Optimized Duration of Clopidogrel Therapy Following Treatment with the Endeavor Zotarolimus-Eluting Stent in Real-World Clinical Practice (OPTIMIZE) Trial: Rationale and design of a large-scale, randomized, multicenter study

Background Current recommendations for antithrombotic therapy after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation include prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel >= 12 months. However, the impact of such a regimen for all patients receiving any DES system remains unclear based on scientific evidence available to date. Also, several other shortcomings have been identified with prolonged DAPT, including bleeding complications, compliance, and cost. The second-generation Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent (E-ZES) has demonstrated efficacy and safety, despite short duration DAPT (3 months) in the majority of studies. Still, the safety and clinical impact of short-term DAPT with E-ZES in the real world is yet to be determined. Methods The OPTIMIZE trial is a large, prospective, multicenter, randomized (1: 1) non-inferiority clinical evaluation of short-term (3 months) vs long-term (12-months) DAPT in patients undergoing E-ZES implantation in daily clinical practice. Overall, 3,120 patients were enrolled at 33 clinical sites in Brazil. The primary composite endpoint is death (any cause), myocardial infarction, cerebral vascular accident, and major bleeding at 12-month clinical follow-up post-index procedure. Conclusions The OPTIMIZE clinical trial will determine the clinical implications of DAPT duration with the second generation E-ZES in real-world patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. (Am Heart J 2012;164:810-816.e3.)

US Food and Drug Administration approval of generic versions of complex biologics: implications for the practicing physician using low molecular weight heparins

Low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWHs) have shown equivalent or superior efficacy and safety to unfractionated heparin as antithrombotic therapy for patients with acute coronary syndromes. Each approved LMWH is a pleotropic biological agent with a unique chemical, biochemical, biophysical and biological profile and displays different pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles. As a result, LMWHs are neither equipotent in preclinical assays nor equivalent in terms of their clinical efficacy and safety. Previously, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautioned against using various LMWHs interchangeably, however recently, the FDA approved generic versions of LMWH that have not been tested in large clinical trials. This paper highlights the bio-chemical and pharmacological differences between the LMWH preparations that may result in different clinical outcomes, and also reviews the implications and challenges physicians face when generic versions of the original/innovator agents are approved for clinical use.