An Aspirin-Free Strategy for Immediate Treatment Following Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention.

BACKGROUND: There was no study evaluating the effects of an aspirin-free strategy in patients undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). OBJECTIVES: The authors aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an aspirin-free strategy in patients undergoing complex PCI. METHODS: We conducted the prespecified subgroup analysis based on complex PCI in the STOPDAPT-3 (ShorT and OPtimal duration of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy after everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent-3), which randomly compared low-dose prasugrel (3.75 mg/d) monotherapy to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with low-dose prasugrel and aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndrome or high bleeding risk. Complex PCI was defined as any of the following 6 criteria: 3 vessels treated, ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, bifurcation with 2 stents implanted, total stent length >60 mm, or a target of chronic total occlusion. The coprimary endpoints were major bleeding events (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium 3 or 5) and cardiovascular events (a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, or ischemic stroke) at 1 month. RESULTS: Of the 5,966 study patients, there were 1,230 patients (20.6%) with complex PCI. Regardless of complex PCI, the effects of no aspirin relative to DAPT were not significant for the coprimary bleeding (complex PCI: 5.30% vs 3.70%; HR: 1.44; 95% CI: 0.84-2.47; P = 0.18 and noncomplex PCI: 4.26% vs 4.97%; HR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.65-1.11; P = 0.24; P for interaction = 0.08) and cardiovascular (complex PCI: 5.78% vs 5.93%; HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.62-1.55; P = 0.92 and noncomplex PCI: 3.70% vs 3.10%; HR: 1.20; 95% CI: 0.88-1.63; P = 0.25; P for interaction = 0.48) endpoints without significant interactions. CONCLUSIONS: The effects of the aspirin-free strategy relative to standard DAPT for the cardiovascular and major bleeding events were not different regardless of complex PCI. (ShorT and OPtimal duration of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy after everolimus-eluting cobalt-chromium stent-3 [STOPDAPT-3]; NCT04609111).

One-Month Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Followed by P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy After Biodegradable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stent Implantation　- The REIWA Region-Wide Registry.

BACKGROUND: The safety and feasibility of using 1-month dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) followed by P2Y12inhibitor monotherapy for patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with thin-strut biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents (BP-DES) in daily clinical practice remain uncertain.Methods and Results: The REIWA region-wide registry is a prospective study conducted in 1 PCI center and 9 local hospitals in northern Japan. A total of 1,202 patients who successfully underwent final PCI using BP-DES (Synergy: n=400; Ultimaster: n=401; Orsiro: n=401), were enrolled in the registry, and received 1-month DAPT followed by P2Y12inhibitor (prasugrel 3.75 mg/day or clopidogrel 75 mg/day) monotherapy. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular and bleeding events at 12 months, including cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), definite stent thrombosis (ST), ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, and Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major or minor bleeding. Based on the results of a previous study, we set the performance goal at 5.0%. Over the 1-year follow-up, the primary endpoint occurred in 3.08% of patients, which was lower than the predefined performance goal (Pnon-inferiority<0.0001). Notably, definite ST occurred in only 1 patient (0.08%) within 1 year (at 258 days). No differences were observed in the primary endpoint between stent types. CONCLUSIONS: The REIWA region-wide registry suggests that 1-month DAPT followed by P2Y12inhibitor monotherapy is safe and feasible for Japanese patients with BP-DES.

