Baricitinib in juvenile idiopathic arthritis: an international, phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, withdrawal, efficacy, and safety trial.

BACKGROUND: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis can be refractory to some or all treatment regimens, therefore new medications are needed to treat this population. This trial assessed the efficacy and safety of baricitinib, an oral Janus kinase 1/2-selective inhibitor, versus placebo in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. METHODS: This phase 3, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, withdrawal, efficacy, and safety trial was conducted in 75 centres in 20 countries. We enrolled patients (aged 2 to <18 years) with polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis (positive or negative for rheumatoid factor), extended oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, enthesitis-related arthritis, or juvenile psoriatic arthritis, and an inadequate response (after ≥12 weeks of treatment) or intolerance to one or more conventional synthetic or biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs). The trial consisted of a 2-week safety and pharmacokinetic period, a 12-week open-label lead-in period (10 weeks for the safety and pharmacokinetic subcohort), and an up to 32-week placebo-controlled double-blind withdrawal period. After age-based dosing was established in the safety and pharmacokinetic period, patients received a once-daily 4 mg adult-equivalent dose of baricitinib (tablets or suspension) in the open-label lead-in period. Patients meeting Juvenile Idiopathic Arthritis-American College of Rheumatology (JIA-ACR) 30 criteria (JIA-ACR30 responders) at the end of the open-label lead-in (week 12) were eligible for random assignment (1:1) to receive placebo or continue receiving baricitinib, and remained in the double-blind withdrawal period until disease flare or up to the end of the double-blind withdrawal period (week 44). Patients and any personnel interacting directly with patients or sites were masked to group assignment. The primary endpoint was time to disease flare during the double-blind withdrawal period and was assessed in the intention-to-treat population of all randomly assigned patients. Safety was assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of baricitinib throughout the three trial periods. For adverse events in the double-blind withdrawal period, exposure-adjusted incidence rates were calculated. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03773978, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between Dec 17, 2018 and March 3, 2021, 220 patients were enrolled and received at least one dose of baricitinib (152 [69%] girls and 68 [31%] boys; median age 14·0 years [IQR 12·0-16·0]). 219 patients received baricitinib in the open-label lead-in period, of whom 163 (74%) had at least a JIA-ACR30 response at week 12 and were randomly assigned to placebo (n=81) or baricitinib (n=82) in the double-blind withdrawal period. Time to disease flare was significantly shorter with placebo versus baricitinib (hazard ratio 0·241 [95% CI 0·128-0·453], p<0·0001). Median time to flare was 27·14 weeks (95% CI 15·29-not estimable) in the placebo group, and not evaluable for patients in the baricitinib group (<50% had a flare event). Six (3%) of 220 patients had serious adverse events during the safety and pharmacokinetic period or open-label lead-in period. In the double-blind withdrawal period, serious adverse events were reported in four (5%) of 82 patients (incidence rate [IR] 9·7 [95% CI 2·7-24·9] per 100 patient-years at risk) in the baricitinib group and three (4%) of 81 (IR 10·2 [2·1-29·7]) in the placebo group. Treatment-emergent infections were reported during the safety and pharmacokinetic or open-label lead-in period in 55 (25%) of 220 patients, and during the double-blind withdrawal period in 31 (38%) of 82 (IR 102·1 [95% CI 69·3-144·9]) in the baricitinib group and 15 (19%) of 81 (IR 59·0 [33·0-97·3]) in the placebo group. Pulmonary embolism was reported as a serious adverse event in one patient (1%; IR 2·4 [95% CI 0·1-13·3]) in the baricitinib group in the double-blind withdrawal period, which was judged to be related to study treatment. INTERPRETATION: Baricitinib was efficacious with an acceptable safety profile in the treatment of polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, extended oligoarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis, enthesitis-related arthritis, and juvenile psoriatic arthritis, after inadequate response or intolerance to standard therapy. FUNDING: Eli Lilly and Company under licence from Incyte.

