Effect of the Novel Thienopyridine Prasugrel Compared With Clopidogrel on Spontaneous and Procedural Myocardial Infarction in the Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition With Prasugrel-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 38 An Application of the Classification System From the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction

Background-Prasugrel is a novel thienopyridine that reduces new or recurrent myocardial infarctions (MIs) compared with clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. This effect must be balanced against an increased bleeding risk. We aimed to characterize the effect of prasugrel with respect to the type, size, and timing of MI using the universal classification of MI. Methods and Results-We studied 13 608 patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention randomized to prasugrel or clopidogrel and treated for 6 to 15 months in the Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition With Prasugrel-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TRITON-TIMI 38). Each MI underwent supplemental classification as spontaneous, secondary, or sudden cardiac death (types 1, 2, and 3) or procedure related (Types 4 and 5) and examined events occurring early and after 30 days. Prasugrel significantly reduced the overall risk of MI (7.4% versus 9.7%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67 to 0.85; P < 0.0001). This benefit was present for procedure-related MIs (4.9% versus 6.4%; HR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.88; P = 0.0002) and nonprocedural (type 1, 2, or 3) MIs (2.8% versus 3.7%; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.59 to 0.88; P = 0.0013) and consistently across MI size, including MIs with a biomarker peak >= 5 times the reference limit (HR. 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.86; P = 0.0001). In landmark analyses starting at 30 days, patients treated with prasugrel had a lower risk of any MI (2.9% versus 3.7%; HR, 0.77; P = 0.014), including nonprocedural MI (2.3% versus 3.1%; HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.60 to 0.92; P = 0.0069). Conclusion-Treatment with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel for up to 15 months in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention significantly reduces the risk of MIs that are procedure related and spontaneous and those that are small and large, including new MIs occurring during maintenance therapy. (Circulation. 2009; 119: 2758-2764.)

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).

Prasugrel versus Clopidogrel for Acute Coronary Syndromes without Revascularization

Background The effect of intensified platelet inhibition for patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction without ST-segment elevation who do not undergo revascularization has not been delineated. Methods In this double-blind, randomized trial, in a primary analysis involving 7243 patients under the age of 75 years receiving aspirin, we evaluated up to 30 months of treatment with prasugrel (10 mg daily) versus clopidogrel (75 mg daily). In a secondary analysis involving 2083 patients 75 years of age or older, we evaluated 5 mg of prasugrel versus 75 mg of clopidogrel. Results At a median follow-up of 17 months, the primary end point of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke among patients under the age of 75 years occurred in 13.9% of the prasugrel group and 16.0% of the clopidogrel group (hazard ratio in the prasugrel group, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.05; P = 0.21). Similar results were observed in the overall population. The prespecified analysis of multiple recurrent ischemic events (all components of the primary end point) suggested a lower risk for prasugrel among patients under the age of 75 years (hazard ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.00; P = 0.04). Rates of severe and intracranial bleeding were similar in the two groups in all age groups. There was no significant between-group difference in the frequency of nonhemorrhagic serious adverse events, except for a higher frequency of heart failure in the clopidogrel group. Conclusions Among patients with unstable angina or myocardial infarction without ST- segment elevation, prasugrel did not significantly reduce the frequency of the primary end point, as compared with clopidogrel, and similar risks of bleeding were observed. (Funded by Eli Lilly and Daiichi Sankyo; TRILOGY ACS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00699998.)

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.

Prasugrel and Acquired Thrombotic Thrombocytopenic Purpura Associated with ADAMTS13 Activity Deficiency

We report a case of a 64-year-old male who, 44 days after starting treatment with prasugrel, presented with severe thrombocytopenia, anemia, renal failure, and severe ADAMTS13 activity deficiency, along with a high titer of autoantibodies to this protease.