Prasugrel Single Antiplatelet Therapy versus Aspirin and Clopidogrel Dual Antiplatelet Therapy for Flow Diverter Treatment for Cerebral Aneurysms: A Retrospective Multicenter Study.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The optimal antiplatelet regimen after flow diverter treatment of cerebral aneurysms is still a matter of debate. A single antiplatelet therapy might be advantageous in determined clinical scenarios. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of prasugrel single antiplatelet therapy versus aspirin and clopidogrel dual antiplatelet therapy. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a post hoc analysis of 4 retrospective multicenter studies including ruptured and unruptured aneurysms treated with flow diversion using either prasugrel single antiplatelet therapy or dual antiplatelet therapy. Primary end points were the occurrence of any kind of procedure- or device-related thromboembolic complications and complete aneurysm occlusion at the latest radiologic follow-up (mean, 18 months). Dichotomized comparisons of outcomes were performed between single antiplatelet therapy and dual antiplatelet therapy. Additionally, the influence of various patient- and aneurysm-related variables on the occurrence of thromboembolic complications was investigated using multivariable backward logistic regression. RESULTS: A total of 222 patients with 251 aneurysms were included, 90 (40.5%) in the single antiplatelet therapy and 132 (59.5%) in the dual antiplatelet therapy group. The primary outcome-procedure- or device-related thromboembolic complications-occurred in 6 patients (6.6%) of the single antiplatelet therapy and in 12 patients (9.0%) of the dual antiplatelet therapy group (P = .62; OR, 0.712; 95% CI, 0.260-1.930). The primary treatment efficacy end point was reached in 82 patients (80.4%) of the single antiplatelet therapy and in 115 patients (78.2%) of the dual antiplatelet therapy group (P = .752; OR, 1.141; 95% CI, 0.599-2.101). Logistic regression showed that non-surface-modified flow diverters (P = .014) and fusiform aneurysm morphology (P = .004) significantly increased the probability of thromboembolic complications. CONCLUSIONS: Prasugrel single antiplatelet therapy after flow diverter treatment may be as safe and effective as dual antiplatelet therapy and could, therefore, be a valid alternative in selected patients. Further prospective comparative studies are required to validate our findings.

De-escalation of dual antiplatelet therapy for patients with acute coronary syndrome after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compare dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) de-escalation with five alternative DAPT strategies in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA). Parallel-arm randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DAPT strategies were included and arms of interest were compared via NMA. Partial ranking of each identified arm and for each investigated endpoint was also performed. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients with ACS (≥18 years) undergoing PCI with indications for DAPT. SEARCH METHODS: A comprehensive search covered several databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central, MEDLINE, Conference Proceeding Citation Index-Science) from inception to 15 October 2023. Medical subject headings and keywords related to ACS, PCI and DAPT interventions were used. Reference lists of included studies were screened. Clinical trials registers were searched for ongoing or unpublished trials. INTERVENTIONS: Six strategies were assessed: T1 arm: acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) and prasugrel for 12 months; T2 arm: ASA and low-dose prasugrel for 12 months; T3 arm: ASA and ticagrelor for 12 months; T4 arm: DAPT de-escalation (ASA+P2Y12 inhibitor for 1-3 months, then single antiplatelet therapy with potent P2Y12 inhibitor or DAPT with clopidogrel); T5 arm: ASA and clopidogrel for 12 months; T6 arm: ASA and clopidogrel for 3-6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome: Cardiovascular mortality. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: bleeding events (all, major, minor), stent thrombosis (ST), stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), all-cause mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). RESULTS: 23 RCTs (75 064 patients with ACS) were included. No differences in cardiovascular mortality, all-cause death, recurrent MI or MACE were found when the six strategies were compared, although with different levels of certainty of evidence. ASA and clopidogrel for 12 or 3-6 months may result in a large increase of ST risk versus ASA plus full-dose prasugrel (OR 2.00, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.12, and OR 3.42, 95% CI 1.33 to 7.26, respectively; low certainty evidence for both comparisons). DAPT de-escalation probably results in a reduced risk of all bleedings compared with ASA plus full-dose 12-month prasugrel (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.81, moderate-certainty evidence) and ASA plus 12-month ticagrelor (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.75), while it may not increase the risk of ST. ASA plus 12-month clopidogrel may reduce all bleedings versus ASA plus full-dose 12-month prasugrel (OR 0.66, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.94, low certainty) and ASA plus 12-month ticagrelor (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.89). CONCLUSIONS: DAPT de-escalation and ASA-clopidogrel regimens may reduce bleeding events compared with 12 months ASA and potent P2Y12 inhibitors. 3-6 months or 12-month aspirin-clopidogrel may increase ST risk compared with 12-month aspirin plus potent P2Y12 inhibitors, while DAPT de-escalation probably does not.

P2Y12 Inhibitor Monotherapy Combined With Colchicine Following PCI in ACS Patients: The MACT Pilot Study.

