Ticagrelor, a platelet aggregation inhibitor for the potential prevention and treatment of arterial thrombosis and acute coronary syndromes

Ticagrelor is an orally active ADP P2Y12 receptor antagonist in development by AstraZeneca plc for the reduction of recurrent ischemic events in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Prior to the development of ticagrelor, thienopyridine compounds, such as clopidogrel, were the focus of research into therapies for ACS. Although the thienopyridines are effective platelet aggregation inhibitors, they are prodrugs and, consequently, exert a slow onset of action. In addition, the variability in inter-individual metabolism of thienopyridine prodrugs has been associated with reduced efficacy in some patients. Ticagrelor is not a prodrug and exhibits a more rapid onset of action than the thienopyridine prodrugs. In clinical trials conducted to date, ticagrelor was a potent inhibitor of ADP-induced platelet aggregation and demonstrated effects that were comparable to clopidogrel. In a phase II, short-term trial, the bleeding profile of participants treated with ticagrelor was similar to that obtained with clopidogrel; however, an increased incidence of dyspnea was observed - an effect that has not been reported with the thienopyridines. Considering the occurrence of dyspnea, and the apparent non-superiority of ticagrelor to clopidogrel, it is difficult to justify a clear benefit to the continued development of ticagrelor. Outcomes from an ongoing phase III trial comparing ticagrelor with clopidogrel in 18,000 patients with ACS are likely to impact on the future development of ticagrelor.

Economic Evaluation of Ticagrelor for Secondary Prevention Following Acute Coronary Syndromes

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: To estimate the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of ticagrelor in the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndromes (unstable angina or myocardial infarction with or without ST-segment elevation), including patients treated medically and those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting. METHODS: A short-term decision tree and a long-term Markov model were used to simulate the evolution of patients' life-cycles. Clinical effectiveness data were collected from the PLATO trial and resource use data were obtained from the Hospital de Santa Marta database, disease-related group legislation and the literature. RESULTS: Ticagrelor provides increases of 0.1276 life years and 0.1106 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per patient. From a societal perspective these clinical gains entail an increase in expenditure of €610. Thus the incremental cost per life year saved is €4780 and the incremental cost per QALY is €5517. CONCLUSIONS: The simulation results show that ticagrelor reduces events compared to clopidogrel. The costs of ticagrelor are partially offset by lower costs arising from events prevented. The use of ticagrelor in clinical practice is therefore cost-effective compared to generic clopidogrel.

Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes and a History of Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack

Background-Patients with acute coronary syndromes and history of stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) have an increased rate of recurrent cardiac events and intracranial hemorrhages. Methods and Results-We evaluated treatment effects of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome with and without a history of prior stroke or TIA in the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Of the 18 624 randomized patients, 1152 (6.2%) had a history of stroke or TIA. Such patients had higher rates of myocardial infarction (11.5% versus 6.0%), death (10.5% versus 4.9%), stroke (3.4% versus 1.2%), and intracranial bleeding (0.8% versus 0.2%) than patients without prior stroke or TIA. Among patients with a history of stroke or TIA, the reduction of the primary composite outcome and total mortality at 1 year with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel was consistent with the overall trial results: 19.0% versus 20.8% (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.13; interaction P=0.84) and 7.9% versus 13.0% (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.91). The overall PLATO-defined bleeding rates were similar: 14.6% versus 14.9% (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.37), and intracranial bleeding occurred infrequently (4 versus 4 cases, respectively). Conclusions-Patients with acute coronary syndrome with a prior history of ischemic stroke or TIA had higher rates of clinical outcomes than patients without prior stroke or TIA. However, the efficacy and bleeding results of ticagrelor in these high-risk patients were consistent with the overall trial population, with a favorable clinical net benefit and associated impact on mortality.

Association of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use on Cardiovascular Outcomes With Clopidogrel and Ticagrelor Insights From the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes Trial

Background-The clinical significance of the interaction between clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) remains unclear. Methods and Results-We examined the relationship between PPI use and 1-year cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) in patients with acute coronary syndrome randomized to clopidogrel or ticagrelor in a prespecified, nonrandomized subgroup analysis of the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. The primary end point rates were higher for individuals on a PPI (n = 6539) compared with those not on a PPI (n = 12 060) at randomization in both the clopidogrel (13.0% versus 10.9%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.20; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 -1.38) and ticagrelor (11.0% versus 9.2%; HR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.07-1.45) groups. Patients on non-PPI gastrointestinal drugs had similar primary end point rates compared with those on a PPI (PPI versus non-PPI gastrointestinal treatment: clopidogrel, HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79-1.23; ticagrelor, HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.10). In contrast, patients on no gastric therapy had a significantly lower primary end point rate (PPI versus no gastrointestinal treatment: clopidogrel, HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.12-1.49; ticagrelor, HR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.14-1.49). Conclusions-The use of a PPI was independently associated with a higher rate of cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving clopidogrel. However, a similar association was observed between cardiovascular events and PPI use during ticagrelor treatment and with other non-PPI gastrointestinal treatment. Therefore, in the PLATO trial, the association between PPI use and adverse events may be due to confounding, with PPI use more of a marker for, than a cause of, higher rates of cardiovascular events.

Cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor and generic clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome in Switzerland

QUESTION UNDER STUDY The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor and generic clopidogrel as add-on therapy to acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), from a Swiss perspective. METHODS Based on the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial, one-year mean healthcare costs per patient treated with ticagrelor or generic clopidogrel were analysed from a payer perspective in 2011. A two-part decision-analytic model estimated treatment costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), life years and the cost-effectiveness of ticagrelor and generic clopidogrel in patients with ACS up to a lifetime at a discount of 2.5% per annum. Sensitivity analyses were performed. RESULTS Over a patient's lifetime, treatment with ticagrelor generates an additional 0.1694 QALYs and 0.1999 life years at a cost of CHF 260 compared with generic clopidogrel. This results in an Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) of CHF 1,536 per QALY and CHF 1,301 per life year gained. Ticagrelor dominated generic clopidogrel over the five-year and one-year periods with treatment generating cost savings of CHF 224 and 372 while gaining 0.0461 and 0.0051 QALYs and moreover 0.0517 and 0.0062 life years, respectively. Univariate sensitivity analyses confirmed the dominant position of ticagrelor in the first five years and probabilistic sensitivity analyses showed a high probability of cost-effectiveness over a lifetime. CONCLUSION During the first five years after ACS, treatment with ticagrelor dominates generic clopidogrel in Switzerland. Over a patient's lifetime, ticagrelor is highly cost-effective compared with generic clopidogrel, proven by ICERs significantly below commonly accepted willingness-to-pay thresholds.

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.

Effect of ticagrelor on the outcomes of patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery: insights from the PLATelet inhibition and patient outcomes (PLATO) trial

BACKGROUND Patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) who present with an acute coronary syndrome have a high risk for recurrent events. Whether intensive antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor might be beneficial compared with clopidogrel is unknown. In this substudy of the PLATO trial, we studied the effects of randomized treatment dependent on history of CABG. METHODS Patients participating in PLATO were classified according to whether they had undergone prior CABG. The trial's primary and secondary end points were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS Of the 18,613 study patients, 1,133 (6.1%) had prior CABG. Prior-CABG patients had more high-risk characteristics at study entry and a 2-fold increase in clinical events during follow-up, but less major bleeding. The primary end point (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) was reduced to a similar extent by ticagrelor among patients with (19.6% vs 21.4%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.91 [0.67, 1.24]) and without (9.2% vs 11.0%; adjusted HR, 0.86 [0.77, 0.96]; P(interaction) = .73) prior CABG. Major bleeding was similar with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel among patients with (8.1% vs 8.7%; adjusted HR, 0.89 [0.55, 1.47]) and without (11.8% vs 11.4%; HR, 1.08 [0.98, 1.20]; P(interaction) = .46) prior CABG. CONCLUSIONS Prior-CABG patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome are a high-risk cohort for death and recurrent cardiovascular events but have a lower risk for major bleeding. Similar to the results in no-prior-CABG patients, ticagrelor was associated with a reduction in ischemic events without an increase in major bleeding.

Extent of coronary artery disease and outcomes after ticagrelor administration in patients with an acute coronary syndrome: Insights from the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial.

BACKGROUND Extensive coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with higher risk. In this substudy of the PLATO trial, we examined the effects of randomized treatment on outcome events and safety in relation to the extent of CAD. METHODS Patients were classified according to presence of extensive CAD (defined as 3-vessel disease, left main disease, or prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery). The trial's primary and secondary end points were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS Among 15,388 study patients for whom the extent of CAD was known, 4,646 (30%) had extensive CAD. Patients with extensive CAD had more high-risk characteristics and experienced more clinical events during follow-up. They were less likely to undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (58% vs 79%, P < .001) but more likely to undergo coronary artery bypass graft surgery (16% vs 2%, P < .001). Ticagrelor, compared with clopidogrel, reduced the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in patients with extensive CAD (14.9% vs 17.6%, hazard ratio [HR] 0.85 [0.73-0.98]) similar to its reduction in those without extensive CAD (6.8% vs 8.0%, HR 0.85 [0.74-0.98], Pinteraction = .99). Major bleeding was similar with ticagrelor vs clopidogrel among patients with (25.7% vs 25.5%, HR 1.02 [0.90-1.15]) and without (7.3% vs 6.4%, HR 1.14 [0.98-1.33], Pinteraction = .24) extensive CAD. CONCLUSIONS Patients with extensive CAD have higher rates of recurrent cardiovascular events and bleeding. Ticagrelor reduced ischemic events to a similar extent both in patients with and without extensive CAD, with bleeding rates similar to clopidogrel.

