Defining Strategies of Modulation of Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: A Consensus Document from the Academic Research Consortium.

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions.

Novel Tissue Factor Inhibition for Thromboprophylaxis in COVID-19: Primary Results of the ASPEN-COVID-19 Trial.

BACKGROUND: Thrombo-inflammation is central to COVID-19-associated coagulopathy. TF (tissue factor), a driver of disordered coagulation and inflammation in viral infections, may be a therapeutic target in COVID-19. The safety and efficacy of the novel TF inhibitor rNAPc2 (recombinant nematode anticoagulation protein c2) in COVID-19 are unknown. METHODS: ASPEN-COVID-19 was an international, randomized, open-label, active comparator clinical trial with blinded end point adjudication. Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer levels were randomized 1:1:2 to lower or higher dose rNAPc2 on days 1, 3, and 5 followed by heparin on day 8 or to heparin per local standard of care. In comparisons of the pooled rNAPc2 versus heparin groups, the primary safety end point was major or nonmajor clinically relevant International Society of Thrombosis and Haemostasis bleeding through day 8. The primary efficacy end point was proportional change in D-dimer concentration from baseline to day 8, or discharge if before day 8. Patients were followed for 30 days. RESULTS: Among 160 randomized patients, median age was 54 years, 43.1% were female, and 38.8% had severe baseline COVID-19. There were no significant differences between rNAPc2 and heparin in bleeding or other safety events. Overall, median change in D-dimer was -16.8% (interquartile range, -45.7 to 36.8; P=0.41) with rNAPc2 treatment and -11.2% (-36.0 to 34.4; P=0.91) with heparin (Pintergroup=0.47). In prespecified analyses, in severely ill patients, D-dimer levels tended to increase more within the heparin (median, 29.0% [-14.9 to 145.2]; P=0.02) than the rNAPc2 group (median, 25.9% [-49.1 to 136.4]; P=0.14; Pintergroup=0.96); in mildly ill patients, D-dimer levels were reduced within each group with a numerically greater reduction with rNAPc2 versus heparin (rNAPc2 median, -32.7% [-44.7 to 4.3]; P=0.007 and heparin median, -16.8% [-36.0 to 0.5]; P=0.008, Pintergroup=0.34). CONCLUSIONS: rNAPc2 treatment in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 was well tolerated without excess bleeding or serious adverse events but did not significantly reduce D-dimer more than heparin at day 8. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04655586.

Comparative effects of guided vs. potent P2Y12 inhibitor therapy in acute coronary syndrome: a network meta-analysis of 61 898 patients from 15 randomized trials.