Incidence, predictors and impact of stroke on mortality among patients with acute coronary syndromes following percutaneous coronary intervention-Results from the PROMETHEUS registry.

BACKGROUND: Stroke represents a potentially calamitous complication among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous intervention (PCI). Data on the distribution of stroke occurrence post-PCI and its impact on mortality are scarce. OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the incidence, predictors and impact of stroke on mortality in ACS patients undergoing PCI. METHODS: A total of 19,914 ACS patients underwent PCI in the PROMETHEUS multicenter observational study. We calculated the cumulative stroke incidence at 30 days and 1 year using the Kaplan Meier method. We also compared the distribution of stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), and bleeding across time and evaluated their overlap. Predictors of stroke were identified through multivariable Cox-regression. Stroke, MI, and bleeding were assessed as time-updated covariates to estimate how each impacts subsequent mortality. RESULTS: We found that 244 patients had a stroke within 1 year, a cumulative incidence of 1.5%. Previous cerebrovascular disease was the strongest predictor for post-PCI stroke, followed by ST-elevation MI presentation, hypertension, non-ST-elevation MI presentation, smoking, female sex, and age. Mortality risk was significantly higher among those who had a stroke versus those who did not (adjusted HR 4.84, p < .0001). However, the association attenuated over time with a much larger effect in the first 30 days of its occurrence (adjusted HR 17.7; 95% CI: 12.3-25.4, p < .0001) versus beyond 30 days (adjusted HR 1.22; 95% CI: 0.6-2.46, p = .58). CONCLUSIONS: Stroke occurrence within 1 year was not uncommon for ACS patients undergoing PCI. When compared with MI and bleeding, stroke had a substantial impact on mortality that attenuated rapidly over time.

Use of prasugrel and clinical outcomes in African-American patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the use of prasugrel after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in African American (AA) patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). BACKGROUND: AA patients are at higher risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes after PCI and may derive greater benefit from the use of potent antiplatelet therapy. METHODS: Using the multicenter PROMETHEUS observational registry of ACS patients treated with PCI, we grouped patients by self-reported AA or other races. Clinical outcomes at 90-day and 1-year included non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), major adverse cardiac events (composite of death, MI, stroke, or unplanned revascularization) and major bleeding. RESULTS: The study population included 2,125 (11%) AA and 17,707 (89%) non-AA patients. AA patients were younger, more often female (46% vs. 30%) with a higher prevalence of diabetes mellitus, chronic kidney disease, and prior coronary intervention than non-AA patients. Although AA patients more often presented with troponin (+) ACS, prasugrel use was much less common in AA vs. non-AA (11.9% vs. 21.4%, respectively, P = 0.001). In addition, the use of prasugrel increased with the severity of presentation in non-AA but not in AA patients. Multivariable logistic regression showed AA race was an independent predictor of reduced use of prasugrel (0.42 [0.37-0.49], P < 0.0001). AA race was independently associated with a significantly higher risk of MI at 90-days and 1 year after PCI. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher risk clinical presentation and worse 1-year ischemic outcomes, AA race was an independent predictor of lower prasugrel prescription in a contemporary population of ACS patients undergoing PCI.

