Jolanta M. Siller-Matula

Consensus and Update on the Definition of On-Treatment Platelet Reactivity to Adenosine Diphosphate Associated With Ischemia and Bleeding

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor blocker is a key strategy to reduce platelet reactivity and to prevent thrombotic events in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. In an earlier consensus document, we proposed cutoff values for high on-treatment platelet reactivity to adenosine diphosphate (ADP) associated with post-percutaneous coronary intervention ischemic events for various platelet function tests (PFTs). Updated American and European practice guidelines have issued a Class IIb recommendation for PFT to facilitate the choice of P2Y12 receptor inhibitor in selected high-risk patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention, although routine testing is not recommended (Class III). Accumulated data from large studies underscore the importance of high on-treatment platelet reactivity to ADP as a prognostic risk factor. Recent prospective randomized trials of PFT did not demonstrate clinical benefit, thus questioning whether treatment modification based on the results of current PFT platforms can actually influence outcomes. However, there are major limitations associated with these randomized trials. In addition, recent data suggest that low on-treatment platelet reactivity to ADP is associated with a higher risk of bleeding. Therefore, a therapeutic window concept has been proposed for P2Y12 inhibitor therapy. In this updated consensus document, we review the available evidence addressing the relation of platelet reactivity to thrombotic and bleeding events. In addition, we propose cutoff values for high and low on-treatment platelet reactivity to ADP that might be used in future investigations of personalized antiplatelet therapy.

Effects of pantoprazole and esomeprazole on platelet inhibition by clopidogrel

BACKGROUND Clopidogrel is activated by CYP2C19, which also metabolizes proton pump inhibitors (PPI). As proton pump inhibitors are metabolized to varying degrees by CYP2C19, we hypothesized that the reported negative omeprazole-clopidogrel drug interaction may not be a class effect. METHODS Responsiveness to clopidogrel was assessed by the vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation (VASP) assay and aggregometry (Multiplate Analyzer) in 300 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). RESULTS The mean platelet reactivity index (PRI, assessed by the VASP assay) was nearly the same in patients with (n = 226; PRI = 51%) or without PPI treatment (n = 74; PRI = 49%; P = .724). Likewise, the adenosine diphosphate-induced platelet aggregation did not differ significantly between patients with or without PPI treatment (45 vs. 41 U; P = .619). Similarly, there was no difference in the PRI or the adenosine diphosphate-induced platelet aggregation between patients with pantoprazole (n = 152; PRI = 50%; aggregation = 47 U), esomeprazole (n = 74; PRI = 54%; aggregation = 42 U), or without PPI (n = 74; PRI = 49%; aggregation = 41 U; P = .382). CONCLUSION In contrast to the reported negative omeprazole-clopidogrel drug interaction, the intake of pantoprazole or esomeprazole is not associated with impaired response to clopidogrel.

Bleeding and stent thrombosis on P2Y12-inhibitors: collaborative analysis on the role of platelet reactivity for risk stratification after percutaneous coronary intervention

AIMS Although platelet reactivity during P2Y12-inhibitors is associated with stent thrombosis (ST) and bleeding, standardized and clinically validated thresholds for accurate risk stratification after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are lacking. We sought to determine the prognostic value of low platelet reactivity (LPR), optimal platelet reactivity (OPR), or high platelet reactivity (HPR) by applying uniform cut-off values for standardized devices. METHODS AND RESULTS Authors of studies published before January 2015, reporting associations between platelet reactivity, ST, and major bleeding were contacted for a collaborative analysis using consensus-defined, uniform cut-offs for standardized platelet function assays. Based on best available evidence for each device (exploratory studies), LPR-OPR-HPR categories were defined as <95, 95-208, and >208 PRU for VerifyNow, <19, 19-46, and >46 U for the Multiplate analyser and <16, 16-50, and >50% for VASP assay. Seventeen studies including 20 839 patients were used for the analysis; 97% were treated with clopidogrel and 3% with prasugrel. Patients with HPR had significantly higher risk for ST [risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI: 2.73 (2.03-3.69), P < 0.00001], yet a slight reduction in bleeding [RR: 0.84 (0.71-0.99), P = 0.04] compared with those with OPR. In contrast, patients with LPR had a higher risk for bleeding [RR: 1.74 (1.47-2.06), P < 0.00001], without any further benefit in ST [RR: 1.06 (0.68-1.65), P = 0.78] in contrast to OPR. Mortality was significantly higher in patients with HPR compared with other categories (P < 0.05). Validation cohorts (n = 14) confirmed all results of exploratory studies (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS Platelet reactivity assessment during thienopyridine-type P2Y12-inhibitors identifies PCI-treated patients at higher risk for mortality and ST (HPR) or at an elevated risk for bleeding (LPR).