AIMS: Guidelines recommend the use of potent P2Y12 inhibitors over clopidogrel for the reduction of ischaemic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, this comes at the expense of increased bleeding. A guided selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy has the potential to overcome this limitation. We aimed at evaluating the comparative safety and efficacy of guided vs. routine selection of potent P2Y12 inhibiting therapy in patients with ACS. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different oral P2Y12 inhibitors currently recommended for the treatment of patients with ACS (clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor). RCTs including a guided approach (i.e. platelet function or genetic testing) vs. standard selection of P2Y12 inhibitors among patients with ACS were also included. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. P-scores were used to estimate hierarchies of efficacy and safety. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and the primary safety endpoint was all bleeding. A total of 61 898 patients from 15 RCTs were included. Clopidogrel was used as reference treatment. A guided approach was the only strategy associated with reduced MACE (IRR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.65-0.98) without any significant trade-off in all bleeding (IRR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.96-1.55). A guided approach and prasugrel were associated with reduced myocardial infarction. A guided approach, prasugrel, and ticagrelor were associated with reduced stent thrombosis. Ticagrelor was also associated with reduced total and cardiovascular mortality. Prasugrel was associated with increased major bleeding. Prasugrel and ticagrelor were associated with increased minor bleeding. The incidence of stroke did not differ between treatments. CONCLUSION: In patients with an ACS, compared with routine selection of potent P2Y12 inhibiting therapy (prasugrel or ticagrelor), a guided selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy is associated with the most favourable balance between safety and efficacy. These findings support a broader adoption of guided approach for the selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy in patients with ACS. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021258603). KEY QUESTION: A guided selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy using platelet function or genetic testing improves outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Nevertheless, the comparative safety and efficacy of a guided versus routine selection of potent P2Y12-inhibiting therapy in acute coronary syndrome has not been explored. KEY FINDING: In a comprehensive network meta-analysis including the totality of available evidence and using clopidogrel as treatment reference, a guided approach was the only strategy associated with reduced major adverse cardiovascular events without any significant trade-off in bleeding. Prasugrel and ticagrelor increased bleeding and only ticagrelor reduced mortality. TAKE HOME MESSAGE: A guided selection of P2Y12-inhibiting therapy represents the strategy associated with the most favourable balance between safety and efficacy. These findings support a broader adoption of guided P2Y12 inhibiting therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Guided versus standard antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Whether guided selection of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is effective in improving outcomes compared with standard antiplatelet therapy remains controversial. We assessed the safety and efficacy of guided versus standard selection of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing PCI. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, from Aug 20 to Oct 25, 2020, we searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane, Embase, and Web of Science databases for randomised controlled trials and observational studies published in any language that compared guided antiplatelet therapy, by means of platelet function testing or genetic testing, versus standard antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing PCI. Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility, extracted the data, and assessed risk of bias. Risk ratios (RRs) and 95% CIs were used with random-effects or fixed-effect models according to the estimated heterogeneity among studies assessed by the I2 index. Coprimary endpoints were trial-defined primary major adverse cardiovascular events and any bleeding. Key secondary endpoints were all-cause death, cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, definite or probable stent thrombosis, and major and minor bleeding. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021215901). FINDINGS: 3656 potentially relevant articles were screened. Our analysis included 11 randomised controlled trials and three observational studies with data for 20 743 patients. Compared with standard therapy, guided selection of antiplatelet therapy was associated with a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events (RR 0·78, 95% CI 0·63-0·95, p=0·015) and reduced bleeding, although not statistically significant (RR 0·88, 0·77-1·01, p=0·069). Cardiovascular death (RR 0·77, 95% CI 0·59-1·00, p=0·049), myocardial infarction (RR 0·76, 0·60-0·96, p=0·021), stent thrombosis (RR 0·64, 0·46-0·89, p=0·011), stroke (RR 0·66, 0·48-0·91, p=0·010), and minor bleeding (RR 0·78, 0·67-0·92, p=0·0030) were reduced with guided therapy compared with standard therapy. Risks of all-cause death and major bleeding did not differ between guided and standard approaches. Outcomes varied according to the strategy used, with an escalation approach associated with a significant reduction in ischaemic events without any trade-off in safety, and a de-escalation approach associated with a significant reduction in bleeding, without any trade-off in efficacy. INTERPRETATION: Guided selection of antiplatelet therapy improved both composite and individual efficacy outcomes with a favourable safety profile, driven by a reduction in minor bleeding, supporting the use of platelet function or genetic testing to optimise the choice of agent in patients undergoing PCI. FUNDING: None.

Impact of diabetes mellitus on the pharmacodynamic effects of prasugrel and ticagrelor after switching from clopidogrel in patients with coronary artery disease.