The prevalence, predictors and outcomes of guideline-directed medical therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing PCI, an analysis from the PROMETHEUS registry.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the prevalence, predictors and associations between guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) and clinical outcomes in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from eight academic centers in the United States. BACKGROUND: Evidence for GDMT in patients with AMI comes from randomized controlled trials. The use of GDMT in clinical practice is unknown in this setting. METHODS: PROMETHEUS is a multicenter observational registry comprising 19,914 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing PCI. Patients with AMI were divided into two groups based on the prescription of GDMT or not (non-GDMT) at discharge. GDMT was defined according to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) class I recommendations, specifically, dual antiplatelet therapy, statin and beta-blocker for all AMI patients, and additional ACEI/ARB in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) less than 40%, hypertension, diabetes mellitus (DM) or chronic kidney disease (CKD). The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) defined as a composite of all-cause death, MI, stroke or unplanned target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year. RESULTS: Out of 4,834 patients with AMI, 3,356 (69.4%) patients were discharged on GDMT. Patients receiving GDMT were more often younger and male. Compared with non-GDMT patients, GDMT patients had a significantly lower frequency of comorbidities. Predictors of greater GDMT prescription at discharge were ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), and increased body mass index (BMI), whereas hypertension, prior PCI, anemia and CKD were associated with less GDMT prescription. At 1 year, the use of GDMT was associated with a significantly lower incidence of MACE (13.7% vs. 22.5%; adjusted HR 0.68; 95%CI 0.58-0.80; P < 0.001), death (3.7% vs. 9.4%; adjusted HR 0.61; 95%CI 0.46-0.80; P < 0.001), and unplanned TVR (8.4% vs. 11.3%; adjusted HR 0.76; 95%CI 0.61-0.96; P = 0.020). However, there were no significant differences in the incidence of MI (4.3% vs. 7.0%; adjusted HR 0.75; 95%CI 0.56-1.01; P = 0.056), stroke (1.5% vs. 2.0%; adjusted HR 0.79; 95%CI 0.47-1.34; P = 0.384) between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In a contemporary practice setting in the United States, GDMT was utilized in just over two-thirds of AMI patients undergoing PCI. Predictors of GDMT prescription at discharge included STEMI, BMI and absence of hypertension, CKD, anemia or prior PCI. Use of GDMT was associated with significantly lower risk of 1-year MACE and mortality.

Associations between use of prasugrel vs clopidogrel and outcomes by type of acute coronary syndrome: an analysis from the PROMETHEUS registry.

We sought to investigate the utilization of prasugrel and its association with outcomes relative to clopidogrel in three typical subgroups of ACS in a real-world setting. Prasugrel is superior to clopidogrel for reducing risk of ischemic events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but is associated with an increased risk of bleeding complications. PROMETHEUS was a retrospective multicenter observational study of 19,913 ACS patients undergoing PCI from 8 centers in the United States between 2010 and 2013. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) were defined as a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned revascularization. The study cohort included 3285 (16.5%) patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), 5412 (27.2%) patients with NSTEMI and 11,216 (56.3%) patients with unstable angina (UA). The frequency of prasugrel use at discharge was highest in STEMI and lowest in UA patients, 27.3% versus 22.2% versus 18.9% (p < 0.001). Use of prasugrel vs clopidogrel was associated with a lower rate of MACE in STEMI, NSTEMI, or UA at 1 year, but the differences were attenuated for all groups except for patients with UA (adjusted HR 0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.94, p = 0.006) after propensity adjusted analysis. After adjustment, there was no difference in bleeding risk between prasugrel and clopidogrel for all groups at 1 year. STEMI patients were more likely to receive prasugrel compared to NSTEMI and UA patients. Prasugrel was associated with reduced adverse outcomes compared with clopidogrel in unadjusted analyses, findings that were largely attenuated upon adjustment and suggest preferential use of prasugrel in low vs high risk patients.

Use of prasugrel vs clopidogrel and outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in contemporary clinical practice: Results from the PROMETHEUS study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We sought to determine the frequency of use and association between prasugrel and outcomes in acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in clinical practice. METHODS: PROMETHEUS was a multicenter observational registry of acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing PCI from 8 centers in the United States that maintained a prospective PCI registry for patient outcomes. The primary end points were major adverse cardiovascular events at 90days, a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization. Major bleeding was defined as any bleeding requiring hospitalization or blood transfusion. Hazard ratios (HRs) were generated using multivariable Cox regression and stratified by the propensity to treat with prasugrel. RESULTS: Of 19,914 patients (mean age 64.4years, 32% female), 4,058 received prasugrel (20%) and 15,856 received clopidogrel (80%). Prasugrel-treated patients were younger with fewer comorbid risk factors compared with their counterparts receiving clopidogrel. At 90days, there was a significant association between prasugrel use and lower major adverse cardiovascular event (5.7% vs 9.6%, HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.50-0.67, P<.0001) and bleeding (1.9% vs 2.9%, HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.51-0.83, P<.001). After propensity stratification, associations were attenuated and no longer significant for either outcome. Results remained consistent using different approaches to adjusting for potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS: In contemporary clinical practice, patients receiving prasugrel tend to have a lower-risk profile compared with those receiving clopidogrel. The lower ischemic and bleeding events associated with prasugrel use were no longer evident after accounting for these baseline differences.

