Thrombin-receptor antagonist vorapaxar in acute coronary syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Vorapaxar is a new oral protease-activated-receptor 1 (PAR-1) antagonist that inhibits thrombin-induced platelet activation. METHODS: In this multinational, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared vorapaxar with placebo in 12,944 patients who had acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, or urgent coronary revascularization. RESULTS: Follow-up in the trial was terminated early after a safety review. After a median follow-up of 502 days (interquartile range, 349 to 667), the primary end point occurred in 1031 of 6473 patients receiving vorapaxar versus 1102 of 6471 patients receiving placebo (Kaplan-Meier 2-year rate, 18.5% vs. 19.9%; hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.01; P=0.07). A composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 822 patients in the vorapaxar group versus 910 in the placebo group (14.7% and 16.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98; P=0.02). Rates of moderate and severe bleeding were 7.2% in the vorapaxar group and 5.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.58; P<0.001). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 1.1% and 0.2%, respectively (hazard ratio, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.78 to 6.45; P<0.001). Rates of nonhemorrhagic adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute coronary syndromes, the addition of vorapaxar to standard therapy did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point but significantly increased the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRACER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00527943.).

Effect of vorapaxar on myocardial infarction in the thrombin receptor antagonist for clinical event reduction in acute coronary syndrome (TRA·CER) trial.

AIMS: The TRA·CER trial compared vorapaxar, a novel platelet protease-activated receptor (PAR)-1 antagonist, with placebo in 12 944 patients with high-risk non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE ACS). In this analysis, we explored the effect of vorapaxar on myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS AND RESULTS: A blinded, independent central endpoint adjudication committee prospectively defined and classified MI according to the universal MI definition, including peak cardiac marker value (creatine kinase-MB [CK-MB] and/or troponin). Because the trial failed to meet its primary endpoint, these analyses are considered exploratory. During a median follow-up of 502 days, 1580 MIs occurred in 1319 patients. The majority (n = 1025, 64.9%) were type 1 (spontaneous) MI, followed by type 4a [percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related] MI (n = 352; 22.3%). Compared with placebo, vorapaxar reduced the hazard of a first MI of any type by 12% [hazard ratio (HR), 0.88; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.79-0.98; P = 0.021] and the hazard of total number of MIs (first and subsequent) by 14% (HR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.77-0.97; P = 0.014), an effect that was sustained over time. Vorapaxar reduced type 1 MI by 17% (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.73-0.95; P = 0.007). Type 4a MIs were not significantly reduced by vorapaxar (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.73-1.12; P = 0.35). Vorapaxar effect was consistent across MI sizes defined by peak cardiac marker elevations and across key clinical subgroups; however, in patients not treated with thienopyridine at baseline (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.46-0.92) compared with patients who received thienopyridine (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.81-1.02), there was a trend towards a higher effect (Pint = 0.077). CONCLUSION: The PAR-1 antagonist vorapaxar was associated with a reduction of MI, including total number of infarctions. This reduction was sustained over time and was mostly evident in type 1 MI, the most common type of MI observed.

Effects of vorapaxar on platelet reactivity and biomarker expression in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. The TRACER Pharmacodynamic Substudy.

Vorapaxar is an antagonist of the protease activated receptor-1 (PAR-1), the principal platelet thrombin receptor. The Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction (TRACER) trial evaluated vorapaxar compared to placebo in non-ST-elevation (NSTE)-acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. It was the study's objective to assess the pharmacodynamic effects of vorapaxar versus placebo that included aspirin or a thienopyridine or, frequently, a combination of both agents in NSTE-ACS patients. In a substudy involving 249 patients, platelet aggregation was assessed by light transmittance aggregometry (LTA) in 85 subjects (41 placebo, 44 vorapaxar) using the agonists thrombin receptor activating peptide (TRAP, 15 µM), adenosine diphosphate (ADP, 20 µM), and the combination of collagen-related peptide (2.5 µg/ml) + ADP (5 µM) + TRAP (15 µM) (CAT). VerifyNow® IIb/IIIa and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) phosphorylation assays were performed, and platelet PAR-1 expression, plasma platelet/endothelial and inflammatory biomarkers were determined before and during treatment. LTA responses to TRAP and CAT and VerifyNow results were markedly inhibited by vorapaxar. Maximal LTA response to TRAP (median, interquartile range) 2 hours post loading dose: placebo 68% (53-75%) and vorapaxar 3% (2-6%), p<0.0001. ADP inhibition was greater in the vorapaxar group at 4 hours and one month (p<0.01). In contrast to the placebo group, PAR-1 receptor number in the vorapaxar group at one month was significantly lower than the baseline (179 vs 225; p=0.004). There were significant changes in selected biomarker levels between the two treatment groups. In conclusion, vorapaxar caused a potent inhibition of PAR-1-mediated platelet aggregation. Further studies are needed to explore vorapaxar effect on P2Y12 inhibition, PAR-1 expression and biomarkers and its contribution to clinical outcomes.

Strategic lessons from the clinical event classification process for the Assessment of Pexelizumab in Acute Myocardial Infarction (APEX-AMI) trial.

BACKGROUND: Independent adjudication of clinical trial events is traditionally performed by physicians on a clinical event classification (CEC) committee. OBJECTIVES: The experience of the centralized CEC group of the APEX-AMI trial is described. This group adjudicated key secondary pre-specified outcome measures of congestive heart failure (CHF) and cardiogenic shock through 90 days using an algorithmic approach for some events. METHODS: Data were collected via an electronic data capture (EDC) tool on all subjects, and additional information was provided via EDC for patients identified by site investigators with CHF or shock. Two strategies were used to adjudicate potential events: 1) a computer algorithm (followed by physician confirmation) analyzed data to determine whether events met trial end point definitions; or 2) physician review was used if EDC data were inadequate to allow classification by algorithm. RESULTS: Of 5745 patients, 282 suspected cardiogenic shock and 465 suspected CHF events were identified. The computer algorithm or physicians confirmed 196/282 cardiogenic shock and 277/465 CHF end points. Overall, 242/742 (32.6%) of suspected events were classified by algorithm. Of the 500 events not resolved by computer algorithm, the CEC physicians agreed with site investigator assessments in 126/277 (45%) of CHF and 151/196 (77%) of cardiogenic shock events. The CEC committee completed adjudication of all suspected 30- and 90-day CHF and cardiogenic shock events within 7 days of the last patient 30-day follow-up visit and within 1 day of the last patient 90-day follow-up visit. Only 27% of patients required source document collection in addition to EDC-collected information. CONCLUSIONS: A complementary approach of a computerized assessment and physician review was used in the CEC effort of the APEX-AMI trial. The algorithm categorized approximately one third of suspected CHF/cardiogenic shock events. The APEX-AMI CEC experience shows that an algorithmic approach may be a useful strategy for end point evaluation but requires validation.