Acute Limb Ischemia in Peripheral Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Acute limb ischemia (ALI) is an important clinical event and an emerging cardiovascular clinical trial outcome. Risk factors for and outcomes after ALI have not been fully evaluated. METHODS: EUCLID (Examining Use of Ticagrelor in Peripheral Artery Disease) randomized patients with peripheral artery disease to ticagrelor versus clopidogrel. Enrollment criteria included an ankle-brachial index ≤0.80 or previous lower extremity revascularization. Patients were grouped according to the primary outcome, postrandomization ALI hospitalization. Baseline factors associated with ALI were identified using Cox proportional hazards modeling. Models with ALI hospitalization as a time-dependent covariate were developed for secondary outcomes of major adverse cardiovascular events (myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, ischemic stroke), all-cause mortality, and major amputation. RESULTS: Among 13 885 patients, 1.7% (n=232) had 293 ALI hospitalizations (0.8 per 100 patient-years). Patients with versus without ALI were younger and more often had previous peripheral revascularization and lower baseline ankle-brachial index. Treatment during ALI hospitalization included endovascular revascularization (39.2%, n=115), surgical bypass (24.6%, n=72), and major amputation (13.0%, n=38). After multivariable adjustment, any previous peripheral revascularization (Hazard Ratio [HR] 4.7, 95% CI 3.3-6.8, P<0.01), baseline atrial fibrillation (HR 1.8, 95% CI 1.1-3.2, P=0.03), and baseline ankle-brachial index ≤0.60 (HR 1.3 per 0.10 decrease, 95% CI 1.1-1.5, P<0.01) were associated with higher ALI risk. Older age (HR 0.8 per 10-year increase, 95% CI 0.7-1.0, P=0.02) and baseline statin use (HR 0.7, 95% CI 0.5-0.9, P<0.01) were associated with lower risk for ALI. There was no relationship between randomized treatment to ticagrelor or clopidogrel and ALI. Among patients with previous revascularization, surgical versus endovascular procedures performed more than 6 months prior were associated with ALI (adjusted HR 2.63, 95% CI 1.75-3.96). In the overall population, ALI hospitalization was associated with subsequent MACE (adjusted HR 1.4, 95% CI 1.0-2.1, P=0.04), all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 3.3, 95% CI 2.4-4.6, P<0.01), and major amputation (adjusted HR 34.2, 95% CI 9.7-20.8, P<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Previous peripheral revascularization, baseline atrial fibrillation, and lower ankle-brachial index identify peripheral artery disease patients at heightened risk for ALI, an event associated with subsequent cardiovascular and limb-related morbidity and mortality. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01732822.

Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in Symptomatic Peripheral Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: Peripheral artery disease is considered to be a manifestation of systemic atherosclerosis with associated adverse cardiovascular and limb events. Data from previous trials have suggested that patients receiving clopidogrel monotherapy had a lower risk of cardiovascular events than those receiving aspirin. We wanted to compare clopidogrel with ticagrelor, a potent antiplatelet agent, in patients with peripheral artery disease. METHODS: In this double-blind, event-driven trial, we randomly assigned 13,885 patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease to receive monotherapy with ticagrelor (90 mg twice daily) or clopidogrel (75 mg once daily). Patients were eligible if they had an ankle-brachial index (ABI) of 0.80 or less or had undergone previous revascularization of the lower limbs. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of adjudicated cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. The primary safety end point was major bleeding. The median follow-up was 30 months. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 66 years, and 72% were men; 43% were enrolled on the basis of the ABI and 57% on the basis of previous revascularization. The mean baseline ABI in all patients was 0.71, 76.6% of the patients had claudication, and 4.6% had critical limb ischemia. The primary efficacy end point occurred in 751 of 6930 patients (10.8%) receiving ticagrelor and in 740 of 6955 (10.6%) receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.92 to 1.13; P=0.65). In each group, acute limb ischemia occurred in 1.7% of the patients (hazard ratio, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.33; P=0.85) and major bleeding in 1.6% (hazard ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.43; P=0.49). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease, ticagrelor was not shown to be superior to clopidogrel for the reduction of cardiovascular events. Major bleeding occurred at similar rates among the patients in the two trial groups. (Funded by AstraZeneca; EUCLID ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01732822 .).