Sex-related differences in outcomes among men and women under 55 years of age with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Results from the PROMETHEUS study.

BACKGROUND: Young women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) experience greater adverse events than men, potentially due to under-treatment. We sought to compare the 1-year outcomes by sex in patients ≤55 years of age from a contemporary PCI cohort. METHODS: PROMETHEUS was a retrospective multicenter observational US study comparing outcomes in clopidogrel and prasugrel treated patients following ACS PCI. MACE was defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned revascularization. Clinically significant bleeding was defined as bleeding requiring transfusion or hospitalization. Hazard ratios were generated using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression. RESULTS: The study cohort included 4,851 patients of which 1,162 (24.0%) were women and 3,689 (76.0%) were men. In this cohort, the prevalence of diabetes (41.0 vs. 27.9%) and chronic kidney disease (12.7 vs. 7.2%) was higher among women compared with men. Irrespective of sex, prasugrel was used in less than one-third of patients (31.8% in men vs. 28.1% in women, P = 0.01). Unadjusted, 1-year MACE (21.1% vs. 16.2%, P < 0.001) and bleeding (3.6% vs. 2.2%, P = 0.01) was significantly higher in women compared with men, but these results were no longer significant after adjustment for risk (HR 1.13, 95% CI 0.94-1.36 for MACE and HR 1.31, 95% CI 0.85-2.04 for bleeding). CONCLUSION: Women ≤ 55 years of age undergoing ACS PCI have significantly greater comorbidities than young men. Despite a higher risk clinical phenotype in women, prasugrel use was significantly lower in women than men. Female sex was associated with a significantly higher risk of 1-year MACE and bleeding than male sex, findings that are attributable to baseline differences. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

A population pharmacokinetic model using allometric scaling for baricitinib in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.

Baricitinib is approved for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) in more than 70 countries, and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) in the European Union. Population pharmacokinetic (PK) models were developed in a phase 3 trial to characterize PK in pediatric patients with JIA and identify weight-based dosing regimens. The phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled withdrawal, efficacy and safety trial, JUVE-BASIS, enrolled patients (aged 2 to <18 years) with polyarticular course JIA. During a safety/PK period, baricitinib concentration data from age-based dose cohorts were compared to concentrations from adult patients receiving 4-mg QD. PK data were used to develop a population PK model with allometric scaling to determine a weight-based posology in pediatric patients with JIA that matched the adult 4-mg exposure. Baricitinib plasma concentrations from 217 pediatric patients were used to characterize PK. Based on the adult model, pediatric PK was best described using a 2-compartment model with allometric scaling on clearance and volume of distribution and renal function (estimated with glomerular filtration rate [GFR], a known covariate affecting PK of baricitinib) on clearance. The PK modeling suggested the optimal dosing regimen based on weight for pediatric patients as: 2-mg QD for patients 10 to <30 kg and 4-mg QD for patients ≥30 kg. The use of a population PK model of baricitinib treatment in adult patients with RA, with the addition of allometric scaling for weight on clearance and volume terms, was useful to predict exposures and identify weight-based dosing in pediatric patients with JIA.

Microsampling in pediatric studies: pharmacokinetic sampling for baricitinib (Olumiant™) in global pediatric studies.

Background: Managing blood volumes in pediatric studies is challenging and should be minimized where possible. Results: A sensitive liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method was validated and implemented across two phase III global pediatric trials. Two 10-µl aliquots of blood were collected at each time point using the Mitra® device. Concordance between plasma and dried blood was established from older pediatric patients. Incurred sample reanalysis was performed in both studies using the second Mitra tip and acceptance was greater than 83%. Conclusion: The use of microsampling to generate pharmacokinetic data in 2-18-year-old pediatric patients was successfully implemented. Positive feedback was received from clinical sites about the microsampling technique assisting with enrollment of pediatric patients.