Switching P2Y12 inhibitors is common in clinical practice. However, data on the pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of switching in clinical settings characterized by high platelet reactivity, such as diabetes mellitus (DM), are limited. This is a post-hoc analysis from a prospective, randomized, open-label study conducted in coronary artery disease patients comparing the PD effects of loading dose (LD) and maintenance dose regimens of prasugrel vs ticagrelor according to DM status. A total of 110 patients were enrolled: 42 (38%) with DM and 68 (62%) without DM. All patients were on maintenance dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel. PD assessments were performed using whole blood vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP), with results quantified by the platelet reactivity index (PRI), VerifyNow P2Y12 (VN-P2Y12) with results reported as P2Y12 reaction units (PRU), and light transmittance aggregometry (LTA) following 20 and 5 µM adenosine diphosphate stimuli with results reported as maximum platelet aggregation (MPA). PD assessments were performed at baseline (while on clopidogrel), 30 min after LD, 2 h after LD, and 1 week after LD. Overall, platelet reactivity was higher in DM than in non-DM patients while on clopidogrel therapy. After switching to either prasugrel or ticagrelor, platelet reactivity dropped but remained significantly higher among patients with DM at 30 min with all tests (VN-PRU p < 0.01, MPA 20 µM p < 0.01, VASP-PRI p = 0.02) and at 2 h with VN-PRU (p < 0.01) and LTA-MPA 20 µM (p < 0.01) but not with VASP-PRI (p = 0.19). There were no significant differences between prasugrel and ticagrelor both among patients with or without DM, except for lower LTA-MPA 20 at 30 min (p < 0.01) among non-DM patients treated with prasugrel. Patients with DM treated with clopidogrel have higher platelet reactivity compared to patients without DM. Although platelet reactivity markedly reduces to a similar extent after switching to prasugrel or ticagrelor, patients with DM persist with increased platelet reactivity compared to patients without DM.Study registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01852175.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of a novel phospholipid-aspirin complex liquid formulation and low dose enteric-coated aspirin: results from a prospective, randomized, crossover study.

Low dose enteric-coated aspirin (EC-ASA) is routinely used for secondary cardiovascular event prevention. However, absorption of EC tablets is poor, which can result in subtherapeutic antiplatelet effects. Phospholipid-aspirin liquid filled capsules (PL-ASA) are a novel FDA-approved immediate-release formulation designed to reduce gastrointestinal (GI) injury by limiting direct contact with the stomach lining. We compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles of PL-ASA versus EC-ASA at a low dose. This randomized, open-label, crossover study assessed PK and PD following a single 81-mg dose of PL-ASA versus EC-ASA under fasting conditions in 36 volunteers without cardiovascular disease between 18 and 75 years of age. Volunteers were randomly assigned 1:1 to either PL-ASA then EC-ASA or vice versa with a minimum 14-day washout. Assessments included PK parameters for acetylsalicylic acid and salicylic acid, platelet aggregation in response to arachidonic acid (AA), and serum thromboxane B2 (TxB2) assessments over 24 h. PL-ASA was rapidly absorbed. PL-ASA reached Tmax 3 h earlier (1.01 vs. 4.00 h, p < 0.0001), with almost double the Cmax (720 vs. 368 ng/mL, p < 0.0001) and overall 44% higher exposure of acetylsalicylic acid (AUC0-t: 601 vs. 416 h*ng/mL, p = 0.0013) compared with EC-ASA. Within 1 h of dosing, PL-ASA achieved significantly lower residual platelet aggregation, which persisted for the full 24 h (median AA-LTA was 47% with PL-ASA vs. 80.5% with EC-ASA; p = 0.0022 at hour-24). Treatment with PL-ASA also resulted in significantly lower serum TxB2 concentrations at each time point compared with EC-ASA (all p-values < 0.05). PL-ASA resulted in faster and more complete aspirin absorption paralleled by more prompt and potent platelet inhibition compared with EC-ASA after a single 81 mg dose. PL-ASA represents an attractive novel aspirin formulation for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular events.Clinical Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04811625.

Use of the VerifyNow point of care assay to assess the pharmacodynamic effects of loading and maintenance dose regimens of prasugrel and ticagrelor.

