Edmond Chen

Thrombin-Receptor Antagonist Vorapaxar in Acute Coronary Syndromes

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

Rivaroxaban with or without Aspirin in Stable Cardiovascular Disease

BACKGROUND We evaluated whether rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin would be more effective than aspirin alone for secondary cardiovascular prevention. METHODS In this double‐blind trial, we randomly assigned 27,395 participants with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease to receive rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (100 mg once daily), rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily), or aspirin (100 mg once daily). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, or myocardial infarction. The study was stopped for superiority of the rivaroxaban‐plus‐aspirin group after a mean follow‐up of 23 months. RESULTS The primary outcome occurred in fewer patients in the rivaroxaban‐plus‐aspirin group than in the aspirin‐alone group (379 patients [4.1%] vs. 496 patients [5.4%]; hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 0.86; P<0.001; z=‐4.126), but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban‐plus‐aspirin group (288 patients [3.1%] vs. 170 patients [1.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.40 to 2.05; P<0.001). There was no significant difference in intracranial or fatal bleeding between these two groups. There were 313 deaths (3.4%) in the rivaroxaban‐plus‐aspirin group as compared with 378 (4.1%) in the aspirin‐alone group (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.71 to 0.96; P=0.01; threshold P value for significance, 0.0025). The primary outcome did not occur in significantly fewer patients in the rivaroxaban‐alone group than in the aspirin‐alone group, but major bleeding events occurred in more patients in the rivaroxaban‐alone group. CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable atherosclerotic vascular disease, those assigned to rivaroxaban (2.5 mg twice daily) plus aspirin had better cardiovascular outcomes and more major bleeding events than those assigned to aspirin alone. Rivaroxaban (5 mg twice daily) alone did not result in better cardiovascular outcomes than aspirin alone and resulted in more major bleeding events. (Funded by Bayer; COMPASS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01776424.)

Relation Between Hospital Intra-Aortic Balloon Counterpulsation Volume and Mortality in Acute Myocardial Infarction Complicated by Cardiogenic Shock

Background—Increasing evidence suggests an inverse relationship between outcome and the total number of invasive cardiac procedures performed at a given hospital. The purpose of the present study was to determine if a similar relationship exists between the number of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (IABP) procedures performed at a given hospital per year and the in-hospital mortality rate of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Methods and Results—We analyzed data of 12 730 patients at 750 hospitals enrolled in the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2 from 1994 to 1998. The hospitals were divided into tertiles (low–, intermediate–, and high–IABP volume hospitals) according to the number of IABPs performed at the given hospital per year. The median number of IABPs performed per hospital per year was 3.4, 12.7, and 37.4 IABPs at low-, intermediate-, and high-volume hospitals, respectively. Of those patients who underwent IABP, there were only minor differences in baseline patient characteristics between the 3 groups. Crude mortality rate decreased with increasing IABP volume: 65.4%, lowest volume tertile; 54.1%, intermediate volume tertile; and 50.6%, highest volume tertile (P for trend <0.001). This mortality difference represented 150 fewer deaths per 1000 patients treated at the high IABP hospitals. In the multivariate analysis, high hospital IABP volume for patients with acute myocardial infarction was associated with lower mortality (OR=0.71, 95% CI=0.56 to 0.90), independent of baseline patient characteristics, hospital factors, treatment, and procedures such as PTCA. Conclusions—Among the myocardial infarction patients with cardiogenic shock who underwent IABP placement, mortality rate was significantly lower at high–IABP volume hospitals compared with low–IABP volume hospitals.

The Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRA.CER) trial: study design and rationale

BACKGROUND The protease-activated receptor 1 (PAR-1), the main platelet receptor for thrombin, represents a novel target for treatment of arterial thrombosis, and SCH 530348 is an orally active, selective, competitive PAR-1 antagonist. We designed TRA*CER to evaluate the efficacy and safety of SCH 530348 compared with placebo in addition to standard of care in patients with non-ST-segment elevation (NSTE) acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and high-risk features. TRIAL DESIGN TRA*CER is a prospective, randomized, double-blind, multicenter, phase III trial with an original estimated sample size of 10,000 subjects. Our primary objective is to demonstrate that SCH 530348 in addition to standard of care will reduce the incidence of the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, and urgent coronary revascularization compared with standard of care alone. Our key secondary objective is to determine whether SCH 530348 will reduce the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke compared with standard of care alone. Secondary objectives related to safety are the composite of moderate and severe GUSTO bleeding and clinically significant TIMI bleeding. The trial will continue until a predetermined minimum number of centrally adjudicated primary and key secondary end point events have occurred and all subjects have participated in the study for at least 1 year. The TRA*CER trial is part of the large phase III SCH 530348 development program that includes a concomitant evaluation in secondary prevention. CONCLUSION TRA*CER will define efficacy and safety of the novel platelet PAR-1 inhibitor SCH 530348 in the treatment of high-risk patients with NSTE ACS in the setting of current treatment strategies.

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

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

Vorapaxar in patients with peripheral artery disease and acute coronary syndrome: insights from Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRACER).

BACKGROUND In the TRACER trial, vorapaxar, a protease-activated receptor-1 antagonist, plus standard care in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE ACS) patients did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point but reduced a key secondary end point and significantly increased bleeding. History of peripheral artery disease (PAD) was a risk-enrichment inclusion criterion. We investigated the efficacy and safety of vorapaxar in NSTE ACS patients with documented PAD. METHODS TRACER was a double-blind, randomized trial comparing vorapaxar with placebo in 12,944 patients with NSTE ACS. RESULTS In total, 936 (7.2%) patients had a history of PAD. Ischemic events occurred more frequently among patients with PAD (25.3%) versus no PAD (12.2%, P < .001), and Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries moderate/severe bleeding was more common in PAD (9.1%) versus no PAD (5.0%, P = .004). Similar rates of the composite end point (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) occurred in patients with PAD treated with vorapaxar and placebo (21.7% vs 24.8%, P interaction = .787). Patients with PAD treated with vorapaxar, when compared with placebo, also had a numerical reduction in peripheral revascularization procedures (8.1% vs 9.0%, P = .158) and a lower extremity amputation rate (0.9% vs 1.5%, P = .107). Vorapaxar increased Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries moderate/severe bleeding similarly in patients with PAD (hazard ratio 1.47, 95% CI 0.89-2.45) and without (hazard ratio 1.48, 95% CI 1.22-1.79; P interaction = .921). CONCLUSIONS Patients with NSTE ACS and PAD were at increased risk for ischemic events. Lower rates of ischemic end points, peripheral revascularization, and amputation with vorapaxar did not reach statistical significance but warrant further investigation. Vorapaxar increased bleeding in both patients with and without PAD at a similar magnitude of risk.

Rationale, Design and Baseline Characteristics of Participants in the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) Trial

BACKGROUND Long-term aspirin prevents vascular events but is only modestly effective. Rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin might be more effective than aspirin alone for vascular prevention in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). Rivaroxaban as well as aspirin increase upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and this might be prevented by proton pump inhibitor therapy. METHODS Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) is a double-blind superiority trial comparing rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily combined with aspirin 100 mg once daily or rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily vs aspirin 100 mg once daily for prevention of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death in patients with stable CAD or PAD. Patients not taking a proton pump inhibitor were also randomized, using a partial factorial design, to pantoprazole 40 mg once daily or placebo. The trial was designed to have at least 90% power to detect a 20% reduction in each of the rivaroxaban treatment arms compared with aspirin and to detect a 50% reduction in upper GI complications with pantoprazole compared with placebo. RESULTS Between February 2013 and May 2016, we recruited 27,395 participants from 602 centres in 33 countries; 17,598 participants were included in the pantoprazole vs placebo comparison. At baseline, the mean age was 68.2 years, 22.0% were female, 90.6% had CAD, and 27.3% had PAD. CONCLUSIONS COMPASS will provide information on the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban, alone or in combination with aspirin, in the long-term management of patients with stable CAD or PAD, and on the efficacy and safety of pantoprazole in preventing upper GI complications in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy.