Thrombotic risk in patients with acute coronary syndromes discharged on prasugrel or clopidogrel: results from the PROMETHEUS study.

AIMS: Based on recent clinical data, the 2020 ESC guidelines on non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) suggest to tailor antithrombotic strategy on individual thrombotic risk. Nonetheless, prevalence and prognostic impact of the high thrombotic risk (HTR) criteria proposed are yet to be described. In this analysis from the PROMETHEUS registry, we assessed prevalence and prognostic impact of HTR, defined according to the 2020 ESC NSTE-ACS guidelines, and if the benefits associated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel vary with thrombotic risk. METHODS AND RESULTS: PROMETHEUS was a multicentre prospective study comparing prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Patients were at HTR if presenting with one clinical plus one procedural risk feature. The primary endpoint was major adverse cardiac events (MACE), composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization, at 1 year. Adjusted hazard ratio (adjHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with propensity score stratification and multivariable Cox regression. Among 16 065 patients, 4293 (26.7%) were at HTR and 11 772 (73.3%) at low-to-moderate thrombotic risk. The HTR conferred increased incidence of MACE (23.3 vs. 13.6%, HR 1.85, 95% CI 1.71-2.00, P < 0.001) and its single components. Prasugrel was prescribed in patients with less comorbidities and risk factors and was associated with reduced risk of MACE (HTR: adjHR 0.83, 95% CI 0.68-1.02; low-to-moderate risk: adjHR 0.75, 95% CI 0.64-0.88; pinteraction = 0.32). CONCLUSION: High thrombotic risk, as defined by the 2020 ESC NSTE-ACS guidelines, is highly prevalent among ACS patients undergoing PCI. The HTR definition had a strong prognostic impact, as it successfully identified patients at increased 1 year risk of ischaemic events.

Clinical effectiveness and safety of baricitinib for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis-associated uveitis or chronic anterior antinuclear antibody-positive uveitis: study protocol for an open-label, adalimumab active-controlled phase 3 clinical trial (JUVE-BRIGHT).

BACKGROUND: Juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) is the most common pediatric rheumatic disease and the most common systemic disorder associated with uveitis in childhood. Uveitis is more common in JIA patients who are antinuclear antibody (ANA)-positive, have an early-onset disease, and have oligoarticular arthritis. JIA-associated uveitis (JIA-uveitis) is typically anterior, chronic, bilateral, nongranulomatous, and asymptomatic. Visual outcomes in JIA-uveitis have improved with current screening and treatment options; however, many patients fail to respond or do not achieve long-lasting remission. Baricitinib, an oral selective Janus kinase (JAK)1 and 2 inhibitor, may impact key cytokines implicated in the pathogenesis of JIA-uveitis or ANA-positive uveitis, representing a potential novel treatment option for disease management. METHODS: The multicenter, phase 3 trial will be conducted using an open-label Bayesian design. The study will enroll at least 20 and up to 40 patients aged 2 to <18 years with active JIA-uveitis or chronic ANA-positive uveitis without systemic features. At least 20 patients who have had an inadequate response or intolerance to methotrexate (MTX-IR), but not biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs), will be randomized (1:1) to open-label baricitinib or adalimumab. Approximately 20 additional patients who are MTX-IR or bDMARD inadequate responders will receive baricitinib treatment. Patients will be treated with once daily oral baricitinib at a fixed dose by age group (4 mg for patients aged ≥6 to <18 years and 2 mg for patients <6 years) or adalimumab (20 mg for patients weighing <30 kg and 40 mg for patients ≥30 kg) as a subcutaneous injection every 2 weeks. Treatment with stable background conventional synthetic DMARDs, low-dose corticosteroids, and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs is allowed. The primary endpoint is the proportion of patients with response at week 24. Patients may continue treatment for up to 5 years. DISCUSSION: This is the first pediatric clinical trial to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of a JAK inhibitor in JIA-uveitis or chronic ANA-positive uveitis. A novel Bayesian design is used to assess the efficacy of baricitinib, including an adalimumab reference arm, in this small patient population with unmet medical need. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2019-000119-10 . Registered on January 4, 2019; NCT04088409 . Registered on September 12, 2019.

