Andrew Darlington

Pharmacodynamic Effects of Different Aspirin Dosing Regimens in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients With Coronary Artery Disease

Background— Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have reduced aspirin-induced pharmacodynamic effects. This may be attributed to increased platelet turnover rates resulting in an increased proportion of non–aspirin-inhibited platelets during the daily dosing interval. The hypothesis of this study was that an increase in the frequency of drug administration [twice daily (bid) versus once daily (od)] may provide more effective platelet inhibition in T2DM patients. Methods and Results— T2DM patients with stable coronary artery disease were prospectively recruited. Patients modified their aspirin regimen on a weekly basis according to the following scheme: 81 mg/od, 81 mg/bid, 162 mg/od, 162 mg/bid, and 325 mg/od. Pharmacodynamic assessments included light-transmittance aggregometry after arachidonic acid, collagen and adenosine diphosphate stimuli; VerifyNow-Aspirin assay; and serum thromboxane B2 (TXB2) levels. Twenty patients were analyzed. All patients were sensitive and compliant to aspirin irrespective of dose, as assessed by arachidonic acid–induced aggregation. When aspirin was administered once daily, there was no significant effect on platelet reactivity by increasing the once-daily dosing using aspirin-sensitive assays (collagen-induced aggregation and VerifyNow-Aspirin). An increase in aspirin dose by means of a second daily administration was associated with a significant reduction in platelet reactivity assessed by collagen-induced aggregation and VerifyNow-Aspirin between 81 mg/od and 81 mg/bid (P<0.05 for both assays) and between 81 mg/od and 162 mg/bid (P<0.05 for both assays). There was no impact of aspirin dosing regimens on adenosine diphosphate–induced aggregation. A dose-dependent effect of aspirin was observed on serum TXB2 levels (P=0.003). Conclusions— Aspirin dosing regimens are associated with different pharmacodynamic effects in platelets from T2DM patients and stable coronary artery disease, with a twice-daily, low-dose aspirin administration resulting in greater platelet inhibition than once-daily administration as assessed by aspirin-sensitive assays and a dose-dependent effect on serum TXB2 levels. The clinical implications of a modified aspirin regimen tailored to T2DM patients warrant further investigation. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01201785.

Impaired responsiveness to the platelet P2Y12 receptor antagonist clopidogrel in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease.

BACKGROUND Several studies have shown that patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) exhibit an impaired response to clopidogrel. This may contribute to their increased risk of recurrent atherothrombotic events, despite the use of dual-antiplatelet therapy. The mechanisms for impaired clopidogrel response in DM patients have not been fully elucidated. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study was to explore the mechanisms for impaired clopidogrel-mediated platelet inhibition in patients with DM using a comprehensive methodological approach embracing both pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) assessments as well as ex vivo and in vitro investigations. METHODS Patients (DM, n = 30; non-DM, n = 30) with stable coronary artery disease taking aspirin 81 mg/day and P2Y12 antagonist naive were enrolled. Blood was collected before and at various times (0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 24 h) after a 600-mg loading dose of clopidogrel. PD assessments included vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein, light transmission aggregometry, and VerifyNow P2Y12 ex vivo, before and after dosing and following in vitro incubation with escalating concentrations (1, 3, and 10 μM) of clopidogrels active metabolite (Clop-AM). Exposure to Clop-AM was also determined. RESULTS PD assessments consistently showed that during the overall 24-h study time course, residual platelet reactivity was higher in DM patients compared with non-DM patients. In vitro incubation with Clop-AM revealed altered functional status of the P2Y12 signaling pathway in DM platelets as measured by vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein, but not with other PD assays. Clop-AM exposure was ∼40% lower in DM patients than in non-DM patients. CONCLUSIONS The present study suggests that among DM patients, impaired P2Y12 inhibition mediated by clopidogrel is largely attributable to attenuation of clopidogrels PK profile. This is characterized by lower plasma levels of Clop-AM over the sampling time course in DM patients compared with non-DM patients and only modestly attributed to altered functional status of the P2Y12 signaling pathway.

Impact of adjunctive cilostazol therapy on platelet function profiles in patients with and without diabetes mellitus on aspirin and clopidogrel therapy.