Effect of proton pump inhibitors on clinical outcome in patients treated with clopidogrel: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Summary.  To investigate whether proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) negatively affect clinical outcome in patients treated with clopidogrel. Systematic review and meta‐analysis. Outcomes evaluated were combined major adverse cardiac events (MACE), myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis, death and gastrointestinal bleeding. Studies included were randomized trials or post‐hoc analyzes of randomized trials and observational studies reporting adjusted effect estimates. Twenty five studies met the selection criteria and included 159 138 patients. Administration of PPIs together with clopidogrel corresponded to a 29% increased risk of combined major cardiovascular events [risk ratio (RR) = 1.29, 95% confidence intervals (CI) = 1.15–1.45] and a 31% increased risk of MI (RR = 1.31, 95%CI = 1.12–1.53). In contrast, PPI use did not negatively influence the mortality (RR = 1.04, 95%CI = 0.93–1.16), whereas the risk of developing a gastrointestinal bleed under PPI treatment decreased by 50% (RR = 0.50, 95% CI = 0.37–0.69). The presence of significant heterogeneity might indicate that the evidence is biased, confounded or inconsistent. The sensitivity analysis, however, yielded that the direction of the effect remained unchanged irrespective of the publication type, study quality, study size or risk of developing an event. Two studies indicate that PPIs have a negative effect irrespective of clopidogrel exposure. In conclusion, concomitant PPI use might be associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events but does not influence the risk of death. Prospective randomized trials are required to investigate whether a cause‐and‐effect relationship truly exists and to explore whether different PPIs worsen clinical outcome in clopidogrel treated patients as the PPI‐clopidogrel drug–drug interaction does not seem to be a class effect.

Multiple electrode aggregometry predicts stent thrombosis better than the vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation assay.

Summary.  Background and Aim: The prognostic value of the vasodilator‐stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) phosphorylation assay and multiple electrode aggregometry (MEA) for thrombotic adverse events has been shown in independent studies. As no direct comparison between the two methods has been made so far, we investigated which laboratory approach has a better predictive value for stent thrombosis. Methods: The VASP phosphorylation assay and MEA were performed in 416 patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The rate of stent thrombosis was recorded during a 6‐month follow‐up. Results: Definite stent thrombosis occurred in three patients (0.7%) and probable stent thrombosis in four (1%). Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis demonstrated that MEA distinguishes between patients with or without subsequent stent thrombosis better than the VASP phosphorylation assay: the area under the ROC curve was higher for MEA (0.92; P = 0.012) than for the VASP phosphorylation assay (0.60; P = 0.55). At equal levels of sensitivity (100%), the specificity was greater for MEA than for the VASP phosphorylation assay (86% vs. 37%). Stent thrombosis occurred in 9% of patients with platelet hyperreactivity in MEA, who were simultaneously clopidogrel non‐responders in the VASP phosphorylation assay. Interestingly, clopidogrel non‐responders in the VASP phosphorylation assay without platelet hyperreactivity in MEA did not suffer from stent thrombosis. Conclusions: Platelet hyperreactivity in MEA might be a better risk predictor for stent thrombosis than the assessment of the specific clopidogrel effect with the VASP phosphorylation assay.

Pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and clinical profile of novel antiplatelet drugs targeting vascular diseases

Platelet inhibitors are the mainstay treatment for patients with vascular diseases. The current ‘gold standard’ antiplatelet agent clopidogrel has several pharmacological and clinical limitations that have prompted the search for more effective platelet antagonists. The candidates include various blockers of the purinergic P2Y12 receptor such as prasugrel, an oral irreversible thienopyridine; two adenosine triphosphate analogues that bind reversibly to the P2Y12 receptor: ticagrelor (oral) and cangrelor (intravenous); elinogrel, a direct‐acting reversible P2Y12 receptor inhibitor (the only antiplatelet compound that can be administered both intravenously and orally); BX 667, an orally active and reversible small‐molecule P2Y12 receptor antagonist; SCH 530348, SCH 205831, SCH 602539 and E5555, highly selective and orally active antagonists on the protease‐activated receptor 1. A number of drugs also hit new targets: terutroban, an oral, selective and specific inhibitor of the thromboxane receptor; ARC1779, a second‐generation, nuclease resistant aptamer which inhibits von Willebrand factor‐dependent platelet aggregation; ALX‐0081, a bivalent humanized nanobody targeting the GPIb binding site of von Willebrand factor and AJW200, an IgG4 monoclonal antibody of von Willebrand factor. The pharmacology and clinical profiles of new platelet antagonists indicate that they provide more consistent, more rapid and more potent platelet inhibition than agents currently used. Whether these potential advantages will translate into clinical advantages will require additional comparisons in properly powered, randomized, controlled trials.

Personalized antiplatelet treatment after percutaneous coronary intervention: The MADONNA study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Clopidogrel non-responsiveness is associated with adverse clinical outcome. We aimed to investigate whether individualized antiplatelet treatment in clopidogrel non-responders is an effective and safe strategy. METHODS This was a prospective non-randomized non-blinded study comparing two cohorts (guided and non-guided treatment) with a follow-up of 1-month. Responsiveness to clopidogrel was assessed by multiple electrode aggregometry (MEA) in 798 patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In the guided group (n=403) clopidogrel non-responders received repeated loading doses of clopidogrel or prasugrel, in the non-guided group (n=395) clopidogrel non-responders did not undergo any change in treatment. RESULTS Stent thrombosis occurred significantly less often in the guided group than in the non-guided group (0.2% vs. 1.9%; p=0.027). The multivariate Cox regression analysis showed that patients in the non-guided group were at a 7.9-fold higher risk to develop stent thrombosis compared to the guided group (OR: 7.9; 95% CI: 1.08-69.2; p=0.048). In line with this, acute coronary syndrome occurred significantly less often in the guided group than in the non-guided group (0% vs. 2.5%; p=0.001) whereas there was no difference in the event rates of cardiac death (2% vs. 1.3%; p=0.422) or major bleedings (1% vs. 0.3%; p=0.186). CONCLUSION Personalized antiplatelet treatment according to the platelet function testing with MEA resulted in an improved efficacy with an equal safety compared to the standard treatment.

Interspecies differences in coagulation profile

Many animals are used in research on blood coagulation and fibrinolysis, but the relevance of animal models to human health is often questioned because of differences between species. The objective was to find an appropriate animal species, which mimics the coagulation profile in humans most adequately. Species differences in the coagulation profile with and without thrombin stimulation in vitro were assessed in whole blood by Rotation Thromboelastometry (ROTEM). Endogenous thrombin generation was measured in platelet-poor plasma. Measurements were performed in blood from five different species: humans, rats, pigs, sheep and rabbits. In humans and sheep, the clotting time (ROTEM) was in the same range with or without thrombin stimulation and a 100-fold lower dose of thrombin (0.002 IU) was required to cause a shortening in the clotting time as compared to rats, pigs and rabbits (0.2 IU) (p<0.05). Similarly, the endogenous thrombin potential (ETP) was in the same range in humans and sheep. The maximum clot firmness with or without thrombin stimulation was similar in rabbits and humans. The maximum lysis with or without thrombin stimulation was similar in humans and pigs. Significant species differences exist in the coagulation profile with or without thrombin stimulation. Most importantly, sheep had a clotting time most similar to humans and could thus be a suitable species for translational coagulation studies. Moreover, our findings confirm the potential usefulness of pigs as an experimental species to study fibrinolytic pathway and support the usefulness of rabbits as a species for examining platelets.