Time to Loading Dose and Risk of Recurrent Events in the SOCRATES Trial.

Background and Purpose- Recurrent ischemia risk is high in the acute period after cerebral ischemic events. Effects of antiplatelet agents may vary by time to loading dose (TLD). We explored the risk of recurrent events and safety and efficacy of ticagrelor versus aspirin in relation to TLD. Methods- We randomized 13 199 patients with noncardioembolic, nonsevere ischemic stroke, or high-risk transient ischemic attack to 90-day ticagrelor or aspirin treatment within 24 hours of symptom onset. For this analysis, 13 126 patients were categorized by TLD as <12 hours or ≥12 hours from start of index event. The primary end point was the composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 90 days. Major bleeding was the primary safety end point. Results- TLD was <12 hours in 4403 (33.5%) and ≥12 hours in 8723 (66.5%). The Kaplan-Meier% for the primary end point for all patients with TLD<12 hours was 7.5% versus 6.9% in TLD≥12 hours. Among patients with TLD<12 hours, the primary end point occurred in 147/2196 (6.8%) randomized to ticagrelor and in 184/2207 (8.3%) randomized to aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.64-0.98; P=0.036). Among patients with TLD≥12 hours, the primary end point occurred in 6.7% patients randomized to ticagrelor versus 7.0% to aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.81-1.12; P=0.55). There was no significant treatment-by-TLD interaction. Major bleeding rates were comparable on ticagrelor and aspirin, regardless of TLD. Conclusions- The event rate for the primary end point was higher in patients treated early (<12 hours) versus later (≥12 hours). In this exploratory analysis, a larger numerical difference in the primary end point was observed among patients on ticagrelor than on aspirin when TLD was <12 hours compared with ≥12 hours, although the interaction terms for treatment-by-TLD were not significant. For major bleeding, no relation to TLD was observed. Clinical Trial Registration- URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01994720.

Ticagrelor versus Aspirin in Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack.

BACKGROUND: Ticagrelor may be a more effective antiplatelet therapy than aspirin for the prevention of recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events in patients with acute cerebral ischemia. METHODS: We conducted an international double-blind, controlled trial in 674 centers in 33 countries, in which 13,199 patients with a nonsevere ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack who had not received intravenous or intraarterial thrombolysis and were not considered to have had a cardioembolic stroke were randomly assigned within 24 hours after symptom onset, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive either ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 90 mg twice daily for days 2 through 90) or aspirin (300 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg daily for days 2 through 90). The primary end point was the time to the occurrence of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 90 days. RESULTS: During the 90 days of treatment, a primary end-point event occurred in 442 of the 6589 patients (6.7%) treated with ticagrelor, versus 497 of the 6610 patients (7.5%) treated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 1.01; P=0.07). Ischemic stroke occurred in 385 patients (5.8%) treated with ticagrelor and in 441 patients (6.7%) treated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.00). Major bleeding occurred in 0.5% of patients treated with ticagrelor and in 0.6% of patients treated with aspirin, intracranial hemorrhage in 0.2% and 0.3%, respectively, and fatal bleeding in 0.1% and 0.1%. CONCLUSIONS: In our trial involving patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack, ticagrelor was not found to be superior to aspirin in reducing the rate of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death at 90 days. (Funded by AstraZeneca; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01994720.).

Risk for Major Bleeding in Patients Receiving Ticagrelor Compared With Aspirin After Transient Ischemic Attack or Acute Ischemic Stroke in the SOCRATES Study (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Aspirin or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcomes).