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

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

Association of Aspirin Dose and Vorapaxar Safety and Efficacy in Patients With Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome (from the TRACER Trial)

Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome (TRACER) trial compared vorapaxar and placebo in 12,944 high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. We explored aspirin (ASA) use and its association with outcomes. Kaplan-Meier event rates were compared in groups defined by ASA dose (low, medium, and high). Landmark analyses with covariate adjustment were performed for 0 to 30, 31 to 180, and 181 to 365 days. Of 12,515 participants, 7,523, 1,049, and 3,943 participants were treated with low-, medium-, and high-dose ASA at baseline, respectively. Participants enrolled in North America versus elsewhere were more often treated with a high dose at baseline (66% vs 19%) and discharge (60% vs 3%). Unadjusted cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, hospitalization for ischemia, or urgent revascularization event rates tended to be higher with higher baseline ASA (18.45% low, 19.13% medium, and 20.27% high; p for trend = 0.15573). Unadjusted and adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for effect of vorapaxar on cardiovascular (unadjusted p for interaction = 0.065; adjusted p for interaction = 0.140) and bleeding (unadjusted p for interaction = 0.915; adjusted p for interaction = 0.954) outcomes were similar across groups. Landmark analyses showed similar safety and efficacy outcomes with vorapaxar and placebo by ASA dose at each time point except for 0 to 30 days, when vorapaxar tended to be worse for efficacy (hazard ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.89 to 1.44, p for interaction = 0.0157). In conclusion, most TRACER participants were treated with low-dose ASA, although a high dose was common in North America. High-dose participants tended to have higher rates of ischemic and bleeding outcomes. Although formal statistical testing did not reveal heterogeneity in vorapaxars effect across dose subgroups, consistent trends support use of low-dose ASA with other antiplatelet therapies.

Vorapaxar with or without clopidogrel after non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: Results from the Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome trial

BACKGROUND Protease-activated receptor 1 antagonism with vorapaxar represents a novel strategy for platelet inhibition. In TRACER, vorapaxar was compared with placebo plus standard of care among 12,944 patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. We anticipated that most patients would have received clopidogrel as part of standard care. We investigated the modification of vorapaxars effect associated with clopidogrel use over time. METHODS The marginal structural model method was used to estimate causal modification of vorapaxar effect by use of clopidogrel over time. The primary outcomes were the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries moderate or severe bleeding. The event accrual period excluded the time during which clopidogrel was clinically warranted. RESULTS Among 12,887 patients who received study medication, 11,117 (86.3%) received clopidogrel before randomization, of whom 38.5% stopped later in the trial (median time to stoppage 200 days with placebo; interquartile range [IQR] 14-367) (186 days with vorapaxar; IQR 17-366). In total, 1,770 (13.7%) patients were not on clopidogrel at randomization, of whom 47.8% started afterward (median time to start 2 days; IQR 2-4). During the period of event accrual, vorapaxar was associated with a 26% reduction in the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke when used with clopidogrel (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; 95% CI 0.60-0.91) and a 24% reduction when used without clopidogrel (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.56-1.02) (interaction; P = .89). The hazard of Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries bleeding with vorapaxar was not significantly different without clopidogrel (HR 1.33; 95% CI 0.81-2.20) or with clopidogrel (HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.76-1.56) (interaction; P = .53). CONCLUSIONS We observed no interaction between vorapaxar and clopidogrel after non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes on efficacy or safety outcomes, supporting a complementary role of protease-activated receptor 1 and P2Y12 antagonism.