BACKGROUND: After a brief period of dual antiplatelet therapy, P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy in the absence of aspirin effectively reduces bleeding without increasing recurrent ischemia in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In addition, early anti-inflammatory therapies may have clinical benefits in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of ticagrelor or prasugrel P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy combined with colchicine immediately after PCI in patients with ACS. METHODS: This was a proof-of-concept pilot trial. ACS patients treated with drug-eluting stents were included. On the day after PCI, low-dose colchicine (0.6 mg daily) was administered in addition to ticagrelor or prasugrel maintenance therapy, whereas aspirin therapy was discontinued. The primary outcome was any stent thrombosis at 3 months. The key secondary outcomes were platelet reactivity measured by the VerifyNow assay (Accriva) before discharge and a reduction in high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) over 1 month. RESULTS: We enrolled 200 patients, 190 (95.0%) of whom completed the 3-month follow-up. The primary outcome occurred in 2 patients (1.0%): 1 definite and 1 probable stent thrombosis. The level of platelet reactivity overall was 27 ± 42 P2Y12 reaction units, and only 1 patient had high platelet reactivity (>208 P2Y12 reaction units). The hs-CRP levels decreased from 6.1 mg/L (IQR: 2.6-15.9 mg/L) at 24 hours after PCI to 0.6 mg/L (IQR: 0.4-1.2 mg/L) at 1 month (P < 0.001), and the prevalence of high-inflammation criteria (hs-CRP ≥2 mg/L) decreased from 81.8% to 11.8% (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In ACS patients undergoing PCI, it is feasible to discontinue aspirin therapy and administer low-dose colchicine on the day after PCI in addition to ticagrelor or prasugrel P2Y12 inhibitors. This approach is associated with favorable platelet function and inflammatory profiles. (Mono Antiplatelet and Colchicine Therapy [MACT]; NCT04949516).

Antiplatelet Therapy and Periprocedural Risk Factor Analysis for Pipeline Embolization Device Treatment of Unruptured Internal Carotid Artery Aneurysms: A Retrospective, Multicenter Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Aneurysm treatment using the Pipeline Embolization Device has been established but appropriate maintenance of dual antiplatelet therapy (APT) is essential. This multicenter retrospective study assessed whether APT was properly adjusted for clopidogrel resistance and identified risk factors associated with periprocedural complications. METHODS: Consecutive cases of use of the Pipeline Embolization Device for internal carotid artery aneurysms (>10 mm) between November 2015 and April 2020 were analyzed. Dual APT (aspirin + clopidogrel) was prescribed before treatment. If preprocedural P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) values were >240, APT was adjusted. Periprocedural complications were compared between APT nonadjustment and adjustment groups and periprocedural risk factors were also analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 162 procedures were assessed. The mean maximum aneurysm size was 15.35 mm. APT adjustment was required in 47 cases (29.0%), primarily by switching to prasugrel. There were no significant differences in complication incidence between the 2 groups even after propensity score matching. The risk factor independently associated with ischemic complications was a neck size of 8 mm or larger (odds ratio [OR], 5.25; P = 0.018) and restricting analysis to the APT nonadjustment group showed PRU values of 190 or higher (OR, 5.84; P = 0.047) and neck sizes of 8 mm or larger (OR, 7.05; P = 0.029) as significant factors. The risk factor independently associated with hemorrhagic complications was a neck size of 7 mm or larger (OR, 11.57; P = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: APT adjustment for clopidogrel resistance was safe and effective. Neck width was a risk factor for both ischemic and hemorrhagic complications. PRU values of 190 or higher were also associated with ischemic complications.

In-hospital Bleeding Outcomes of Oral Anticoagulant and Dual Antiplatelet Therapy During Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: An Analysis From the Japanese Nationwide Registry.