BACKGROUND: Patients with minor acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack are at high risk for subsequent stroke, and more potent antiplatelet therapy in the acute setting is needed. However, the potential benefit of more intense antiplatelet therapy must be assessed in relation to the risk for major bleeding. The SOCRATES trial (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Aspirin or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcomes) was the first trial with ticagrelor in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack in which the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor were compared with those of aspirin. The main safety objective was assessment of PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes)-defined major bleeds on treatment, with special focus on intracranial hemorrhage (ICrH). METHODS: An independent adjudication committee blinded to study treatment classified bleeds according to the PLATO, TIMI (Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction), and GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries) definitions. The definitions of ICrH and major bleeding excluded cerebral microbleeds and asymptomatic hemorrhagic transformations of cerebral infarctions so that the definitions better discriminated important events in the acute stroke population. RESULTS: A total of 13 130 of 13 199 randomized patients received at least 1 dose of study drug and were included in the safety analysis set. PLATO major bleeds occurred in 31 patients (0.5%) on ticagrelor and 38 patients (0.6%) on aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.52-1.34). The most common locations of major bleeds were intracranial and gastrointestinal. ICrH was reported in 12 patients (0.2%) on ticagrelor and 18 patients (0.3%) on aspirin. Thirteen of all 30 ICrHs (4 on ticagrelor and 9 on aspirin) were hemorrhagic strokes, and 4 (2 in each group) were symptomatic hemorrhagic transformations of brain infarctions. The ICrHs were spontaneous in 6 and 13, traumatic in 3 and 3, and procedural in 3 and 2 patients on ticagrelor and aspirin, respectively. In total, 9 fatal bleeds occurred on ticagrelor and 4 on aspirin. The composite of ICrH or fatal bleeding included 15 patients on ticagrelor and 18 on aspirin. Independently of bleeding classification, PLATO, TIMI, or GUSTO, the relative difference between treatments for major/severe bleeds was similar. Nonmajor bleeds were more common on ticagrelor. CONCLUSIONS: Antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor in patients with acute ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack showed a bleeding profile similar to that of aspirin for major bleeds. There were few ICrHs. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01994720.

Ticagrelor Compared With Clopidogrel in Patients With Prior Lower Extremity Revascularization for Peripheral Artery Disease.

BACKGROUND: In patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease with a history of limb revascularization, the optimal antithrombotic regimen for long-term management is unknown. METHODS: The EUCLID trial (Examining Use of Ticagrelor In PAD) randomized 13 885 patients with peripheral artery disease to treatment with ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or clopidogrel 75 mg daily. Patients were enrolled based on an abnormal ankle-brachial index ≤0.80 or a previous lower extremity revascularization. This analysis focuses on the 7875 (57%) patients enrolled based on the previous lower extremity revascularization criterion. Patients could not be enrolled within 30 days of most recent revascularization, and patients with an indication for dual antiplatelet therapy were excluded. The primary efficacy end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. The primary safety end point was major bleeding. RESULTS: Patients with a previous revascularization had a mean age of 66 years, 73% were male, and the median baseline ankle-brachial index was 0.78. After adjustment for baseline characteristics, patients enrolled based on previous revascularization had similar rates of the primary composite end point (hazard ratio [HR] 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-1.23, P=0.12) and statistically significantly higher rates of myocardial infarction (HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.08-1.55, P=0.005) and acute limb ischemia (HR 4.23, 95% CI 2.86-6.25, P<0.001) when compared with patients enrolled based on ankle-brachial index criteria. No differences in ticagrelor- versus clopidogrel-treated patients were found for the primary efficacy end point (11.4% vs 11.3%; HR 1.01, 95% CI 0.88-1.15; P=0.90), all-cause mortality (9.2% vs 9.2%; HR 0.99, 95% CI 0.86-1.15; P=0.93), acute limb ischemia (2.5% vs 2.5%; HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.78-1.36; P=0.84), or major bleeding (1.9% vs 1.8%; HR 1.15, 95% CI 0.83-1.59; P=0.41). The median duration of follow-up was ≈30 months. CONCLUSIONS: After adjustment for baseline characteristics, patients enrolled based on previous revascularization for peripheral artery disease had higher rates of myocardial infarction and acute limb ischemia, with similar composite rates of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke when compared with patients enrolled based on the ankle-brachial index criterion. No significant differences were found between ticagrelor and clopidogrel for reduction of cardiovascular or acute limb events. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01732822.

Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor in Relation to Aspirin Use Within the Week Before Randomization in the SOCRATES Trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: SOCRATES (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Aspirin or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcomes), comparing ticagrelor with aspirin in patients with acute cerebral ischemia, found a nonsignificant 11% relative risk reduction for stroke, myocardial infarction, or death (P=0.07). Aspirin intake before randomization could enhance the effect of ticagrelor by conferring dual antiplatelet effect during a high-risk period for subsequent stroke. Therefore, we explored the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus aspirin in the patients who received any aspirin the week before randomization. METHODS: A prespecified subgroup analysis in SOCRATES (n=13 199), randomizing patients with acute ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of ≤5) or transient ischemic attack (ABCD2 score of ≥4) to 90-day treatment with ticagrelor or aspirin. Patients in the prior-aspirin group had received any aspirin within the week before randomization. Primary end point was time to stroke, myocardial infarction, or death. Safety end point was PLATO (Study of Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) major bleeding. RESULTS: The 4232 patients in the prior-aspirin group were older, had more vascular risk factors, and vascular disease than the other patients. In the prior-aspirin group, the primary end point occurred in 138/2130 (6.5%) of patients on ticagrelor and in 177/2102 (8.3%) on aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.61-0.95; P=0.02); in patients with no prior-aspirin usage an event occurred in 304/4459 (6.9%) and 320/4508 (7.1%) on ticagrelor and aspirin, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.12; P=0.59). The treatment-by-prior-aspirin interaction was not statistically significant (P=0.10). In the prior-aspirin group, major bleeding occurred in 0.7% and 0.4% of patients on ticagrelor and aspirin, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.68-3.65; P=0.28). CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis from SOCRATES, fewer primary end points occurred on ticagrelor treatment than on aspirin in patients receiving aspirin before randomization, but there was no significant treatment-by-prior-aspirin interaction. A new study will investigate the benefit-risk of combining ticagrelor and aspirin in patients with acute cerebral ischemia (URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT03354429). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01994720.

Long-term use of ticagrelor in patients with prior myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: The potential benefit of dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 1 year after a myocardial infarction has not been established. We investigated the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor, a P2Y12 receptor antagonist with established efficacy after an acute coronary syndrome, in this context. METHODS: We randomly assigned, in a double-blind 1:1:1 fashion, 21,162 patients who had had a myocardial infarction 1 to 3 years earlier to ticagrelor at a dose of 90 mg twice daily, ticagrelor at a dose of 60 mg twice daily, or placebo. All the patients were to receive low-dose aspirin and were followed for a median of 33 months. The primary efficacy end point was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The primary safety end point was Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major bleeding. RESULTS: The two ticagrelor doses each reduced, as compared with placebo, the rate of the primary efficacy end point, with Kaplan-Meier rates at 3 years of 7.85% in the group that received 90 mg of ticagrelor twice daily, 7.77% in the group that received 60 mg of ticagrelor twice daily, and 9.04% in the placebo group (hazard ratio for 90 mg of ticagrelor vs. placebo, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.75 to 0.96; P=0.008; hazard ratio for 60 mg of ticagrelor vs. placebo, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.95; P=0.004). Rates of TIMI major bleeding were higher with ticagrelor (2.60% with 90 mg and 2.30% with 60 mg) than with placebo (1.06%) (P<0.001 for each dose vs. placebo); the rates of intracranial hemorrhage or fatal bleeding in the three groups were 0.63%, 0.71%, and 0.60%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with a myocardial infarction more than 1 year previously, treatment with ticagrelor significantly reduced the risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and increased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by AstraZeneca; PEGASUS-TIMI 54 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01225562.).

