ISAR-SAFE: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 6 vs. 12 months of clopidogrel therapy after drug-eluting stenting.

BACKGROUND: In patients receiving aspirin, the optimal duration of clopidogrel therapy after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation remains unclear. METHODS: This multicentre, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial tested the hypothesis that in patients undergoing DES implantation, 6 months of clopidogrel is non-inferior to 12 months in terms of clinical outcomes. At 6 months after DES implantation, patients on clopidogrel were randomly assigned to either a 6-month period of placebo or an additional 6-month period of clopidogrel. The primary endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction major bleeding at 9 months after randomization. RESULTS: Owing to slow recruitment and low event rates, the trial was stopped prematurely after enrolment of 4005 of 6000 planned patients. Of 4000 patients included in the final analysis, 1997 received 6 months of clopidogrel and 2003 received 12 months. The primary endpoint occurred in 29 patients (1.5%) assigned to 6 months of clopidogrel and 32 patients (1.6%) assigned to 12 months, observed difference -0.1%, upper limit of one-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5%, limit of non-inferiority 2%, Pfor noninferiority <0.001. Stent thrombosis was observed in five patients (0.3%) assigned to 6 months of clopidogrel and three patients (0.2%) assigned to 12 months; hazard ratio (HR) 1.66, 95% CI: 0.40-6.96, P = 0.49. Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction major bleeding was observed in 4 patients (0.2%) assigned to 6 months clopidogrel and 5 patients (0.3%) assigned to 12 months; HR 0.80, 95% CI: 0.21-2.98, P = 0.74. CONCLUSIONS: In the present trial, characterized by low event rates, we did not observe a significant difference in net clinical outcome between 6 and 12 months of clopidogrel therapy after DES implantation. However, the results of the trial must be considered in view of its premature termination and lower than expected event rates. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, Identifier: NCT00661206.

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome and High Bleeding Risk.

BACKGROUND: The relative efficacy and safety of more potent P2Y12 inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndrome and high bleeding risk (HBR) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention remains unclear. We aimed to study the treatment effect of ticagrelor and prasugrel in percutaneous coronary intervention patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and HBR. METHODS: This post hoc analysis of the ISAR-REACT 5 trial (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment 5) included patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, randomized to ticagrelor or prasugrel, in whom HBR was defined as per Academic Research Consortium criteria. The primary (efficacy) end point was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The secondary (safety) end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 3 to 5 bleeding. Outcomes were assessed 12 months after randomization. RESULTS: Out of the 3239 patients included in this analysis, 486 fulfilled the criteria for Academic Research Consortium-HBR definition (HBR group; ticagrelor, n=230 and prasugrel, n=256), while 2753 did not (non-HBR group; ticagrelor, n=1375 and prasugrel, n=1378). Compared with the non-HBR group, the HBR group had a higher risk for the primary (hazard ratio [HR]=3.57 [95% CI, 2.79-4.57]; P<0.001) and secondary end point (HR=2.94 [2.17-3.99]; P<0.001). In the HBR group, the primary (HR=1.09 [0.73-1.62]) and secondary (HR=1.18 [0.67-2.08]) end points were not significantly different between patients assigned to ticagrelor and prasugrel. In the non-HBR group, the primary end point (HR=1.62 [1.19-2.20]) occurred more frequently in patients assigned to ticagrelor as compared to patients assigned to prasugrel, without difference in safety (HR=1.08 [0.74-1.58]). There was no significant treatment allocation-by-HBR status interaction with respect to the primary (P for interaction=0.12) or secondary (P for interaction=0.80) end points. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, HBR status increased both ischemic and bleeding risk without significant impact on the relative efficacy and safety of either ticagrelor or prasugrel. These results warrant confirmation in larger cohorts. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01944800.