ABSTRACT: The type of periprocedural antithrombotic regimen that is the safest and most effective in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) patients on oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy has not been fully investigated. We aimed to retrospectively investigate the in-hospital bleeding outcomes of patients receiving OAC and antiplatelet therapies during PCI using Japanese nationwide multicenter registry data. A total of 26,938 patients who underwent PCI with OAC and antiplatelet therapies between 2016 and 2017 were included. We investigated in-hospital bleeding requiring blood transfusion, mortality, and stent thrombosis according to the antithrombotic regimens used at the time of PCI: OAC + single antiplatelet therapy (double therapy) and OAC + dual antiplatelet therapy (triple therapy). The antiplatelet agents included aspirin, clopidogrel, and prasugrel. The OAC agents included warfarin and direct OACs. Adjusting the dose of OAC or intermitting OAC before PCI was at each operator's discretion. In the study population [mean age (SD), 73.5 (9.5) years; women, 21.5%], the double therapy and triple therapy groups comprised 5546 (20.6%) and 21,392 (79.4%) patients, respectively. Bleeding requiring transfusion was not significantly different between the groups [adjusted odds ratio (aOR), 0.700; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.420-1.160; P = 0.165] (triple therapy as a reference). Mortality was not significantly different (aOR, 1.370; 95% CI, 0.790-2.360; P = 0.258). Stent thrombosis was significantly different between the groups (aOR, 3.310; 95% CI, 1.040-10.500; P = 0.042) (triple therapy as a reference). In conclusion, for patients on OAC therapy who underwent PCI, periprocedural triple therapy may be safe with respect to in-hospital bleeding risks. However, further investigations are warranted to establish the safety and efficacy of periprocedural triple therapy.

De-Escalation of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes.

BACKGROUND: Balancing the effects of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in the era of potent P2Y12 inhibitors has become a cornerstone of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) management. Recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have investigated DAPT de-escalation to decrease the risk of bleeding outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety outcomes of various DAPT strategies in patients with ACS, including de-escalation from a potent P2Y12 inhibitor to clopidogrel or low-dose prasugrel. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched through January 2021 for RCTs investigating the efficacy and safety of DAPT in patients with ACS, and a network meta-analysis was conducted. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke. The primary bleeding outcome was trial-defined major or minor bleeding. RESULTS: Our search identified 15 eligible RCTs, including 55,798 patients with ACS. De-escalation therapy was associated with reduced risk of primary bleeding outcomes (HR: 0.48 [95% CI: 0.30-0.77] vs clopidogrel; HR: 0.32 [95% CI: 0.20-0.52] vs ticagrelor; HR: 0.36 [95% CI: 0.24-0.55] vs standard-dose prasugrel; and HR: 0.40 [95% CI: 0.22-0.75] vs low-dose prasugrel) without negatively affecting primary efficacy outcomes. There were no significant differences in ischemic or bleeding outcomes between de-escalation to clopidogrel or low-dose prasugrel. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with other established uses of DAPT, de-escalation was the most effective strategy for ACS treatment, resulting in fewer bleeding events without increasing ischemic events.

Ticagrelor and prasugrel in acute coronary syndrome: a single-arm crossover platelet reactivity study.

AIM: To compare the degree of platelet inhibition between ticagrelor and prasugrel in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome. METHODS: Platelet function was assessed by impedance aggregometry after 30-90 days of therapy with acetylsalicylic acid and ticagrelor and over 15 days after switching to prasugrel. High-on-treatment platelet reactivity (HRPR) was defined for ADP test results above the upper limit of normal. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients were included, 81.9% males and 33.3% people with diabetes, with a mean age of 60.8 ±â€Š8.1 years. Mean platelet reactivity was not significantly different between the two antiplatelet strategies, as the prevalence of HRPR (8.6 vs 12.3%, P = 0.50). Switching between the two antiplatelet agents was safe and well tolerated, and effectively reduced platelet reactivity in over 95% of the patients (only 3.8% of the study population displaying ineffective response to both drugs). CONCLUSION: Ticagrelor and prasugrel have a similar effect on platelet reactivity. Switching between the two drugs can be safely done.

Clopidogrel vs. prasugrel vs. ticagrelor in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a pooled IABP-SHOCK II and CULPRIT-SHOCK trial sub-analysis.