Prasugrel and ticagrelor are potent oral platelet P2Y12 inhibitors and are recommended over clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Oral platelet P2Y12 inhibitors are characterized by varying degrees of pharmacodynamic response profiles as assessed by a variety of commercially available assays. Because of its ease of use, rapid turnaround times and ability to provide results specific to P2Y12 inhibitory effects, VerifyNow has emerged as one of the most commonly utilized platelet function assays. However, reference ranges with VerifyNow have been reported mainly for clopidogrel and there has not yet been any study specifically conducted to provide the expected on treatment reference ranges following administration of prasugrel and ticagrelor. This was a prospective single center investigation conducted in 120 patients with ACS who were treated with prasugrel or ticagrelor as per standard of care. Patients who underwent percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) were treated with a loading dose of prasugrel (60 mg) or ticagrelor (180 mg), and patients who were on maintenance therapy were taking prasugrel (10 mg qd or 5 mg qd) or ticagrelor (90 mg bid). Platelet function testing was performed using the VerifyNow™ PRUTest™. The overall range of PRUTest values was lower than that observed in studies of patients treated with clopidogrel. The use of a maintenance dose regimen had a wider range of PRUTest values compared to the use of a loading dose for both prasugrel (1-179 vs. 2-128) and ticagrelor (1-196 vs. 1-177). The average PRUTest values in patients on prasugrel and ticagrelor maintenance dosing were 20% and 9% higher those observed in patients treated with a loading dose. PRUTest results following loading dose administration were very similar between drugs, but were 20% higher with prasugrel compared with ticagrelor during maintenance dosing. This study establishes expected PRUTest ranges for patients taking loading and maintenance doses of prasugrel and ticagrelor.Clinical Trial Registration http://www.clinicaltrials.gov Unique Identifier: NCT04492423, registered July 2020 retrospectively registered.

Platelet Inhibition With Cangrelor and Crushed Ticagrelor in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Undergoing Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: The platelet inhibitory effects induced by oral P2Y12 receptor antagonists are delayed in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI). In turn, this leads to a gap in platelet inhibition, exposing patients to an increased risk of early thrombotic complications and underscoring the need to define strategies associated with more effective platelet inhibition in the peri-primary percutaneous coronary intervention period. Cangrelor is an intravenous P2Y12 inhibitor with prompt and potent antiplatelet effects. However, to date, there are limited data on the effects of cangrelor used in combination with ticagrelor in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Moreover, questions have emerged on the potential for drug-drug interactions during the transition from cangrelor to oral P2Y12 inhibitors. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pharmacodynamic study conducted in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (n=50) who were randomized to treatment with either cangrelor or matching placebo (bolus followed by 2-hour infusion). All patients received ticagrelor 180-mg loading dose administered as crushed tablets at the time of cangrelor/placebo bolus administration. Pharmacodynamic analyses were performed at 8 time points. Pharmacodynamic effects were measured as P2Y12 reaction units by VerifyNow and platelet reactivity index by vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, cangrelor was associated with reduced P2Y12 reaction units as early as 5 minutes after bolus, which persisted during the entire duration of drug infusion, including at 30 minutes (63 [32-93] versus 214 [183-245]; mean difference, 152 [95% CI, 108-195]; P<0·001; primary end point). Parallel findings were shown with platelet reactivity index. Accordingly, high on-treatment platelet reactivity rates were reduced with cangrelor. After discontinuation of cangrelor/placebo infusion, there were no differences in levels of platelet reactivity between groups, ruling out a drug-drug interaction when cangrelor and ticagrelor are concomitantly administered. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, cangrelor is an effective strategy to bridge the gap in platelet inhibition associated with the use of oral P2Y12 inhibition induced by ticagrelor. Ticagrelor can be administered as a crushed formulation concomitantly with cangrelor without any apparent drug-drug interaction. The clinical implications of these pharmacodynamic findings warrant investigation in an adequately powered clinical trial. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03247738.

Correction: Evaluating the extent of reusability of CYP2C19 genotype data among patients genotyped for antiplatelet therapy selection.

An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.

Evaluating the extent of reusability of CYP2C19 genotype data among patients genotyped for antiplatelet therapy selection.