Outcomes of Patients with Critical Limb Ischaemia in the EUCLID Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Critical limb ischaemia (CLI) implies an increased risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, and the optimal antithrombotic treatment is not established. DESIGN, MATERIALS, METHODS: The EUCLID trial investigated the effect of monotherapy with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in 13,885 patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD); the primary endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischaemic stroke. Patients planned for revascularisation or amputation within 3 months, were excluded. This analysis focuses on the subgroup with CLI, defined by rest pain (58.8%), major (9.0%) or minor (32.2%) tissue loss. RESULTS: In EUCLID, 643 patients (4.6%) had CLI at baseline. Diabetes mellitus was more common in the CLI group, while coronary disease, carotid disease, and hypertension were more common in the non-CLI group. A majority of CLI patients (62.1%) had only lower extremity PAD. In patients enrolled on the ankle brachial index (ABI) criteria, ABI was 0.55 ± 0.21 (mean ± SD) for those with CLI versus 0.63 ± 0.15 for those without CLI. The primary efficacy endpoint significantly increased among patients with CLI compared with those without CLI with a rate of 8.85 versus 4.28/100 patient years (adjusted for baseline characteristics hazard ratio [HR] 1.43 [95% CI 1.16-1.76]; p = 0.0009). When acute limb ischaemia requiring hospitalisation was added to the model, significant differences remained (adjusted HR 1.38, [95% CI 1.13-1.69]; p = 0.0016). The 1 year mortality was 8.9%. A trend towards increased lower limb revascularisation among those with CLI was observed. Bleeding (TIMI major, fatal, intracranial) did not differ between those with and without CLI. CONCLUSIONS: Nearly 5% of patients enrolled in EUCLID had CLI at baseline. Milder forms of CLI dominated, a result of the trial design. Patients with CLI had a significantly higher rate of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity versus those without CLI. Further efforts are required to reduce the risk of cardiovascular events in PAD, especially in patients with CLI. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV: NCT01732822.

Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with symptomatic peripheral artery disease and prior coronary artery disease: Insights from the EUCLID trial.

Patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) are at heightened risk of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. We sought to evaluate the risk of concomitant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients with symptomatic PAD versus PAD without diagnosed CAD, and whether ticagrelor was superior to clopidogrel in reducing that risk. The EUCLID trial randomized 13,885 patients with PAD to antithrombotic monotherapy with ticagrelor or clopidogrel. CAD was defined as prior myocardial infarction (MI), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), or coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Median follow-up was 30 months. Among 4032 (29%) patients with PAD and CAD, 63% had prior MI, 54% prior PCI, and 38% prior CABG. After adjustment for baseline characteristics, patients with PAD and CAD had significantly higher rates of the primary endpoint (cardiovascular death/MI/stroke, 15.3% vs 8.9%, hazard ratio (HR) 1.50, 95% CI: 1.13-1.99; p=0.005), but no statistically significant increase in acute limb ischemia (HR 1.28, 95% CI: 0.57-2.85; p=0.55) or major bleeding (HR 1.10, 95% CI: 0.49-2.48; p=0.81) versus PAD without CAD. Among patients with PAD and CAD, there was no differential treatment effect between ticagrelor versus clopidogrel for the primary efficacy endpoint (HR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.87-1.19; p=0.84), acute limb ischemia (HR 1.03, 95% CI: 0.63-1.69; p=0.89), or major bleeding (HR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.66-1.69; p=0.81). There was a statistically significant interaction between prior coronary stent placement and study treatment ( p=0.03) with a numerical reduction in the primary efficacy endpoint with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel (13.8% vs 16.8%, HR 0.82, 95% CI: 0.65-1.03; p=0.09). Patients with PAD and prior CAD had higher composite rates of cardiovascular death, MI, and ischemic stroke versus PAD without diagnosed CAD. There were no significant differences between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in cardiovascular events or major bleeding. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01732822.

Prevention of Stroke with Ticagrelor in Patients with Prior Myocardial Infarction: Insights from PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 54).