Cilostazol is a platelet inhibitor which when added to aspirin and clopidogrel has shown to reduce the risk of recurrent ischaemic events without an increase in bleeding. These clinical benefits have shown to be more pronounced in patients with diabetes mellitus (DM). However, it remains unknown whether cilostazol exerts different pharmacodynamic effects in patients with and without DM. This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over pharmacodynamic study comparing platelet function in patients with and without DM on aspirin and clopidogrel therapy. Patients (n=111) were randomly assigned to either cilostazol 100 mg or placebo twice daily for 14 days and afterwards crossed-over treatment for another 14 days. Platelet function was performed at baseline, 14 days post-randomisation, and 14 days post-cross-over. Functional testing to assess P2Y12 signalling included flow cytometric analysis of phosphorylation status of vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein measured by P2Y12 reactivity index (PRI), light transmittance aggregometry and VerifyNow. Thrombin generation processes were also studied using thrombelastography. Significantly lower PRI values were observed following treatment with cilostazol compared with placebo both in DM and non-DM groups (p < 0.0001). The absolute between-treatment differences of PRI between groups was a 35.1% lower in patients with DM (p=0.039). Similar results were obtained using all other functional measures assessing P2Y12 signalling. Thrombin generation was not affected by cilostazol. Cilostazol reduces platelet reactivity both in patients with and without DM, although these pharmacodynamic effects are enhanced in patients with DM. Despite the marked platelet inhibition, cilostazol does not alter thrombin-mediated haemostatic processes, which may explain its ischaemic benefit without the increased risk of bleeding.

Haemostatic profiles assessed by thromboelastography in patients with end-stage renal disease

Patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have abnormalities in the cellular and plasmatic systems regulating blood homeostasis, which may contribute to their risk for thrombotic and bleeding complications. However, their relative contributions in this population are poorly understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate the distribution of enzymatic and cellular abnormalities in ESRD patients on haemodialysis as assessed by thromboelastography (TEG®). Whole blood samples were analysed by TEG in ESRD patients (n=70) and in a control group (n=70) of subjects with coronary artery disease. Profiles were constructed considering the maximum amplitude (MA), a marker of platelet function, and reaction time (R), a marker of thrombin generation, values. R values were higher in ESRD patients compared with the control group (8.2 ± 2.8 vs. 5.7 ± 1.9 minutes [min], p <0.0001), while there were no differences in MA (66.7 ± 8.1 vs. 66.2 ± 6.6 mm, p=0.562). Normal manufacturer defined coagulation (2-8 min) and aggregation (51-69 mm) parameters were present in 31% of ESRD patients compared with 56% of controls (p=0.006). A hypocoagulable status was observed in 42.9% of ESRD patients compared with 8.9% in the control group (p<0.0001). There were no differences in platelet function, which showed a hyperaggregable status in 41.4% versus 35.7% of cases (p=0.603). Abnormalities in both parameters were observed in 15.7% of ESRD patients versus 1.4% in the control group (p= 0.004), which were more common among older patients (p= 0.005). In conclusion, patients with ESRD have an elevated prevalence of abnormal haemostatic profiles, which may contribute to their elevated risk of bleeding and thrombotic complications.

Pharmacodynamic Evaluation of Pantoprazole Therapy on Clopidogrel Effects Results of a Prospective, Randomized, Crossover Study