PURPOSE: Genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy is increasingly being incorporated into clinical care. The purpose of this study is to determine the extent to which patients initially genotyped for CYP2C19 to guide antiplatelet therapy were prescribed additional medications affected by CYP2C19. METHODS: We assembled a cohort of patients from eight sites performingCYP2C19 genotyping to inform antiplatelet therapy. Medication orders were evaluated from time of genotyping through one year. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients prescribed two or more CYP2C19 substrates. Secondary endpoints were the proportion of patients with a drug-genotype interaction and time to receiving a CYP2C19 substrate. RESULTS: Nine thousand one hundred ninety-one genotyped patients (17% nonwhite) with a mean age of 68 ± 3 years were evaluated; 4701 (51%) of patients received two or more CYP2C19 substrates and 3835 (42%) of patients had a drug-genotype interaction. The average time between genotyping and CYP2C19 substrate other than antiplatelet therapy was 25 ± 10 days. CONCLUSIONS: More than half of patients genotyped in the setting of CYP2C19-guided antiplatelet therapy received another medication impacted by CYP2C19 in the following year. Given that genotype is stable for a patient's lifetime, this finding has implications for cost effectiveness, patient care, and treatment outcomes beyond the indication for which it was originally performed.

Pharmacodynamic Effects of Switching From Ticagrelor to Clopidogrel in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease: Results of the SWAP-4 Study.

BACKGROUND: Switching between different classes of P2Y12 inhibitors, including de-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel, commonly occurs in clinical practice. However, the pharmacodynamic profiles of this strategy have been poorly explored. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, open-label study conducted in patients on maintenance dosing (MD) of aspirin (81 mg/d) and clopidogrel (75 mg/d). After a 7-day run-in with ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose [LD] followed by 90 mg twice daily MD), patients (n=80) were randomized into 1 of 4 groups: group A, clopidogrel 600 mg LD 24 hours after the last MD of ticagrelor (C-600 mg-24h); group B, clopidogrel 600 mg LD 12 hours after the last MD of ticagrelor (C-600 mg-12h); group C, clopidogrel 75 mg/d MD 24 hours after the last MD of ticagrelor (C-75 mg-24h); and group D, ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily MD (T-90 mg twice daily). MD of the randomized treatment was maintained for 10±3 days. Pharmacodynamic assessments were performed at baseline, after run-in, and at 2, 24, 48, and 72 hours and 10 days with P2Y12 reaction units by VerifyNow; platelet reactivity index was assessed by vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein; and maximal platelet aggregation was determined by light transmittance aggregometry. RESULTS: T-90 mg twice daily led to lower platelet reactivity than any clopidogrel regimen using all assays at all time points. P2Y12 reaction unit levels were similar between the C-600 mg-24h (group A) and the C-75 mg-24h (group C) (P=0.29), including at 48 hours (primary end point; least mean difference, -6.9; 95% confidence interval, -38.1 to 24.3; P=0.66). P2Y12 reaction unit levels were lower with C-600 mg-12h (group B) than with C-75 mg-24h (group C; P=0.024). Maximal platelet aggregation over time was lower with both C-600 mg-24h (group A; P=0.041) and C-600 mg-12h (group B; P=0.028) compared with C-75 mg-24h (group C). Platelet reactivity index profiles paralleled those observed with P2Y12 reaction units. There were no pharmacodynamic differences for all tests between C-600 mg-24h (group A) and C-600 mg-12h (group B). In group C (C-75 mg-24h), platelet reactivity increased compared with baseline as early as 24 hours, reaching statistical significance at 48 and 72 hours and up to 10 days. These pharmacodynamic findings were delayed and blunted in magnitude with the administration of an LD, regardless of the timing of administration. CONCLUSIONS: De-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel therapy is associated with an increase in platelet reactivity. The use of an LD before the initiation of an MD regimen of clopidogrel mitigates these observations, although this is not affected by the timing of its administration after ticagrelor discontinuation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02287909.

International Expert Consensus on Switching Platelet P2Y12 Receptor-Inhibiting Therapies.

