Randomized double-blind assessment of the ONSET and OFFSET of the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with stable coronary artery disease: the ONSET/OFFSET study.

BACKGROUND: Ticagrelor is the first reversibly binding oral P2Y(12) receptor antagonist. This is the first study to compare the onset and offset of platelet inhibition (IPA) with ticagrelor using the PLATO (PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes) trial loading dose (180 mg) with a high loading dose (600 mg) of clopidogrel. METHODS AND RESULTS: In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, 123 patients with stable coronary artery disease who were taking aspirin therapy (75 to 100 mg/d) received ticagrelor (180-mg load, 90-mg BID maintenance dose [n=57]), clopidogrel (600-mg load, 75-mg/d maintenance dose [n=54]), or placebo (n=12) for 6 weeks. Greater IPA (20 micromol/L ADP, final extent) occurred with ticagrelor than with clopidogrel at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 24 hours after loading and at 6 weeks (P<0.0001 for all); by 2 hours after loading, a greater proportion of patients achieved >50% IPA (98% versus 31%, P<0.0001) and >70% IPA (90% versus 16%, P<0.0001) in the ticagrelor group than in the clopidogrel group, respectively. A faster offset occurred with ticagrelor than with clopidogrel (4-to-72-hour slope [% IPA/h] -1.04 versus -0.48, P<0.0001). At 24 hours after the last dose, mean IPA was 58% for ticagrelor versus 52% for clopidogrel (P=NS). IPA for ticagrelor on day 3 after the last dose was comparable to clopidogrel at day 5; IPA on day 5 for ticagrelor was similar to clopidogrel on day 7 and did not differ from placebo (P=NS). CONCLUSIONS: Ticagrelor achieved more rapid and greater platelet inhibition than high-loading-dose clopidogrel; this was sustained during the maintenance phase and was faster in offset after drug discontinuation.

Impact of atrial prevention pacing on atrial fibrillation burden: primary results of the Study of Atrial Fibrillation Reduction (SAFARI) trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of atrial-based pacing algorithms in preventing atrial fibrillation (AF) remains controversial. The inconsistent results noted in previous trials may be due in part to differences in endpoints, pacing algorithms, and study design. SAFARI, a worldwide, prospective, randomized clinical trial, was designed to address these issues and to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a suite of prevention pacing therapies (PPTs) among patients with paroxysmal AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients who met standard pacemaker indications and documented symptomatic AF were implanted with a pacemaker (Vitatron Selection 9000). At 4 months, only patients with documented AF despite dual-chamber pacing were randomized to PPTs ON or PPTs OFF and followed for 6 months. Incidence of permanent AF and change in AF burden were compared between the two groups. Among the 555 patients enrolled, 240 had AF burden at 4 months and were randomized. The risk of developing permanent AF was similar in both groups (0 in the PPTs ON group vs. 3 in the OFF group). However, there was a significant reduction in AF burden between baseline and 10-month follow-up in the ON group compared with the OFF group (median decrease of 0.08 hours/day vs no change, P = .03). CONCLUSION: Among patients with paroxysmal AF and standard bradycardia indications, PPTs are safe and associated with less AF burden compared with conventional pacing.