Background— Safety concerns have recently emerged based on a drug interaction between clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors leading to reduced pharmacodynamic effects. However, whether such drug interaction is a class effect or a drug effect and if this can be modulated by timing of drug administration remains a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of high-dose pantoprazole therapy, a proton pump inhibitor with low potential to interfere with clopidogrel metabolism, administered concomitantly or staggered, on clopidogrel-mediated pharmacodynamic effects. Methods and Results— This was a prospective, randomized, crossover study conducted in 20 healthy volunteers. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive pantoprazole (80 mg daily) administered concomitantly (CONC) or staggered by 8 to 12 hours (STAG) for 1 week on a background of clopidogrel therapy (600-mg loading dose followed by a 75-mg maintenance dose during all phases) in a crossover fashion with a 2- to 4-week washout period between treatments. All subjects had a 1-week treatment phase with a clopidogrel-only regimen with a 2- to 4-week washout period from randomization sequence. Platelet function was assessed by flow cytometric analysis of the status of phosphorylation of the vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein, light transmittance aggregometry after adenosine diphosphate stimuli, and VerifyNow P2Y12 system at 3 time points: baseline, 24 hours after loading dose, and 1 week after maintenance dose. The primary end point was the comparison of P2Y12 reactivity index assessed by vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein at 1 week. After 1 week, there were no significant difference in P2Y12 reactivity index between the CONC and STAG regimens (least-squares mean±SEM, 56.0±3.9% versus 56.1±3.9%; P=0.974), as well as when compared with the clopidogrel-only regimen (61.0±3.9%; P=0.100 versus CONC and P=0.107 versus STAG). Further, no differences were observed at baseline and 24 hours between regimens. Concordant results were obtained by light transmittance aggregometry and VerifyNow P2Y12 assays. Conclusions— Pantoprazole therapy used at high doses is not associated with modulation of the pharmacodynamic effects of clopidogrel, irrespective of timing of drug administration. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01170533.Background— Safety concerns have recently emerged based on a drug interaction between clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors leading to reduced pharmacodynamic effects. However, whether such drug interaction is a class effect or a drug effect and if this can be modulated by timing of drug administration remains a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of high-dose pantoprazole therapy, a proton pump inhibitor with low potential to interfere with clopidogrel metabolism, administered concomitantly or staggered, on clopidogrel-mediated pharmacodynamic effects. Methods and Results— This was a prospective, randomized, crossover study conducted in 20 healthy volunteers. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive pantoprazole (80 mg daily) administered concomitantly (CONC) or staggered by 8 to 12 hours (STAG) for 1 week on a background of clopidogrel therapy (600-mg loading dose followed by a 75-mg maintenance dose during all phases) in a crossover fashion with a 2- to 4-week washout period between treatments. All subjects had a 1-week treatment phase with a clopidogrel-only regimen with a 2- to 4-week washout period from randomization sequence. Platelet function was assessed by flow cytometric analysis of the status of phosphorylation of the vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein, light transmittance aggregometry after adenosine diphosphate stimuli, and VerifyNow P2Y12 system at 3 time points: baseline, 24 hours after loading dose, and 1 week after maintenance dose. The primary end point was the comparison of P2Y12 reactivity index assessed by vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein at 1 week. After 1 week, there were no significant difference in P2Y12 reactivity index between the CONC and STAG regimens (least-squares mean±SEM, 56.0±3.9% versus 56.1±3.9%; P =0.974), as well as when compared with the clopidogrel-only regimen (61.0±3.9%; P =0.100 versus CONC and P =0.107 versus STAG). Further, no differences were observed at baseline and 24 hours between regimens. Concordant results were obtained by light transmittance aggregometry and VerifyNow P2Y12 assays. Conclusions— Pantoprazole therapy used at high doses is not associated with modulation of the pharmacodynamic effects of clopidogrel, irrespective of timing of drug administration. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: . Unique identifier: [NCT01170533][1]. [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT01170533&atom=%2Fcirccvint%2F4%2F3%2F273.atom

Pharmacodynamic effects of cangrelor on platelet P2Y12 receptor-mediated signaling in prasugrel-treated patients.

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to assess the in vitro P2Y12 receptor inhibitory effects of cangrelor on platelets from patients on maintenance prasugrel therapy treated with 2 reloading dose regimens. BACKGROUND Despite its more potent and rapid antiplatelet effects compared with clopidogrel, recent studies have shown variability in prasugrel-mediated P2Y12 receptor inhibition, particularly in high-risk settings. Cangrelor is a potent intravenous P2Y12 receptor inhibitor. METHODS A total of 60 patients with coronary artery disease on maintenance prasugrel (10 mg/day) therapy were randomized to a 30- or 60-mg reload of prasugrel. The platelet reactivity index (PRI), as assessed by whole-blood vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein, was measured with and without in vitro incubation of cangrelor (500 nM) at baseline, and at 1 and 4 h after reload. RESULTS In the absence of cangrelor, prasugrel reloading reduced PRI (p < 0.001 for both doses), although a 60-mg reload had greater platelet inhibition compared with a 30-mg reload at 4 h (p = 0.001). Cangrelor was associated with a reduction in PRI values during the overall study time course in patients reloaded with 30 mg (p = 0.001) and 60 mg (p < 0.001) of prasugrel. In patients reloaded with 30 mg prasugrel, cangrelor decreased PRI at each time point (baseline, p < 0.001; 1 h, p = 0.013; 4 h, p = 0.001). In patients reloaded with 60 mg prasugrel, cangrelor decreased PRI at baseline (p < 0.001) and 1 h (p = 0.002); levels of platelet reactivity comparable to those achieved with cangrelor were observed only at 4 h (p = 0.325). The intergroup comparisons with cangrelor were not significant at any time point. CONCLUSIONS In patients on maintenance prasugrel therapy exposed to a reloading dose (30 or 60 mg) of prasugrel, in vitro cangrelor is associated with further platelet P2Y12 receptor inhibitory effects.