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor is the treatment of choice for the prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndromes and for those undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. The availability of different oral P2Y12 inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor) has enabled physicians to contemplate switching among therapies because of specific clinical scenarios. The recent introduction of an intravenous P2Y12 inhibitor (cangrelor) further adds to the multitude of modalities and settings in which switching therapies may occur. In clinical practice, it is not uncommon to switch P2Y12 inhibitor, and switching may be attributed to a variety of factors. However, concerns about the safety of switching between these agents have emerged. Practice guidelines have not fully elaborated on how to switch therapies, leaving clinicians with limited guidance on when and how to switch therapies when needed. This prompted the development of this expert consensus document by key leaders from North America and Europe with expertise in basic, translational, and clinical sciences in the field of antiplatelet therapy. This expert consensus provides an overview of the pharmacology of P2Y12 inhibitors, different modalities and definitions of switching, and available literature and recommendations for switching between P2Y12 inhibitors.

Clinical implementation of rapid CYP2C19 genotyping to guide antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention.

BACKGROUND: The CYP2C19 nonfunctional genotype reduces clopidogrel effectiveness after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Following clinical implementation of CYP2C19 genotyping at University Florida (UF) Health Shands Hospital in 2012, where genotype results are available approximately 3 days after PCI, testing was expanded to UF Health Jacksonville in 2016 utilizing a rapid genotyping approach. We describe metrics with this latter implementation. METHODS: Patients at UF Health Jacksonville undergoing left heart catheterization with intent to undergo PCI were targeted for genotyping using the Spartan RX™ system. Testing metrics and provider acceptance of testing and response to genotype results were examined, as was antiplatelet therapy over the 6 months following genotyping. RESULTS: In the first year, 931 patients, including 392/505 (78%) total patients undergoing PCI, were genotyped. The median genotype test turnaround time was 96 min. Genotype results were available for 388 (99%) PCI patients prior to discharge. Of 336 genotyped PCI patients alive at discharge and not enrolled in an antiplatelet therapy trial, 1/6 (17%) poor metabolizers (PMs, with two nonfunctional alleles), 38/93 (41%) intermediate metabolizers (IMs, with one nonfunctional allele), and 119/237 (50%) patients without a nonfunctional allele were prescribed clopidogrel (p = 0.110). Clopidogrel use was higher among non-ACS versus ACS patients (78.6% vs. 42.2%, p < 0.001). Six months later, among patients with follow-up data, clopidogrel was prescribed in 0/4 (0%) PMs, 33/65 (51%) IMs, and 115/182 (63%) patients without a nonfunctional allele (p = 0.008 across groups; p = 0.020 for PMs versus those without a nonfunctional allele). CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that rapid genotyping is clinically feasible at a high volume cardiac catheterization facility and allows informed chronic antiplatelet prescribing, with lower clopidogrel use in PMs at 6 months. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02724319; registered March 31, 2016; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02724319?term=angiolillo&rank=7.

Pharmacodynamic Comparison of Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Coronary Artery Disease: The OPTIMUS (Optimizing Antiplatelet Therapy in Diabetes Mellitus)-4 Study.