Long-term ticagrelor monotherapy versus standard dual antiplatelet therapy followed by aspirin monotherapy in patients undergoing biolimus-eluting stent implantation: rationale and design of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial

AIMS The GLOBAL LEADERS trial is a superiority study in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, with a uniform use of Biolimus A9-eluting stents (BES) and bivalirudin. GLOBAL LEADERS was designed to assess whether a 24-month antithrombotic regimen with ticagrelor and one month of acetylsalicylic acid (ASA), compared to conventional dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), improves outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS Patients (n >16,000) are randomised (1:1 ratio) to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily for 24 months plus ASA ≤100 mg for one month versus DAPT with either ticagrelor (acute coronary syndrome) or clopidogrel (stable coronary artery disease) for 12 months plus ASA ≤100 mg for 24 months. The primary outcome is a composite of all-cause mortality or non-fatal, new Q-wave myocardial infarction at 24 months. The key safety endpoint is investigator-reported class 3 or 5 bleeding according to the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) definitions. Sensitivity analysis will be carried out to explore potential differences in outcome across geographic regions and according to specific angiographic and clinical risk estimates. CONCLUSIONS The GLOBAL LEADERS trial aims to assess the role of ticagrelor as a single antiplatelet agent after a short course of DAPT for the long-term prevention of cardiac adverse events, across a wide spectrum of patients, following BES implantation.

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.

Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor for Long-term Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombotic Events in Relation to Renal Function: Insights from the PEGASUS TIMI-54 trial

Aims: We evaluated the relationship of renal function and ischaemic and bleeding risk as well as the efficacy and safety of the P2Y12 platelet receptor inhibitor ticagrelor in stable patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI). Methods & Results: Patients with a history of MI 1-3 years prior from the Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients with Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin (PEGASUS)-TIMI 54 were stratified based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), with<60 ml/min/1.73m2 prespecified for analysis of the effect of ticagrelor on the primary efficacy composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke (MACE) and the primary safety endpoint of TIMI major bleeding. Of 20,898 patients, those with eGFR<60 (N=4,849, 23.2%) had a greater risk of MACE at 3 years relative to those without, which remained significant after multivariable adjustment (HRadj 1.54, 95% CI 1.27–1.85, p<0.001). The relative risk reduction in MACE with ticagrelor was similar in those with eGFR<60 (ticagrelor pooled vs. placebo: HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.68–0.96) vs. ≥60 (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.77–1.00, pinteraction=0.44). However, due to the greater absolute risk in the former group, the absolute risk reduction with ticagrelor was higher: 2.7% vs. 0.63%. Bleeding tended to occur more frequently in patients with renal dysfunction. The absolute increase in TIMI major bleeding with ticagrelor was similar in those with and without eGFR<60 (1.19% vs. 1.43%), whereas the excess of minor bleeding tended to be more pronounced (1.93% vs. 0.69%). Conclusion: In patients with a history of MI, patients with renal dysfunction are at increased risk of MACE and consequently experience a particularly robust absolute risk reduction with long-term treatment with ticagrelor.

New drugs for the treatment of coronary artery syndromes

Background: Acute coronary syndromes are a major cause of mortality and morbidity. Objectives/Methods: The objective of this evaluation is to review the clinical trials of two new drugs being developed for the treatment of acute coronary syndromes. The first drug is the anti-coagulant otamixaban, and the trial compared otamixaban with unfractionated heparin and eptifibatide in acute coronary syndromes. The second drug is the anti-platelet ticagrelor, and the trial compared ticagrelor with clopidogrel in acute coronary syndromes. Results: In the SEPIA-ACS1 TIMI 42 trial, the primary efficacy endpoint occurred in 6.2% of subjects treated with unfractionated heparin and eptifibatide, and to a significantly lesser extent with otamixaban. In the PLATO trial, the primary efficacy endpoint had occurred less in the ticagrelor group (9.8%) than in the clopidogrel group (11.7%) at 12 months. Conclusions: Two new drugs for acute coronary syndromes, otamixaban and ticagrelor, have recently been shown to have benefits in subjects undergoing percutaneous interventions compared to the present standard regimens for this condition.

Antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease.

The choice and duration of antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of coronary artery disease (CAD) is determined by the clinical context and treatment strategy. Oral antiplatelet agents for secondary prevention include the cyclo-oxygenase-1 inhibitor aspirin, and the ADP dependent P2Y12 inhibitors clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor. Aspirin constitutes the cornerstone in secondary prevention of CAD and is complemented by clopidogrel in patients with stable CAD undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Among patients with acute coronary syndrome, prasugrel and ticagrelor improve net clinical outcome by reducing ischaemic adverse events at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding as compared with clopidogrel. Prasugrel appears particularly effective among patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction to reduce the risk of stent thrombosis compared with clopidogrel, and offered a greater net clinical benefit among patients with diabetes compared with patients without diabetes. Ticagrelor is associated with reduced mortality without increasing the rate of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG)-related bleeding as compared with clopidogrel. Dual antiplatelet therapy should be continued for a minimum of 1 year among patients with acute coronary syndrome irrespective of stent type; among patients with stable CAD treated with new generation drug-eluting stents, available data suggest no benefit to prolong antiplatelet treatment beyond 6 months.