Pharmacodynamic Effects of Concomitant Versus Staggered Clopidogrel and Omeprazole Intake

Background—A drug interaction between clopidogrel and omeprazole resulting in impaired platelet inhibition has been reported. It has been suggested that staggering administration of clopidogrel and omeprazole may overcome this pharmacodynamic (PD) interaction. Methods and Results—This prospective, open-label, 3-period, randomized crossover study was performed in 20 healthy volunteers. Subjects were randomly selected to receive omeprazole (40 mg daily) concomitantly (CONC) or staggered by 8 to 12 hours (STAG) for 1 week on a background of clopidogrel therapy in a crossover fashion, with a 2- to 4-week washout period between treatments. After another 2- to 4-week washout period, all subjects were treated for 1 week with clopidogrel alone. Clopidogrel was administered as a 600-mg loading dose followed by a 75-mg maintenance dose during all phases. PD effects were assessed by vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation assay, VerifyNow P2Y12 system, and light transmittance aggregometry at baseline, 24 hours, and 1 week. The primary end point was the comparison of P2Y12 reactivity index assessed by vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation assay at 1 week between CONC and STAG regimens. No significant difference in the primary end point was observed (least squares mean±SEM, 56.1±3.5% for CONC versus 61.6±3.4% for STAG; P=0.08). P2Y12 reactivity index values were significantly lower in the clopidogrel regimen (48.8±3.4%) than in the CONC (P=0.02) and STAG (P=0.001) regimens. No PD differences were observed between regimens at baseline and 24 hours. Concordant results were obtained by P2Y12-specific assessments using VerifyNow but not with light transmittance aggregometry. Conclusions—Omeprazole impairs clopidogrel-induced antiplatelet effects in the maintenance phase of treatment irrespective of timing of their administration.

Pharmacodynamic Evaluation of Pantoprazole Therapy on Clopidogrel EffectsClinical Perspective

Background— Safety concerns have recently emerged based on a drug interaction between clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors leading to reduced pharmacodynamic effects. However, whether such drug interaction is a class effect or a drug effect and if this can be modulated by timing of drug administration remains a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of high-dose pantoprazole therapy, a proton pump inhibitor with low potential to interfere with clopidogrel metabolism, administered concomitantly or staggered, on clopidogrel-mediated pharmacodynamic effects. Methods and Results— This was a prospective, randomized, crossover study conducted in 20 healthy volunteers. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive pantoprazole (80 mg daily) administered concomitantly (CONC) or staggered by 8 to 12 hours (STAG) for 1 week on a background of clopidogrel therapy (600-mg loading dose followed by a 75-mg maintenance dose during all phases) in a crossover fashion with a 2- to 4-week washout period between treatments. All subjects had a 1-week treatment phase with a clopidogrel-only regimen with a 2- to 4-week washout period from randomization sequence. Platelet function was assessed by flow cytometric analysis of the status of phosphorylation of the vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein, light transmittance aggregometry after adenosine diphosphate stimuli, and VerifyNow P2Y12 system at 3 time points: baseline, 24 hours after loading dose, and 1 week after maintenance dose. The primary end point was the comparison of P2Y12 reactivity index assessed by vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein at 1 week. After 1 week, there were no significant difference in P2Y12 reactivity index between the CONC and STAG regimens (least-squares mean±SEM, 56.0±3.9% versus 56.1±3.9%; P=0.974), as well as when compared with the clopidogrel-only regimen (61.0±3.9%; P=0.100 versus CONC and P=0.107 versus STAG). Further, no differences were observed at baseline and 24 hours between regimens. Concordant results were obtained by light transmittance aggregometry and VerifyNow P2Y12 assays. Conclusions— Pantoprazole therapy used at high doses is not associated with modulation of the pharmacodynamic effects of clopidogrel, irrespective of timing of drug administration. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01170533.Background— Safety concerns have recently emerged based on a drug interaction between clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors leading to reduced pharmacodynamic effects. However, whether such drug interaction is a class effect or a drug effect and if this can be modulated by timing of drug administration remains a matter of debate. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of high-dose pantoprazole therapy, a proton pump inhibitor with low potential to interfere with clopidogrel metabolism, administered concomitantly or staggered, on clopidogrel-mediated pharmacodynamic effects. Methods and Results— This was a prospective, randomized, crossover study conducted in 20 healthy volunteers. Subjects were randomly assigned to receive pantoprazole (80 mg daily) administered concomitantly (CONC) or staggered by 8 to 12 hours (STAG) for 1 week on a background of clopidogrel therapy (600-mg loading dose followed by a 75-mg maintenance dose during all phases) in a crossover fashion with a 2- to 4-week washout period between treatments. All subjects had a 1-week treatment phase with a clopidogrel-only regimen with a 2- to 4-week washout period from randomization sequence. Platelet function was assessed by flow cytometric analysis of the status of phosphorylation of the vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein, light transmittance aggregometry after adenosine diphosphate stimuli, and VerifyNow P2Y12 system at 3 time points: baseline, 24 hours after loading dose, and 1 week after maintenance dose. The primary end point was the comparison of P2Y12 reactivity index assessed by vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein at 1 week. After 1 week, there were no significant difference in P2Y12 reactivity index between the CONC and STAG regimens (least-squares mean±SEM, 56.0±3.9% versus 56.1±3.9%; P =0.974), as well as when compared with the clopidogrel-only regimen (61.0±3.9%; P =0.100 versus CONC and P =0.107 versus STAG). Further, no differences were observed at baseline and 24 hours between regimens. Concordant results were obtained by light transmittance aggregometry and VerifyNow P2Y12 assays. Conclusions— Pantoprazole therapy used at high doses is not associated with modulation of the pharmacodynamic effects of clopidogrel, irrespective of timing of drug administration. Clinical Trial Registration— URL: . Unique identifier: [NCT01170533][1]. [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT01170533&atom=%2Fcirccvint%2F4%2F3%2F273.atom