BACKGROUND: In the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 54), ticagrelor reduced the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events when added to low-dose aspirin in stable patients with prior myocardial infarction, resulting in the approval of ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily for long-term secondary prevention. We investigated the incidence of stroke, outcomes after stroke, and the efficacy of ticagrelor focusing on the approved 60 mg twice daily dose for reducing stroke in this population. METHODS: Patients were followed for a median of 33 months. Stroke events were adjudicated by a central committee. Data from similar trials were combined using meta-analysis. RESULTS: Of 14 112 patients randomly assigned to placebo or ticagrelor 60 mg, 213 experienced a stroke; 85% of these strokes were ischemic. A total of 18% of strokes were fatal and another 15% led to either moderate or severe disability at 30 days. Ticagrelor significantly reduced the risk of stroke (hazard ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.98; P=0.034), driven by a reduction in ischemic stroke (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.02). Hemorrhagic stroke occurred in 9 patients on placebo and 8 patients on ticagrelor. A meta-analysis across 4 placebo-controlled trials of more intensive antiplatelet therapy in 44 816 patients with coronary disease confirmed a marked reduction in ischemic stroke (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% confidence interval, 0.54-0.81; P=0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: High-risk patients with prior myocardial infarction are at risk for stroke, approximately one-third of which are fatal or lead to moderate-to-severe disability. The addition of ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily significantly reduced this risk without an excess of hemorrhagic stroke but with more major bleeding. In high-risk patients with coronary disease, more intensive antiplatelet therapy should be considered not only to reduce the risk of coronary events, but also of stroke. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT01225562.

Ticagrelor Versus Aspirin in Acute Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Ticagrelor is an effective antiplatelet therapy among patients with atherosclerotic disease and, therefore, could be more effective than aspirin in preventing recurrent stroke and cardiovascular events among patients with embolic stroke of unknown source (ESUS), which includes patients with ipsilateral stenosis <50% and aortic arch atherosclerosis. METHODS: We randomized 13 199 patients with a noncardioembolic, nonsevere ischemic stroke or high-risk transient ischemic attack to ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose on day 1 followed by 90 mg twice daily for days 2-90) or aspirin (300 mg on day 1 followed by 100 mg daily for days 2-90) within 24 hours of symptom onset. In all patients, investigators informed on the presence of ipsilateral stenosis ≥50%, small deep infarct <15 mm, and on cardiac source of embolism detected after enrollment or rare causes, which allowed to construct an ESUS category in all other patients with documented brain infarction. The primary end point was the time to the occurrence of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death within 90 days. RESULTS: ESUS was identified in 4329 (32.8%) patients. There was no treatment-by-ESUS category interaction (P=0.83). Hazard ratio in ESUS patients was 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.68-1.10; P=0.24). However, hazard ratio was 0.51 (95% confidence interval, 0.29-0.90; P=0.02) in ESUS patients with ipsilateral stenosis <50% or aortic arch atherosclerosis (n=961) and 0.98 (95% confidence interval, 0.76-1.27; P=0.89) in the remaining ESUS patients (n=3368; P for heterogeneity =0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In this post hoc, exploratory analysis, we found no treatment-by-ESUS category interaction. ESUS subgroups have heterogeneous response to treatment (Funded by AstraZeneca). CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01994720.

Ticagrelor in Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack in Asian Patients: From the SOCRATES Trial (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Aspirin or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcomes).

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: In the SOCRATES trial (Acute Stroke or Transient Ischemic Attack Treated With Aspirin or Ticagrelor and Patient Outcomes), ticagrelor was not superior to aspirin. Because of differences in patient demographics and stroke disease pattern in Asia, outcomes of ticagrelor versus aspirin were assessed among Asian patients in a prespecified exploratory analysis. METHODS: Baseline demographics, treatment effects, and safety of ticagrelor and aspirin were assessed among Asian patients. Differences in outcomes between groups were assessed using Cox proportional hazard model. RESULTS: A total of 3858 (29.2%) SOCRATES participants were recruited in Asia. Among the Asian patients, the primary end point event occurred in 186 (9.6%) of the 1933 patients treated with ticagrelor, versus 224 (11.6%) of the 1925 patients treated with aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-0.99). The exploratory P value for treatment-by-region interaction was 0.27. The primary end point event rate in the Asian subgroup was numerically higher than that in the non-Asian group (10.6% versus 5.7%; nominal P<0.01). Among the Asian patients, the rate of PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes)-defined major bleeding was similar in the ticagrelor group and the aspirin group (0.6% versus 0.8%; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-1.61). CONCLUSIONS: The event rates were numerically higher in the Asian patients. Among the Asian patients with acute stroke or transient ischemic attacks, there was a trend toward a lower hazard ratio in reducing risk of the primary end point of stroke, myocardial infarction, or death in the ticagrelor group. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01994720.

Efficacy and safety of ticagrelor for long-term secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events in relation to renal function: insights from the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial.