BACKGROUND: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at increased risk of atherothrombotic events, underscoring the importance of effective platelet inhibiting therapies. Prasugrel and ticagrelor reduce thrombotic complications to a greater extent than clopidogrel. Subgroup analyses of pivotal clinical trials testing prasugrel and ticagrelor versus clopidogrel showed DM patients to have benefits that were consistent with the overall trial populations, although the magnitude of the ischemic risk reduction appeared to be enhanced with prasugrel. Whether these findings may be attributed to differences in the pharmacodynamic profiles of these drugs in DM patients remains poorly explored and represented the aim of this study. METHODS: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, crossover pharmacodynamic study, aspirin-treated DM patients (n=50) with coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to receive prasugrel (60 mg loading dose [LD]/10 mg maintenance dose once daily) or ticagrelor (180 mg LD/90 mg maintenance dose twice daily) for 1 week. Pharmacodynamic assessments were conducted using 4 different assays, including VerifyNow P2Y12, vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein, light transmittance aggregometry, and Multiplate, which allowed us to explore ADP- and non-ADP-induced (arachidonic acid-, collagen-, thrombin receptor-activating, peptide-induced) platelet signaling pathways. The acute (baseline, 30 minutes, and 2 hours post-LD) and maintenance (1 week) effects of therapy were assessed. The primary end point of the study was the comparison of P2Y12 reaction units determined by VerifyNow P2Y12 at 1 week between prasugrel and ticagrelor. RESULTS: ADP- and non-ADP-induced measures of platelet reactivity reduced significantly with both prasugrel and ticagrelor LD and maintenance dose. P2Y12 reaction units defined by VerifyNow were similar between prasugrel and ticagrelor at 30 minutes and 2 hours post-LD. At 1 week, P2Y12 reaction units were significantly lower with ticagrelor than with prasugrel (52 [32-72] versus 83 [63-103]; least-square means difference: -31; 95% confidence interval, -57 to -4; P=0.022; primary end point). Pharmacodynamic assessments measured by vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein, light transmittance aggregometry, and Multiplate were similar between prasugrel and ticagrelor at each time point, including at 1 week. Rates of high on-treatment platelet reactivity were similar between groups with all assays at all time points. CONCLUSIONS: In DM patients with coronary artery disease, ticagrelor exerts similar or greater inhibition of ADP-induced platelet reactivity in comparison with prasugrel in the acute and chronic phases of treatment, whereas the inhibition of measures of non-ADP-induced platelet reactivity was not significantly different between the 2 agents. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01852214.

A head-to-head pharmacodynamic comparison of prasugrel vs. ticagrelor after switching from clopidogrel in patients with coronary artery disease: results of a prospective randomized study.

AIMS: Pharmacodynamic (PD) studies comparing prasugrel and ticagrelor have reached inconsistent findings. Therefore, a comprehensive investigation comparing the PD effects of prasugrel vs. ticagrelor after switching from clopidogrel therapy, exploring both loading dose (LD) and maintenance dose (MD) regimens represented the aim of this study. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (n = 110) with coronary artery disease were randomized to prasugrel (60 mg LD/10 mg MD q.d.) or ticagrelor (180 mg LD/90 mg MD b.i.d) therapy for 1 week. Pharmacodynamic assessments were conducted using three assays (vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein, VerifyNow P2Y12, and light transmittance aggregometry, LTA) at baseline, 30 min, 2, 24 h, and 1 week. The impact of initiating ticagrelor MD 12 vs. 24 h after LD administration was also assessed. Switching clopidogrel-treated patients to an LD of prasugrel or ticagrelor was associated with a reduction in platelet reactivity at 30 min and was sustained at all time points up to 1 week with the MD (P < 0.001 for all assays). Platelet reactivity was similar with prasugrel and ticagrelor with all assays at 30 min, 2 h, and 1 week (P > 0.05 for all time points), with the exception of LTA at 30 min (lower with prasugrel; P = 0.003). At 24 h, platelet reactivity was lower among patients initiating ticagrelor MD after 12 vs. 24 h post-LD. Rates of high platelet reactivity (HPR) were markedly reduced and similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Prasugrel and ticagrelor exert similar levels of P2Y12 inhibition achieving more potent PD effects and reduced HPR rates compared with clopidogrel which are reached promptly following LD and sustained with MD. CLINICALTRIALSGOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01852175.

