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.

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.

Toxicity of thienopyridines on human neutrophil granulocytes and lymphocytes

Thienopyridines can cause neutropenia and agranulocytosis. The aim of the current investigations was to compare cytotoxicity of ticlopidine, clopidogrel, clopidogrel carboxylate and prasugrel for human neutrophil granulocytes with the toxicity for lymphocytes and to investigate underlying mechanisms. For granulocytes, clopidogrel, ticlopidine, clopidogrel carboxylate and prasugrel were concentration-dependently toxic starting at 10μM. Cytotoxicity could be prevented by the myeloperoxidase inhibitor rutin, but not by the cytochrome P450 inhibitor ketoconazole. All compounds were also toxic for lymphocytes, but cytotoxicity started at 100μM and could not be prevented by rutin or ketoconazole. Granulocytes metabolized ticlopidine, clopidogrel, clopidogrel carboxylate and prasugrel, and metabolization was inhibited by rutin, but not by ketoconazole. Metabolism of these compounds by lymphocytes was much slower and could not be inhibited by ketoconazole or rutin. In neutrophils, all compounds investigated decreased the electrical potential across the inner mitochondrial membrane, were associated with cellular accumulation of ROS, mitochondrial loss of cytochrome c and induction of apoptosis starting at 10μM. All of these effects could be inhibited by rutin, but not by ketoconazole. Similar findings were obtained in lymphocytes; but compared to neutrophils, the effects were detectable only at higher concentrations and were not inhibited by rutin. In conclusion, ticlopidine, clopidogrel, clopidogrel carboxylate and prasugrel are toxic for both granulocytes and lymphocytes. In granulocytes, cytotoxicity is more accentuated than in lymphocytes and depends on metabolization by myeloperoxidase. These findings suggest a mitochondrial mechanism for cytotoxicity for both myeloperoxidase-associated metabolites and, at higher concentrations, also for the parent compounds.

Diabetes and acute coronary syndromes

Diabetic patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) are at a high risk for subsequent cardiovascular events but derive, at the same time, greater benefit from evidence-based therapy than non-diabetic individuals. State-of-the-art anti-thrombotic therapy includes a triple anti-platelet combination - aspirin, clopidogrel and glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa receptor inhibitors - and unfractionated heparin or enoxaparin. For low- or medium-risk individuals, a treatment based on aspirin, clopidogrel and bivalirudin is a valuable alternative. Prasugrel, a new and more potent inhibitor of the platelet P2Y(12) receptor, has to be regarded as the most promising anti-thrombotic agent for diabetic patients with ACS. This agent may replace clopidogrel - and possibly GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors - in the future. In addition to aggressive anti-thrombotic therapy, diabetic patients should undergo systematic early invasive angiography if presenting with non-ST-segment elevation ACS, and immediate percutaneous coronary intervention if presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. Indeed, the benefit derived from these strategies appears to be more pronounced in the diabetic population than in non-diabetic individuals. Despite the benefit, multiple surveys have demonstrated that, in the setting of ACS, diabetic patients receive evidence-based therapy less frequently than non-diabetic counterparts.

Twelve or 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents.

BACKGROUND Dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended after coronary stenting to prevent thrombotic complications, yet the benefits and risks of treatment beyond 1 year are uncertain. METHODS Patients were enrolled after they had undergone a coronary stent procedure in which a drug-eluting stent was placed. After 12 months of treatment with a thienopyridine drug (clopidogrel or prasugrel) and aspirin, patients were randomly assigned to continue receiving thienopyridine treatment or to receive placebo for another 18 months; all patients continued receiving aspirin. The coprimary efficacy end points were stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) during the period from 12 to 30 months. The primary safety end point was moderate or severe bleeding. RESULTS A total of 9961 patients were randomly assigned to continue thienopyridine treatment or to receive placebo. Continued treatment with thienopyridine, as compared with placebo, reduced the rates of stent thrombosis (0.4% vs. 1.4%; hazard ratio, 0.29 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.17 to 0.48]; P<0.001) and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (4.3% vs. 5.9%; hazard ratio, 0.71 [95% CI, 0.59 to 0.85]; P<0.001). The rate of myocardial infarction was lower with thienopyridine treatment than with placebo (2.1% vs. 4.1%; hazard ratio, 0.47; P<0.001). The rate of death from any cause was 2.0% in the group that continued thienopyridine therapy and 1.5% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.00 to 1.85]; P=0.05). The rate of moderate or severe bleeding was increased with continued thienopyridine treatment (2.5% vs. 1.6%, P=0.001). An elevated risk of stent thrombosis and myocardial infarction was observed in both groups during the 3 months after discontinuation of thienopyridine treatment. CONCLUSIONS Dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 1 year after placement of a drug-eluting stent, as compared with aspirin therapy alone, significantly reduced the risks of stent thrombosis and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events but was associated with an increased risk of bleeding. (Funded by a consortium of eight device and drug manufacturers and others; DAPT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00977938.).

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.

Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial.