AIMS: We evaluated the relationship of renal function and ischaemic and bleeding risk as well as the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor in stable patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with a history of MI 1-3 years prior from PEGASUS-TIMI 54 were stratified based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), with <60 mL/min/1.73 m(2) pre-specified for analysis of the effect of ticagrelor on the primary efficacy composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events, MACE) and the primary safety endpoint of TIMI major bleeding. Of 20 898 patients, those with eGFR <60 (N = 4849, 23.2%) had a greater risk of MACE at 3 years relative to those without, which remained significant after multivariable adjustment (hazard ratio, HRadj 1.54, 95% confidence interval, CI 1.27-1.85, P < 0.001). The relative risk reduction in MACE with ticagrelor was similar in those with eGFR <60 (ticagrelor pooled vs. placebo: HR 0.81; 95% CI 0.68-0.96) vs. ≥60 (HR 0.88; 95% CI 0.77-1.00, Pinteraction = 0.44). However, due to the greater absolute risk in the former group, the absolute risk reduction with ticagrelor was higher: 2.7 vs. 0.63%. Bleeding tended to occur more frequently in patients with renal dysfunction. The absolute increase in TIMI major bleeding with ticagrelor was similar in those with and without eGFR <60 (1.19 vs. 1.43%), whereas the excess of minor bleeding tended to be more pronounced (1.93 vs. 0.69%). CONCLUSION: In patients with a history of MI, patients with renal dysfunction are at increased risk of MACE and consequently experience a particularly robust absolute risk reduction with long-term treatment with ticagrelor.

Ischaemic risk and efficacy of ticagrelor in relation to time from P2Y12 inhibitor withdrawal in patients with prior myocardial infarction: insights from PEGASUS-TIMI 54.

AIMS: Ticagrelor reduced major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE) by 15-16% in patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) in PEGASUS-TIMI 54. We hypothesized that patients who recently discontinued P2Y12 inhibition, even years after MI, may be at particular risk of MACE and may derive particular benefit from continuation or reinitiation of therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients in PEGASUS-TIMI 54 were categorized by time from last P2Y12 inhibitor (days: ≤30, >30-360, >360). The risk of MACE and the efficacy of ticagrelor were compared across categories. In the placebo arm, patients who more recently stopped P2Y12 inhibitor therapy had a greater number of risk factors but still had a higher risk of MACE after multivariable adjustment [≤30 days, hazard ratio (HR)adj 1.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.12-1.93, P = 0.0051; 30 days-1 year, HRadj 1.28, 95% CI 0.98-1.67, P = 0.073] compared with those who stopped >1 year prior (P-trend = 0.0097). The benefit of ticagrelor depended on the time from last dose, with HRs (95% CI) for ticagrelor (pooled doses) vs. placebo of 0.73 (0.61-0.87), 0.86 (0.71-1.04), and 1.01 (0.80-1.27), respectively, by category (P-trend for interaction < 0.001). The benefit in those ≤30 days of stopping was similar regardless of time from MI (<2 years, HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.60-0.89 vs. ≥2 years, HR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50-1.00). CONCLUSION: The benefit of ticagrelor for long-term secondary prevention in patients with prior MI and at least one additional risk factor appeared more marked in patients continuing on or re-starting after only a brief interruption of P2Y12 inhibition, when compared with patients who had proved themselves stable more than 2 years from their MI and off P2Y12 inhibitor therapy for more than a year. The increase in bleeding events with ticagrelor was similar regardless of this time interval. For clinicians considering a strategy of prolonged P2Y12 inhibitor therapy in high-risk patients, these data suggest greater benefit in the continuation of such therapy without interruption after MI, rather than re-initiating such therapy in patients who have remained stable for an extended period. Future analyses may help to clarify further the profile of post-MI patients most likely to benefit from uninterrupted dual antiplatelet therapy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION INFORMATION: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov NCT01225562.

