Jenny Hu

A PHARMACODYNAMIC COMPARISON OF PRASUGREL VERSUS TICAGRELOR IN PATIENTS WITH TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS AND CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE: THE OPTIMUS (OPTIMIZING ANTIPLATELET THERAPY IN DIABETES MELLITUS)-4 STUDY

Background: Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) are at increased risk of atherothrombotic events, underscoring the importance of effective platelet inhibiting therapies. Prasugrel and ticagrelor reduce thrombotic complications to a greater extent than clopidogrel. Subgroup analyses of pivotal clinical trials testing prasugrel and ticagrelor versus clopidogrel showed DM patients to have benefits that were consistent with the overall trial populations, although the magnitude of the ischemic risk reduction appeared to be enhanced with prasugrel. Whether these findings may be attributed to differences in the pharmacodynamic profiles of these drugs in DM patients remains poorly explored and represented the aim of this study. Methods: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, crossover pharmacodynamic study, aspirin-treated DM patients (n=50) with coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to receive prasugrel (60 mg loading dose [LD]/10 mg maintenance dose once daily) or ticagrelor (180 mg LD/90 mg maintenance dose twice daily) for 1 week. Pharmacodynamic assessments were conducted using 4 different assays, including VerifyNow P2Y12, vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein, light transmittance aggregometry, and Multiplate, which allowed us to explore ADP- and non–ADP-induced (arachidonic acid-, collagen-, thrombin receptor-activating, peptide-induced) platelet signaling pathways. The acute (baseline, 30 minutes, and 2 hours post-LD) and maintenance (1 week) effects of therapy were assessed. The primary end point of the study was the comparison of P2Y12 reaction units determined by VerifyNow P2Y12 at 1 week between prasugrel and ticagrelor. Results: ADP- and non–ADP-induced measures of platelet reactivity reduced significantly with both prasugrel and ticagrelor LD and maintenance dose. P2Y12 reaction units defined by VerifyNow were similar between prasugrel and ticagrelor at 30 minutes and 2 hours post-LD. At 1 week, P2Y12 reaction units were significantly lower with ticagrelor than with prasugrel (52 [32–72] versus 83 [63–103]; least-square means difference: –31; 95% confidence interval, –57 to –4; P=0.022; primary end point). Pharmacodynamic assessments measured by vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein, light transmittance aggregometry, and Multiplate were similar between prasugrel and ticagrelor at each time point, including at 1 week. Rates of high on-treatment platelet reactivity were similar between groups with all assays at all time points. Conclusions: In DM patients with coronary artery disease, ticagrelor exerts similar or greater inhibition of ADP-induced platelet reactivity in comparison with prasugrel in the acute and chronic phases of treatment, whereas the inhibition of measures of non–ADP-induced platelet reactivity was not significantly different between the 2 agents. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01852214.

Impact of timing from blood sampling to pharmacodynamic assessment on measures of platelet reactivity in patients treated with P2Y12 receptor inhibitors

Several platelet function tests (PFT) are available to assess the pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of P2Y12 inhibitors. However, there are technical variances between PFT, and P2Y12 inhibitors differ in pharmacological properties. Manufactures of PFT recommend a time-frame within which assessments needs to be executed. However, if the timing from blood sampling to processing affects PD results is unknown. We conducted a prospective study assessing the impact of timing from blood sampling to processing on PD measures using three different PFT. We studied 60 aspirin-treated patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) on maintenance P2Y12 inhibiting therapy [clopidogrel 75 mg/day (n=20), prasugrel 10 mg/day (n=20) and ticagrelor 90 mg bid (n=20)]. PD assessments (trough levels) were performed by VerifyNow P2Y12 (VN), light transmittance aggregometry (LTA) and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) at 30 minutes, 2 and 4 hours post-sampling; VASP was also performed at 24 hours. P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) by VN significantly decreased over time with all P2Y12 inhibitors (clopidogrel p 0.1 for all P2Y12 inhibitors). In conclusion, in CAD patients on maintenance therapy with P2Y12 inhibitors, timing from blood sampling to processing significantly influences PD measures as assessed by VN and LTA, but not by VASP.

IN VITRO PHARMACODYNAMIC EFFECTS OF CANGRELOR ON PLATELET P2Y12 RECEPTOR MEDIATED SIGNALING IN TICAGRELOR TREATED PATIENTS

Variability in the onset of platelet inhibitory effects induced by oral P2Y12 receptor antagonists, including ticagrelor, has been shown in high-risk settings. These findings underscore the need for intravenous P2Y12 inhibiting therapies, such as cangrelor, with immediate effects. However, to date

IMPACT OF TIMING FROM BLOOD SAMPLING TO PHARMACODYNAMIC ASSESSMENT ON MEASURES OF PLATELET REACTIVITY IN PATIENTS TREATED WITH P2Y12 RECEPTOR INHIBITORS

Several platelet function tests (PFT) are available to assess the pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of P2Y12 inhibitors. However, there are technical variances between PFT, and P2Y12 inhibitors differ in pharmacological properties. Manufactures of PFT recommend a time-frame within which assessments needs to be executed. However, if the timing from blood sampling to processing affects PD results is unknown. We conducted a prospective study assessing the impact of timing from blood sampling to processing on PD measures using three different PFT. We studied 60 aspirin-treated patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) on maintenance P2Y12 inhibiting therapy [clopidogrel 75 mg/day (n=20), prasugrel 10 mg/day (n=20) and ticagrelor 90 mg bid (n=20)]. PD assessments (trough levels) were performed by VerifyNow P2Y12 (VN), light transmittance aggregometry (LTA) and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) at 30 minutes, 2 and 4 hours post-sampling; VASP was also performed at 24 hours. P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) by VN significantly decreased over time with all P2Y12 inhibitors (clopidogrel p<0.001; prasugrel p=0.016; ticagrelor p<0.001). PRU at 30 minutes and 2 hours were similar, but decreased at 4 hours. LTA showed consistent findings with VN. Conversely, PD measures as assessed by VASP were stable over time (p>0.1 for all P2Y12 inhibitors). In conclusion, in CAD patients on maintenance therapy with P2Y12 inhibitors, timing from blood sampling to processing significantly influences PD measures as assessed by VN and LTA, but not by VASP.