patients characterised by a very recent event or failure of dual antiplatelet therapy.

Aspirin and extended-release dipyridamole versus clopidogrel for recurrent stroke

Background Recurrent stroke is a frequent, disabling event after ischemic stroke. This study compared the efficacy and safety of two antiplatelet regimens — aspirin plus extendedrelease dipyridamole (ASA–ERDP) versus clopidogrel. Methods In this double-blind, 2-by-2 factorial trial, we randomly assigned patients to receive 25 mg of aspirin plus 200 mg of extended-release dipyridamole twice daily or to receive 75 mg of clopidogrel daily. The primary outcome was first recurrence of stroke. The secondary outcome was a composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death from vascular causes. Sequential statistical testing of noninferiority (margin of 1.075), followed by superiority testing, was planned. Results A total of 20,332 patients were followed for a mean of 2.5 years. Recurrent stroke occurred in 916 patients (9.0%) receiving ASA–ERDP and in 898 patients (8.8%) receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.11). The secondary outcome occurred in 1333 patients (13.1%) in each group (hazard ratio for ASA–ERDP, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.07). There were more major hemorrhagic events among ASA–ERDP recipients (419 [4.1%]) than among clopidogrel recipients (365 [3.6%]) (hazard ratio, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.32), including intracranial hemorrhage (hazard ratio, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.11 to 1.83). The net risk of recurrent stroke or major hemorrhagic event was similar in the two groups (1194 ASA–ERDP recipients [11.7%], vs. 1156 clopidogrel recipients [11.4%]; hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.11). Conclusions The trial did not meet the predefined criteria for noninferiority but showed similar rates of recurrent stroke with ASA–ERDP and with clopidogrel. There is no evidence that either of the two treatments was superior to the other in the prevention of recurrent stroke. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00153062.)

Hepatitis tóxica colestástica por clopidogrel en un paciente pluripatológico

El clopidogrel es un fármaco antiagregante de la familia de la tienopiridinas muy utilizado en pacientes con cardiopatía isquémica, ictus y arteriopatía periférica. La toxicidad hepática por este fármaco es muy infrecuente. En la bibliografía únicamente se han descrito 16 casos, y solo en dos de ellos se practicó una biopsia hepática. Se presenta el caso de un paciente de 78 años pluripatológico que presentó una hepatitis tóxica colestásica severa por este fármaco y los hallazgos de la biopsia hepática que se le realizó. El cuadro se resolvió tras la retirada del fármaco. En base a los hallazgos de nuestro caso y los de los casos previamente publicados se revisan las características de la hepatitis tóxica por clopidogrel y su manejo diagnóstico y terapéutico.