AIMS: The aim of this pooled sub-analysis of the Intraaortic Balloon Pump in Cardiogenic Shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) and Culprit Lesion Only PCI versus Multivessel PCI in Cardiogenic Shock (CULPRIT-SHOCK) trial was to compare the clinical outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock treated either with clopidogrel or the newer, more potent ADP-receptor antagonists prasugrel or ticagrelor. METHODS AND RESULTS: For the current analysis the primary endpoint was 1-year mortality and the secondary safety endpoint was moderate or severe bleedings until hospital discharge with respect to three different ADP-receptor antagonists. 856 patients were eligible for analysis. Of these, 507 patients (59.2%) received clopidogrel, 178 patients (20.8%) prasugrel and 171 patients (20.0%) ticagrelor as acute antiplatelet therapy. The adjusted rate of mortality after 1-year did not differ significantly between prasugrel and clopidogrel (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.60-1.09, padj = 0.17) or between ticagrelor and clopidogrel treated patients (HR: 0.86, 95% CI 0.65-1.15, padj = 0.31). In-hospital bleeding events were significantly less frequent in patients treated with ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel (HR: 0.37, 95% CI 0.20 -0.69, padj = 0.002) and not significantly different in patients treated with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel (HR: 0.73, 95% CI 0.43 -1.24, padj = 0.24). CONCLUSION: This pooled sub-analysis is the largest analysis on safety and efficacy of three oral ADP-receptor antagonists and shows that acute therapy with either clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor is no independent predictor of 1-year mortality. Treatment with ticagrelor seems independently associated with less in-hospital moderate and severe bleeding events compared to clopidogrel. This finding might be due to selection bias and should be interpreted with caution.

Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling of drug interactions at the P2Y12 receptor between selatogrel and oral P2Y12 antagonists.

Selatogrel is a potent and reversible P2Y12 receptor antagonist developed for subcutaneous self-administration by patients with suspected acute myocardial infarction. After single-dose emergency treatment with selatogrel, patients are switched to long-term treatment with oral P2Y12 receptor antagonists. Selatogrel shows rapid onset and offset of inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA) to overcome the critical initial time after acute myocardial infarction. Long-term benefit is provided by oral P2Y12 receptor antagonists such as clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor. A population pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) model based on data from 545 subjects in 4 phase I and 2 phase II studies well described the effect of selatogrel on IPA alone and in combination with clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor. The PK of selatogrel were described by a three-compartment model. The PD model included a receptor-pool compartment to which all drugs can bind concurrently, reversibly or irreversibly, depending on their mode of action. Furthermore, ticagrelor and its active metabolite can bind to the selatogrel-receptor complex allosterically, releasing selatogrel from the binding site. The model provided a framework for predicting the effect on IPA of selatogrel followed by reversibly and irreversibly binding oral P2Y12 receptor antagonists for sustained effects. Determining the timepoint for switching from emergency to maintenance treatment is critical to achieve sufficient IPA at all times. Simulations based on the interaction model showed that loading doses of clopidogrel and prasugrel administered 15 h and 4.5 h after selatogrel, respectively, provide sustained IPA with clinically negligible drug interaction. Study Highlights WHAT IS THE CURRENT KNOWLEDGE ON THE TOPIC? Selatogrel is a potent reversible P2Y12 receptor antagonist developed for subcutaneous self-administration by patients in case of suspected acute myocardial infarction. Transition to oral P2Y12 receptor antagonists without drug interaction and sufficient inhibition of platelet aggregation must be assured at all times. WHAT QUESTION DID THIS STUDY ADDRESS? The pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model semimechanistically describes the effect of selatogrel on platelet inhibition alone and in combination with the oral P2Y12 receptor antagonists clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor. WHAT DOES THIS STUDY ADD TO OUR KNOWLEDGE? Model-based simulations showed that loading doses of clopidogrel and prasugrel can be administered from 15 h and 4.5 h after selatogrel, respectively. HOW MIGHT THIS CHANGE CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY OR TRANSLATIONAL SCIENCE? These results support guiding the clinical transition from selatogrel emergency treatment to oral maintenance therapy in a safe and efficacious way.

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.

Rivaroxaban monotherapy versus combination therapy according to patient risk of stroke and bleeding in atrial fibrillation and stable coronary disease: AFIRE trial subanalysis.