BACKGROUND It is unclear whether radial compared with femoral access improves outcomes in unselected patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management. METHODS We did a randomised, multicentre, superiority trial comparing transradial against transfemoral access in patients with acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction who were about to undergo coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients were randomly allocated (1:1) to radial or femoral access with a web-based system. The randomisation sequence was computer generated, blocked, and stratified by use of ticagrelor or prasugrel, type of acute coronary syndrome (ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, troponin positive or negative, non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome), and anticipated use of immediate percutaneous coronary intervention. Outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. The 30-day coprimary outcomes were major adverse cardiovascular events, defined as death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, and net adverse clinical events, defined as major adverse cardiovascular events or Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery. The analysis was by intention to treat. The two-sided α was prespecified at 0·025. The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01433627. FINDINGS We randomly assigned 8404 patients with acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation, to radial (4197) or femoral (4207) access for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention. 369 (8·8%) patients with radial access had major adverse cardiovascular events, compared with 429 (10·3%) patients with femoral access (rate ratio [RR] 0·85, 95% CI 0·74-0·99; p=0·0307), non-significant at α of 0·025. 410 (9·8%) patients with radial access had net adverse clinical events compared with 486 (11·7%) patients with femoral access (0·83, 95% CI 0·73-0·96; p=0·0092). The difference was driven by BARC major bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass graft surgery (1·6% vs 2·3%, RR 0·67, 95% CI 0·49-0·92; p=0·013) and all-cause mortality (1·6% vs 2·2%, RR 0·72, 95% CI 0·53-0·99; p=0·045). INTERPRETATION In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing invasive management, radial as compared with femoral access reduces net adverse clinical events, through a reduction in major bleeding and all-cause mortality. FUNDING The Medicines Company and Terumo.

Clinical impact of gastrointestinal bleeding in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.

BACKGROUND The risk factors and clinical sequelae of gastrointestinal bleeding (GIB) in the current era of drug-eluting stents, prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, and potent P2Y12 inhibitors are not well established. We determined the frequency, predictors, and clinical impact of GIB after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs) in a contemporary cohort of consecutive patients treated with unrestricted use of drug-eluting stents. METHODS AND RESULTS Between 2009 and 2012, all consecutive patients undergoing PCI were prospectively included in the Bern PCI Registry. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) GIB and cardiovascular outcomes were recorded within 1 year of follow-up. Among 6212 patients, 84.1% received new-generation drug-eluting stents and 19.5% received prasugrel. At 1 year, GIB had occurred in 65 patients (1.04%); 70.8% of all events and 84.4% of BARC ≥3B events were recorded >30 days after PCI. The majority of events (64.4%) were related to upper GIB with a more delayed time course compared with lower GIB. Increasing age, previous GIB, history of malignancy, smoking, and triple antithrombotic therapy (ie, oral anticoagulation plus dual antiplatelet therapy) were independent predictors of GIB in multivariable analysis. GIB was associated with increased all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.67-6.92; P=0.001) and the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.75; 95% confidence interval, 1.99-7.07; P<0.001) and was an independent predictor of all-cause mortality during 1 year. CONCLUSIONS Among unselected patients undergoing PCI, GIB has a profound effect on prognosis. Triple antithrombotic therapy emerged as the single drug-related predictor of GIB in addition to patient-related risk factors within 1 year of PCI. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02241291.

Very Late Scaffold Thrombosis: Intracoronary Imaging and Histopathological and Spectroscopic Findings.

BACKGROUND Bioresorbable scaffolds provide transient lumen support followed by complete resorption. OBJECTIVES This study examined whether very late scaffold thrombosis (VLScT) occurs when resorption is presumed to be nearly complete. METHODS Patients with VLScT at 3 tertiary care centers underwent thrombus aspiration followed by optical coherence tomography (OCT). Thrombus aspirates were analyzed by histopathological and spectroscopic examination. RESULTS Between March 2014 and February 2015, 4 patients presented with VLScT at 44 (case 1), 19 (cases 2 and 4), and 21 (case 3) months, respectively, after implantation of an Absorb Bioresorbable Vascular Scaffold 1.1 (Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Park, Illinois). At the time of VLScT, all patients were taking low-dose aspirin, and 2 patients were also taking prasugrel. OCT showed malapposed scaffold struts surrounded by thrombus in 7.1%, 9.0%, and 8.9% of struts in cases 1, 2, and 4, respectively. Scaffold discontinuity with struts in the lumen center was the cause of malapposition in cases 2 and 4. Uncovered scaffold struts with superimposed thrombus were the predominant findings in case 3. OCT percent area stenosis at the time of VLScT was high in case 1 (74.8%) and case 2 (70.9%) without evidence of excessive neointimal hyperplasia. Spectroscopic thrombus aspirate analysis showed persistence of intracoronary polymer fragments in case 1. CONCLUSIONS VLScT may occur at advanced stages of scaffold resorption. Potential mechanisms specific for VLScT include scaffold discontinuity and restenosis during the resorption process, which appear delayed in humans; these findings suggest an extended period of vulnerability for thrombotic events.

Republished: 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.