Prasugrel use and clinical outcomes by age among patients undergoing PCI for acute coronary syndrome: from the PROMETHEUS study.

BACKGROUND: Prasugrel is a potent thienopyridine that may be preferentially used in younger patients with lower bleeding risk. OBJECTIVE: We compared prasugrel use and outcomes by age from the PROMETHEUS study. We also assessed age-related trends in treatment effects with prasugrel versus clopidogrel. METHODS: PROMETHEUS was a multicenter acute coronary syndrome (ACS) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) registry. We compared patients in age tertiles (T1 < 60 years, T2 60-70 years, T3 > 70 years). Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned revascularization. Data were adjusted using multivariable Cox regression for age-related risks and propensity score stratification for thienopyridine effects. RESULTS: The study included 19,914 patients: 7045 (35.0%) in T1, 6489 (33.0%) in T2 and 6380 (32.0%) in T3. Prasugrel use decreased from T1 to T3 (29.2% vs. 23.5% vs. 7.5%, p < 0.001). Crude 1-year MACE rates were highest in T3 (17.4% vs. 16.8% vs. 22.7%, p < 0.001), but adjusted risk was similar between the groups (p-trend 0.52). Conversely, crude incidence (2.8% vs. 3.8% vs. 6.9%, p < 0.001) and adjusted bleeding risk were highest in T3 (HR 1.24, 95% CI 0.99-1.55 in T2; HR 1.83, 95% CI 1.46-2.30 in T3; p-trend < 0.001; reference = T1). Treatment effects with prasugrel versus clopidogrel did not demonstrate age-related trends for MACE (p-trend = 0.91) or bleeding (p-trend = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Age is a strong determinant of clinical risk as well as prasugrel prescription in ACS PCI with much lower use among older patients. Prasugrel did not have a differential treatment effect by age for MACE or bleeding. Frequency of prasugrel use and age-related temporal risks of all-cause death and bleeding after ACS PCI.

Use of prasugrel vs clopidogrel and outcomes in patients with and without diabetes mellitus presenting with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: Clinical trial data studies suggest superiority of prasugrel over clopidogrel in patients with diabetes. However, the use, safety and efficacy profile of prasugrel in unselected diabetic patients presenting with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) remain unclear. METHODS: PROMETHEUS was a prospective multicenter observational study of 19,919 ACS PCI patients enrolled between 2010 and 2013. The primary endpoint was 90-day major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), comprising all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke or unplanned revascularization. The safety endpoint was bleeding requiring hospitalization. RESULTS: We identified 7580 (38%) subjects with and 12,329 (62%) without diabetes. Diabetic patients were older and had significantly higher rates of cardiovascular risk factors. However, they were less likely to receive prasugrel (18.2% vs. 21.7%). Use of prasugrel did not increase with the severity of clinical presentation in diabetics, whereas, among non-diabetics, prescription of prasugrel was higher in NSTEMI and STEMI compared to unstable angina. The 90-day and 1-year adjusted risk of MACE was greater in diabetics (at 1 year: 22.7% vs. 16.5%; HR 1.22 [1.14-1.33], p < 0.001). At 1 year, the risk of bleeding was also higher in diabetics (4.9% vs. 4.1%, HR 1.19 [1.01-1.39], p = 0.035). After multivariable adjustment, use of prasugrel was associated with a lower risk of death in diabetic patients both at 90 days and 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: Use of prasugrel in diabetic patients with PCI-treated ACS was lower than in non-diabetics despite their high-risk profile and the severity of their clinical presentation. In diabetics, prasugrel was associated with a lower adjusted risk of 90-day death compared with clopidogrel.