Pharmacodynamic effects of adjunctive cilostazol therapy in patients with coronary artery disease on dual antiplatelet therapy: Impact of high on-treatment platelet reactivity and diabetes mellitus status†

In patients on dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel, the adjunctive use of cilostazol is associated with enhanced platelet inhibition. However, if cilostazol exerts different pharmacodynamic (PD) effects according to levels of on‐treatment platelet reactivity remains unknown. This study aimed to determine the PD effects of cilostazol in patients with and without high on‐clopidogrel platelet reactivity (HPR) according to diabetes mellitus (DM) status.

Pharmacodynamic effects of standard dose prasugrel versus high dose clopidogrel in non-diabetic obese patients with coronary artery disease

Increased body weight is independently associated with impaired clopidogrel pharmacodynamic (PD) response. Prasugrel has more potent PD effects compared with clopidogrel, although its PD effects in obese patients are unknown. The aim of this prospective, randomised, study was to compare the PD effects of standard-dose prasugrel [60 mg loading dose (LD)/10 mg daily maintenance dose (MD)] with high-dose clopidogrel (900 mg LD/150 mg daily MD) in non-diabetic obese [body mass index (BMI) ≥30 kg/m²] patients, with coronary artery disease (CAD) on aspirin therapy. PD assessments (baseline, 2 hours post-LD and 6 ± 2 days after MD) were conducted using four platelet function assays, and the platelet reactivity index (PRI) assessed by VASP was used for sample size estimation. A total of 42 patients with a BMI of 36.42 ± 5.6 kg/m² completed the study. There were no differences in baseline PD measures between groups. At 2 hours post-LD, prasugrel was associated with lower PRI compared with clopidogrel (24.3 ± 5.5 vs 58.7 ± 5.7, p≤0.001), with consistent findings for all assays. At one-week, PRI values on prasugrel MD were lower than clopidogrel MD without reaching statistical significance (34.7 ± 5.8 vs 42.9 ± 5.8, p=0.32), with consistent findings for all assays. Accordingly, rates of high on-treatment platelet reactivity were markedly reduced after prasugrel LD, but not after MD. In conclusion, in non-diabetic obese patients with CAD, standard prasugrel dosing achieved more potent PD effects than high-dose clopidogrel in the acute phase of treatment, but this was not sustained during maintenance phase treatment. Whether an intensified prasugrel regimen is required in obese patients warrants investigation.