Design and rationale for the Effects of Ticagrelor and Clopidogrel in Patients with Peripheral Artery Disease (EUCLID) trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite overwhelming data demonstrating the efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in heart disease and stroke, data in peripheral artery disease (PAD) are less compelling. Aspirin has modest evidence supporting a reduction in cardiovascular events in patients with PAD, whereas clopidogrel monotherapy may be more effective in PAD. Ticagrelor, a potent, reversibly binding P2Y12 receptor antagonist, is beneficial in patients with acute coronary syndrome and prior myocardial infarction. The EUCLID trial is designed to address the need for effective antiplatelet therapy in PAD to decrease the risk of cardiovascular events. STUDY DESIGN: EUCLID is a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, multinational clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel for the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in subjects with symptomatic PAD. Subjects with established PAD will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or clopidogrel 75 mg daily. The primary end point is a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or ischemic stroke. Other end points address limb events including acute leg ischemia, need for revascularization, disease progression by ankle-brachial index, and quality of life. The primary safety objective is Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction-defined major bleeding. Recruitment began in December 2012 and was completed in March 2014; 13,887 patients were randomized. The trial will continue until at least 1,364 adjudicated primary end points occur. CONCLUSIONS: The EUCLID study is investigating whether treatment with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel, given as antiplatelet monotherapy, will reduce the incidence of cardiovascular and limb-specific events in patients with symptomatic PAD.

Design and rationale for the Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 54 (PEGASUS-TIMI 54) trial.

BACKGROUND: P2Y12 receptor antagonist therapy is recommended in addition to ASA for up to 1 year after acute coronary syndrome to reduce ischemic events. In contrast, the benefit of long-term dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 1 year remains unclear. Ticagrelor is a potent, reversibly binding P2Y12 receptor-antagonist that has been shown to be superior to clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes for up to 1 year. STUDY DESIGN: PEGASUS-TIMI 54 is a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multinational clinical trial designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor in addition to aspirin (75-150 mg) for the prevention of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients with a history of myocardial infarction and risk factors. Patients with a history of spontaneous myocardial infarction within 1 to 3 years are randomized in a 1:1:1 fashion to ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily, ticagrelor 60 mg twice daily, or matching placebo, all with low dose ASA, until the end of the study. The primary endpoint is a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Recruitment began in October 2010 and completed in April 2013 with a sample size of over 21,000 patients. The trial is planned to continue until the latest of either 1,360 adjudicated primary end points are accrued or the last patient randomized has been followed for at least 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: PEGASUS-TIMI 54 is investigating whether the addition of intensive antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor to low-dose aspirin reduces major adverse cardiovascular events in high-risk patients with a history of myocardial infarction.

Crystal structure of tris-(ethyl-enedi-ammonium) hexasulfatopraseodymium(III) hexa-hydrate.

In the title salt, (C2H10N2)3[Pr2(SO4)6]·6H2O, the Pr(III) cation is surrounded ninefold by five sulfate groups (two monodentate and three chelating) and by one water mol-ecule [range of Pr-O bond lengths 2.383 (3) to 2.582 (3) Å]. The [Pr(SO4)5(H2O)] groups are arranged in sheets parallel to (010). Two crystal water mol-ecules and two ethyl-enedi-ammonium cations (one with point group symmetry -1) connect the sheets via O-H⋯O and N-H⋯O hydrogen bonds from weak up to medium strength into a three-dimensional framework structure.

Crystal structure of bis-(di-methyl-ammonium) hexa-aqua-nickel(II) bis-(sulfate) dihydrate.

In the title salt, (C2H8N)2[Ni(H2O)6)](SO4)2·2H2O, the Ni(II) cation is located on a centre of inversion and exhibits a slightly distorted octa-hedral arrangement of water mol-ecules. The Ni-O bond lengths in the complex [Ni(H2O)6](2+) cation show a distribution as in the related Tutton salt (NH4)2[Ni(H2O)6](SO4)2, but are longer in average [2.056 (13) versus 2.037 (12) Å]. The noncoordinating water mol-ecules and di-methyl-ammonium cations connect the sulfate and [Ni(H2O)6](2+) octa-hedra via O-H⋯O and N-H⋯O hydrogen bonds from weak up to medium strength into a three-dimensional framework whereby the complex metal cations and sulfate anions are arranged in sheets parallel (001).