One-Year Clinical Effectiveness Comparison of Prasugrel with Ticagrelor: Results from a Retrospective Observational Study using an Integrated Claims Database.

BACKGROUND: No direct comparisons of ticagrelor and prasugrel with 1-year clinical follow-up have been reported. OBJECTIVES: Our objective was to compare 1-year clinical outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and treated with either ticagrelor or prasugrel in a real-world setting. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients from a payer database who were aged ≥18 years and had ACS managed with PCI with no history of transient ischemic attack (TIA)/stroke. Data were propensity matched for prasugrel use with a 3:1 prasugrel:ticagrelor ratio. Post-discharge net adverse clinical event (NACE) rate at 1 year was evaluated for noninferiority using a pre-defined 20% margin. NACE was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) or rehospitalization for bleeding. RESULTS: In total, 15,788 ACS-PCI patients were included (prasugrel 12,797; ticagrelor 2991). Prasugrel-treated patients were younger; less likely to be female, have prior myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes, or non-ST-segment elevation MI (NSTEMI); and more likely to have unstable angina (UA) than ticagrelor-treated patients. Prior to matching, NACE and MACE (P < 0.01) were lower, with no difference in bleeding with prasugrel compared with ticagrelor. After matching, there was no significant difference in baseline characteristics. Noninferiority was demonstrated for NACE, MACE, and bleeding between prasugrel and ticagrelor. NACE and MACE were significantly lower with prasugrel use, primarily driven by heart failure, with no significant difference in all-cause death, MI, UA, revascularization, TIA/stroke, or bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: In this retrospective study, physicians preferentially used prasugrel rather than ticagrelor in younger ACS-PCI patients with lower risk of bleeding or comorbidities. After propensity matching, clinical outcomes associated with prasugrel were noninferior to those with ticagrelor.

Associations Between Complex PCI and Prasugrel or Clopidogrel Use in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Who Undergo PCI: From the PROMETHEUS Study.

BACKGROUND: Potent P2Y12 inhibitors might offer enhanced benefit against thrombotic events in complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We examined prasugrel use and outcomes according to PCI complexity, as well as analyzing treatment effects according to thienopyridine type. METHODS: PROMETHEUS was a multicentre observational study that compared clopidogrel vs prasugrel in acute coronary syndrome patients who underwent PCI (n = 19,914). Complex PCI was defined as PCI of the left main, bifurcation lesion, moderate-severely calcified lesion, or total stent length ≥ 30 mm. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) were a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization. Outcomes were adjusted using multivariable Cox regression for effect of PCI complexity and propensity-stratified analysis for effect of thienopyridine type. RESULTS: The study cohort included 48.9% (n = 9735) complex and 51.1% (n = 10,179) noncomplex patients. Second generation drug-eluting stents were used in 70.1% complex and 66.2% noncomplex PCI patients (P < 0.0001). Complex PCI was associated with greater adjusted risk of 1-year MACE (hazard ratio [HR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-1.39; P < 0.001). Prasugrel was prescribed in 20.7% of complex and 20.1% of noncomplex PCI patients (P = 0.30). Compared with clopidogrel, prasugrel significantly decreased adjusted risk for 1-year MACE in complex PCI (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.92) but not noncomplex PCI (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.77-1.08), albeit there was no evidence of interaction (P interaction = 0.281). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the use of contemporary techniques, acute coronary syndrome patients who undergo complex PCI had significantly higher rates of 1-year MACE. Adjusted magnitude of treatment effects with prasugrel vs clopidogrel were consistent in complex and noncomplex PCI without evidence of interaction.