BACKGROUND: In the AFIRE trial, rivaroxaban monotherapy was noninferior to combination therapy with rivaroxaban and an antiplatelet agent for thromboembolic events or death, and superior for major bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and stable coronary artery disease. Little is known about impacts of stroke and bleeding risks on the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban monotherapy. METHODS: In this subanalysis of the AFIRE trial, we assessed the risk of stroke and bleeding by the CHADS2, CHA2DS2-VASc, and HAS-BLED scores. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of stroke, systemic embolism, myocardial infarction (MI), unstable angina requiring revascularization, or death from any cause. The primary safety end point was major bleeding defined by the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. RESULTS: Rivaroxaban monotherapy significantly reduced the primary efficacy and safety end points with no evidence of differential effects by stroke risk (CHADS2, p for interaction = 0.727 for efficacy, 0.395 for safety; CHA2DS2-VASc, p for interaction = 0.740 for efficacy, 0.265 for safety) or bleeding risk (HAS-BLED, p for interaction = 0.581 for efficacy, 0.225 for safety). There was also no evidence of statistical heterogeneity across patient risk categories for other end points; stroke or systemic embolism, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, MI, MI or unstable angina, death from any cause, any bleeding, or net adverse clinical events. CONCLUSIONS: The advantages of rivaroxaban monotherapy compared with those of combination therapy with respect to all prespecified end points, including thromboembolism, bleeding, and mortality were similar across patients with AF and stable coronary artery disease, irrespective of their risk for stroke and bleeding. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: UMIN Clinical Trials Registry number, UMIN000016612, and ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02642419.

Prasugrel versus ticagrelor in patients with myocardial infarction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

OBJECTIVE: The comparative efficacy and safety of prasugrel and ticagrelor in patients with myocardial infarction (MI) treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remain unclear. We aimed to investigate the association of treatment with clinical outcomes. METHODS: In the SWEDEHEART (Swedish Web-system for enhancement and development of evidence-based care in heart disease evaluated according to recommended therapies) registry, all patients with MI treated with PCI and discharged on prasugrel or ticagrelor from 2010 to 2016 were included. Outcomes were 1-year major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE, death, MI or stroke), individual components and bleeding. Multivariable adjustment, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) and propensity score matching (PSM) were used to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: We included 37 990 patients, 2073 in the prasugrel group and 35 917 in the ticagrelor group. Patients in the prasugrel group were younger, more often admitted with ST elevation MI and more likely to have diabetes. Six to twelve months after discharge, 20% of patients in each group discontinued the P2Y12 receptor inhibitor they received at discharge. The risk for MACCE did not significantly differ between prasugrel-treated and ticagrelor-treated patients (adjusted HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.24). We found no significant difference in the adjusted risk for death, recurrent MI or stroke alone between the two treatments. There was no significant difference in the risk for bleeding with prasugrel versus ticagrelor (2.5% vs 3.2%, adjusted HR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22). IPTW and PSM analyses confirmed the results. CONCLUSION: In patients with MI treated with PCI, prasugrel and ticagrelor were associated with similar efficacy and safety during 1-year follow-up.

Treatment of distal unruptured intracranial aneurysms using a surface-modified flow diverter under prasugrel monotherapy: a pilot safety trial.

BACKGROUND: Flow diverters (FDs) are effective in the treatment of carotid aneurysms. Compared with carotid aneurysms, the treatment of distal intracranial aneurysms with FDs has been associated with a relatively high incidence of complications. Low thrombogenic modified-surface FDs may reduce ischemic complications and allow for the use of a single antiplatelet medication. The aim of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the p48 MW HPC Flow Modulation Device (Phenox GmbH, Bochum, Germany) to treat distal intracranial aneurysms used in combination with prasugrel monotherapy. METHODS: This was a single-center, prospective, pivotal, open, single-arm study. Patients were included in this study from December 2019 to September 2020. The primary endpoints were the incidence of any neurologic deficit after treatment until 1 month of follow-up, defined as National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) ≥1, and the incidence of acute ischemic lesions in magnetic resonance imagin (MRI) images 48 hours after treatment. The secondary endpoint was the rate of complete occlusion of the aneurysms at the 1-month follow-up. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients harboring 27 distal aneurysms of the anterior circulation were included. Mean age was 57.8 (SD 9.7) years, and 16 patients were female (80%). No patient had neurologic symptoms at the 1-month follow-up. Four patients (20%) had asymptomatic acute brain ischemic lesions on MRI. Complete aneurysm occlusion occurred in 9/27 (33.3%) aneurysms at the 1-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: In this pilot safety trial, treatment of distal intracranial aneurysms with p48 MW HPC under monotherapy with prasugrel appeared to be safe.