Antithrombotic Therapy for Secondary Prevention in Patients With Diabetes Mellitus and Coronary Artery Disease.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a key risk factor for recurrent atherothrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and in those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The prothrombotic milieu that characterizes patients with DM underscores the importance of oral antithrombotic therapy for secondary prevention of recurrent events in these patients. Indeed, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and the P2Y12inhibitor clopidogrel, which has represented the mainstay of treatment for many years, has significantly reduced the incidence of recurrent atherothrombotic events. However, recurrence rates in DM patients still remain high despite this treatment regimen, which may be partly related to inadequate platelet inhibition induced by standard DAPT with aspirin and clopidogrel. This underpins the need for more potent antithrombotic treatment regimens for secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events in DM patients following ACS or PCI. The development of antiplatelet therapies associated with more potent oral platelet P2Y12receptor inhibition, including prasugrel and ticagrelor, as well as platelet inhibitors blocking alternative pathways, such as thrombin-mediated platelet inhibition with vorapaxar, may represent potential treatment options in DM patients. Moreover, with the introduction of the target-specific oral anticoagulants, there has been a reappraisal of the use of anticoagulation in addition to antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention in patients with ACS. This review provides an update on the recent advances and limitations of oral antithrombotic agents used for secondary prevention in DM patients following ACS or PCI.

Role of thromboelastography and rapid thromboelastography to assess the pharmacodynamic effects of vitamin K antagonists.

Thromboelastography (TEG) measures the effects of antithrombotic agents by assessing global functional clotting status by evaluating the viscoelastic properties of in vitro clot formation. Recently, rapid TEG (r-TEG), which uses tissue factor in addition to standard kaolin to accelerate activation of the clotting cascade, has been proposed to obtain more immediate results. The correlation between results of TEG or r-TEG with international normalized ratio (INR) in patients on vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy has not been explored and represents the aim of this study. Patients on chronic therapy with VKAs (n = 100) were included in an observational prospective pharmacodynamic study. The correlation between TEG parameters, in particular markers of thrombus generation [Reaction time (R), maximum rate of thrombus generation (MRTG), and time to maximum rate of thrombus generation (TMRTG)], and INR values as well as the concordance between these parameters and therapeutic INR ranges were evaluated. In addition, in a subgroup of subjects (n = 17), the correlation of r-TEG parameters with TEG parameters and INR values was also assessed. No correlation was found between INR and TEG parameters of thrombus generation, in particular between INR and R (r = 0.189, p = 0.06), MRTG (r = -0.027, p = 0.79), and TMRTG (r = 0.188, p = 0.06). Further, no concordance was found between these parameters and recommended INR ranges. Significant Spearman correlations were found between INR and activated clotting time (rS = 0.546, p < 0.001), r-R (rS = 0.572, p = 0.017), and r-TMRTG (rS = 0.510, p = 0.037), but not r-MRTG (rS = 0.131, p = 0.617). Results were obtained in 24 ± 6 versus 12 ± 4 min with TEG and r-TEG, respectively (p < 0.001). In patients on chronic VKA therapy, TEG is not a useful tool to evaluate VKA anticoagulant effect, compared with standard INR measurements. However, r-TEG parameters of thrombus generation correlate with INR levels, suggesting a possible role of this assay for measuring more expeditiously anticoagulant treatment effects.

Perspectives on the management of antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease requiring cardiac and noncardiac surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To provide an updated overview on the management of antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary stents undergoing cardiac and noncardiac surgery. RECENT FINDINGS: Surgical procedures are frequently performed in patients with coronary stents and are associated with an increased risk of ischemic and bleeding complications in the perioperative period. Given the lack of well-designed prospective randomized trials, guidelines recommendations are currently derived from observational studies and expert consensus. Defining the optimal balance between the risk of thrombotic events following discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy and the risk of hemorrhagic complications of having a surgical procedure while on antiplatelet therapy is pivotal. Elective surgery should be postponed for at least 4 weeks after bare metal stent implantation and 6-12 months after drug-eluting stent. If this is not possible, aspirin should be continued in the perioperative period, although the management of P2Y12 inhibitors should be individualized according to the individual patient and type of surgery. SUMMARY: In the absence of well-defined recommendations deriving from prospective randomized clinical trials, the perioperative management of antiplatelet therapy should be based on the balance between the specific thrombotic and hemorrhagic risks that characterize each patient and each surgical procedure.