Associations Between Chronic Kidney Disease and Outcomes With Use of Prasugrel Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Report From the PROMETHEUS Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to compare clinical outcomes in a contemporary acute coronary syndrome (ACS) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) cohort stratified by chronic kidney disease (CKD) status. BACKGROUND: Patients with CKD exhibit high risks for both thrombotic and bleeding events, thus complicating decision making regarding antiplatelet therapy in the setting of ACS. METHODS: The PROMETHEUS study was a multicenter observational study comparing outcomes with prasugrel versus clopidogrel in ACS PCI patients. Major adverse cardiac events (MACE) at 90 days and at 1 year were defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or unplanned revascularization. Clinically significant bleeding was defined as bleeding requiring transfusion or hospitalization. Cox regression multivariable analysis was performed for adjusted associations between CKD status and clinical outcomes. Hazard ratios for prasugrel versus clopidogrel treatment were generated using propensity score stratification. RESULTS: The total cohort included 19,832 patients, 28.3% with and 71.7% without CKD. CKD patients were older with greater comorbidities including diabetes and multivessel disease. Prasugrel was less often prescribed to CKD versus non-CKD patients (11.0% vs. 24.0%, respectively; p < 0.001). At 1 year, CKD was associated with higher adjusted risk of MACE (1.27; 95% confidence interval: 1.18 to 1.37) and bleeding (1.46; 95% confidence interval: 1.24 to 1.73). Although unadjusted rates of 1-year MACE were lower with prasugrel versus clopidogrel in both CKD (18.3% vs. 26.5%; p < 0.001) and non-CKD (10.9% vs. 17.9%; p < 0.001) patients, associations were attenuated after propensity stratification. Similarly, unadjusted differences in 1-year bleeding with prasugrel versus clopidogrel (6.0% vs. 7.4%; p = 0.18 in CKD patients; 2.6% vs. 3.5%; p = 0.008 in non-CKD patients) were not significant after propensity score adjustment. CONCLUSIONS: Although risks for 1-year MACE were significantly higher in ACS PCI patients with versus without CKD, prasugrel use was 50% lower in patients with renal impairment. Irrespective of CKD status, outcomes associated with prasugrel use were not significant after propensity adjustment. These data highlight the need for randomized studies evaluating the optimal antiplatelet therapy in CKD patients with ACS.

One-year post-discharge resource utilization and treatment patterns of patients with acute coronary syndrome managed with percutaneous coronary intervention and treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to compare 1-year real-world healthcare resource utilization (HRU), associated charges, and antiplatelet treatment patterns among patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) managed with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel. METHODS: Using the ProMetis-Lx database, adult ACS-PCI patients treated with ticagrelor or prasugrel post-discharge were identified between 1 August 2011 and 31 May 2013 and propensity matched to adjust for baseline differences. RESULTS: Before matching, ticagrelor-treated patients (n = 2991) were older with increased baseline ischemic and bleeding risks compared with prasugrel-treated patients (n = 12,797). After matching, ticagrelor patients had higher all-cause HRU (2.5 vs. 2.4 per patient per month; P = 0.012) and cardiovascular (CV) HRU (0.4 vs. 0.3 per patient per month; P = 0.026), with the difference in CV rehospitalizations (17.7 vs. 15.7 %; P = 0.011) primarily driven by congestive heart failure (CHF) (4.9 vs. 3.8 %; P = 0.02). All-cause charges within 1 year did not significantly differ between groups ($US5456 vs. 4844 per patient per month; P = 0.37), but dyspnea-related total charges were significantly higher with ticagrelor ($US139 vs. 95 per patient per month; P = 0.005). Although infrequent, switching was slightly higher with ticagrelor (8.3 vs. 6.0 %; P < 0.001) at 1 year, and mean persistence was slightly longer with prasugrel (150 vs. 159 days; P = 0.002), with no significant difference in mean adherence (61 vs. 63 %; P = 0.17). CONCLUSION: Overall monthly HRU was slightly lower with prasugrel than with ticagrelor, with no significant difference in bleeding HRU. Prasugrel was associated with slightly higher pharmacy charges, but lower dyspnea charges, resulting in no significant difference in total charges. Patients receiving prasugrel tended to use it for longer than those receiving ticagrelor as less switching occurred. These findings may aid decision making, but must be tempered due to inherent study limitations.