Increasing the symmetry of drug crystals: a monoclinic conformational polymorph of the platelet antiaggregating agent ticlopidine hydrochloride

Ticlopidine hydrochloride (TICLID (R)) is a platelet antiaggregating agent whose use as a potent antithrombotic pharmaceutical ingredient is widespread, even though this drug has not been well characterized in the solid state. Only the crystal phase used for drug product manufacturing is known. Here, a new polymorph of ticlopidine hydrochloride was discovered and its structure was determined. While the antecedent polymorph crystallizes in the triclinic space group P (1) over bar, the new crystal phase was solved in the monoclinic space group P2(1)/c. Both polymorphs crystallize as racemic mixtures of enantiomeric (ticlopidine)(+) cations. Detailed geometrical and packing comparisons between the crystal structures of the two polymorphs have allowed us to understand how different supramolecular architectures are assembled. It was feasible to conclude that the main difference between the two polymorphs is a rotation of about 120 degrees on the bridging bond between the thienopyridine and o-chlorobenzyl moieties. The differential o-chlorobenzyl conformation is related to changeable patterns of weak intermolecular contacts involving this moiety, such as edge-to-face Cl center dot center dot center dot pi and C-H center dot center dot center dot pi interactions in the new polymorph and face-to-face pi center dot center dot center dot pi contacts in the triclinic crystal phase, leading to a symmetry increase in the ticlopidine hydrochloride solid state form described for the first time in this study. Other conformational features are slightly different between the two polymorphs, such as the thienopyridine puckerings and the o-chlorophenyl orientations. These conformational characteristics were also correlated to the crystal packing patterns.

Ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes and diabetes: a substudy from the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have high platelet reactivity and are at increased risk of ischaemic events and bleeding post-acute coronary syndromes (ACS). In the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial, ticagrelor reduced the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, but with similar rates of major bleeding compared with clopidogrel. We aimed to investigate the outcome with ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in patients with DM or poor glycaemic control. We analysed patients with pre-existing DM (n = 4662), including 1036 patients on insulin, those without DM (n = 13 951), and subgroups based on admission levels of haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c; n = 15 150). In patients with DM, the reduction in the primary composite endpoint (HR: 0.88, 95% CI: 0.76-1.03), all-cause mortality (HR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.66-1.01), and stent thrombosis (HR: 0.65, 95% CI: 0.36-1.17) with no increase in major bleeding (HR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.81-1.12) with ticagrelor was consistent with the overall cohort and without significant diabetes status-by-treatment interactions. There was no heterogeneity between patients with or without ongoing insulin treatment. Ticagrelor reduced the primary endpoint, all-cause mortality, and stent thrombosis in patients with HbA1c above the median (HR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.70-0.91; HR: 0.78, 95% CI: 0.65-0.93; and HR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.39-1.00, respectively) with similar bleeding rates (HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.86-1.12). Ticagrelor, when compared with clopidogrel, reduced ischaemic events in ACS patients irrespective of diabetic status and glycaemic control, without an increase in major bleeding events.

When is the Best Time for the Second Antiplatelet Agent in Non-St Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome?

Abstract Dual antiplatelet therapy is a well-established treatment in patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS), with class I of recommendation (level of evidence A) in current national and international guidelines. Nonetheless, these guidelines are not precise or consensual regarding the best time to start the second antiplatelet agent. The evidences are conflicting, and after more than a decade using clopidogrel in this scenario, benefits from the routine pretreatment, i.e. without knowing the coronary anatomy, with dual antiplatelet therapy remain uncertain. The recommendation for the upfront treatment with clopidogrel in NSTE-ACS is based on the reduction of non-fatal events in studies that used the conservative strategy with eventual invasive stratification, after many days of the acute event. This approach is different from the current management of these patients, considering the established benefits from the early invasive strategy, especially in moderate to high-risk patients. The only randomized study to date that specifically tested the pretreatment in NSTE-ACS in the context of early invasive strategy, used prasugrel, and it did not show any benefit in reducing ischemic events with pretreatment. On the contrary, its administration increased the risk of bleeding events. This study has brought the pretreatment again into discussion, and led to changes in recent guidelines of the American and European cardiology societies. In this paper, the authors review the main evidence of the pretreatment with dual antiplatelet therapy in NSTE-ACS.