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.

Insights from In Vitro and Clinical Data to Guide Transition from the Novel P2Y12 Antagonist Selatogrel to Clopidogrel, Prasugrel, and Ticagrelor.

Reduced pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of irreversible oral P2Y12 receptor antagonists have been reported when administered during cangrelor infusion. Therefore, the PD interaction liability of the novel P2Y12 receptor antagonist selatogrel with irreversible (i.e., clopidogrel, prasugrel) and reversible (i.e., ticagrelor) oral P2Y12 receptor antagonists was investigated in vitro and in healthy subjects. In vitro, selatogrel reduced the effects of clopidogrel and prasugrel in a concentration-dependent manner, while additive effects were observed for the combination of selatogrel and ticagrelor. Accordingly, a single-center, randomized, double-blind, two-way crossover study was conducted consisting of six groups. In each group (N = 12), an open-label loading dose of 300 or 600 mg clopidogrel, 60 mg prasugrel, or 180 mg ticagrelor was administered 30 minutes (i.e., at t max of selatogrel) or 12 hours after a single subcutaneous dose of 16 mg selatogrel or placebo. Inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA) was assessed at various time points up to 48 hours. Reduced IPA was determined when clopidogrel or prasugrel was administered 30 minutes after selatogrel (∼40 and 70% lower IPA, respectively, at 24 hours postdosing). However, when administering prasugrel 12 hours after selatogrel, IPA was not impacted (>90% IPA) and in the case of clopidogrel reduced effects were partially mitigated. Similar IPA was determined for ticagrelor when administered 30 minutes after selatogrel or placebo. In conclusion, reduced IPA was observed for clopidogrel and prasugrel when administered after selatogrel, which can be mitigated by applying an appropriate time interval. No PD interaction with ticagrelor was observed.

Pharmacodynamic Profile and Prevalence of Bleeding Episode in East Asian Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes Treated with Prasugrel Standard-Dose versus De-escalation Strategy: A Randomized A-MATCH Trial.

Compared with Caucasian patients, East Asian patients have the unique risk-benefit trade-off and different responsiveness to antithrombotic regimens. The aim of this study was to compare pharmacodynamic profile in East Asian patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) treated with prasugrel standard-dose versus a de-escalation strategy. Before discharge, ACS patients with age <75 years or weight ≥60 kg (n = 255) were randomly assigned to the standard-dose (10-mg group) or de-escalation strategy (5-mg group or platelet function test [PFT]-guided group). After 1 month, VerifyNow P2Y12 assay-based platelet reactivity (P2Y12 reaction unit [PRU]) and bleeding episodes were evaluated. Primary endpoint was the percentage of patients with the therapeutic window (85 ≤ PRU ≤ 208). The 250 patients completed 1-month treatment. The percentage of patients within the therapeutic window was significantly lower in the 10-mg group (n = 85) compared with the 5-mg (n = 83) and PFT-guided groups (n = 82) (35.3 vs. 67.5 vs. 65.9%) (odds ratio [OR]: 3.80 and 3.54; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.01-7.21 and 1.87-6.69, respectively). Compared with the 10-mg group, the bleeding rate was tended to be lower with de-escalation strategies (35.3 vs. 24.1% vs. 23.2%) (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.58 and 0.55; 95% CI: 0.30-1.14 and 0.28-1.09, respectively). "PRU < 127" was the optimal cut-off for predicting 1-month bleeding events (area under the curve: 0.616; 95% CI: 0.543-0.689; p = 0.005), which criteria was significantly associated with early discontinuation of prasugrel treatment (HR: 2.00; 95% CI: 1.28-3.03; p = 0.001). In conclusion, compared with the standard-dose prasugrel, the prasugrel de-escalation strategy in East Asian patients presented with ACS showed a higher chance within the therapeutic window and a lower tendency toward bleeding episodes. REGISTRATION: URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier:NCT01951001.