Morphine delays and attenuates ticagrelor exposure and action in patients with myocardial infarction: the randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled IMPRESSION trial

Abstract Aims The currently available data indicate a drug–drug interaction between morphine and oral P2Y12 receptor inhibitors, when administered together. The aim of this trial was to assess the influence of infused morphine on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of ticagrelor and its active metabolite (AR-C124910XX) in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Methods and results In a single-centre, randomized, double-blind trial, patients were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive intravenously either morphine (5 mg) or placebo, followed by a 180 mg loading dose of ticagrelor. Pharmacokinetics was determined with liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry and ticagrelor antiplatelet effects were measured with up to three different platelet function tests: vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation assay, multiple electrode aggregometry and VerifyNow. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assessment was performed in 70 patients (35 in each study group). Morphine lowered the total exposure to ticagrelor and its active metabolite by 36% (AUC(0–12): 6307 vs. 9791 ng h/mL; P = 0.003), and 37% (AUC(0–12): 1503 vs. 2388 ng h/mL; P = 0.008), respectively, with a concomitant delay in maximal plasma concentration of ticagrelor (4 vs. 2 h; P = 0.004). Multiple regression analysis showed that lower AUC(0–12) values for ticagrelor were independently associated with the administration of morphine (P = 0.004) and the presence of ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (P = 0.014). All three methods of platelet reactivity assessment showed a stronger antiplatelet effect in the placebo group and a greater prevalence of high platelet reactivity in patients receiving morphine. Conclusions Morphine delays and attenuates ticagrelor exposure and action in patients with myocardial infarction. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02217878.

Phenotyping vs. genotyping for prediction of clopidogrel efficacy and safety: the PEGASUS-PCI study

Summary.  Background: Prognostic values of genotyping and phenotyping for assessment of clopidogrel responsiveness have been shown in independent studies.Objectives: To compare different assays for prediction of events during long‐term follow‐up.Methods: In this prospective cohort study polymorphisms of CYP2C19*2 and CYP2C19*17 alleles, vasodilator‐stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation (VASP) assay, multiple electrode aggregometry (MEA), cone and platelet analyser (CPA) and platelet function analyser (PFA‐100) were performed in 416 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. The rates of events were recorded during a 12‐month follow‐up.Results: Platelet aggregation by MEA predicted stent thrombosis (2.4%) better (c‐index = 0.90; P < 0.001; sensitivity = 90%; specificity = 83%) than the VASP assay, CPA or PFA‐100 (c‐index < 0.70; P > 0.05; sensitivity < 70%; specificity < 70% for all) or even the CYP2C19*2 polymorphism (c‐index < 0.56; P > 0.05; sensitivity = 30%; specificity = 71%). Survival analysis indicated that patients classified as poor responders by MEA had a substantially higher risk of developing stent thrombosis or MACE than clopidogrel responders (12.5% vs. 0.3%, P < 0.001, and 18.5% vs. 11.3%, P = 0.022, respectively), whereas poor metabolizers (CYP2C19*1/*2 or *2/*2 carriers) were not at increased risks (stent thrombosis, 2.7% vs. 2.5%, P > 0.05; MACE, 13.5% vs. 12.1%, P = 0.556). The incidence of major bleedings (2.6%) was numerically higher in patients with an enhanced vs. poor response to clopidogrel assessed by MEA (4% vs. 0%) or in ultra‐metabolizers vs. regular metabolizers (CYP2C19*17/*17 vs. CYP2C19*1/*1; 9.5% vs. 2%). The classification tree analysis demonstrated that acute coronary syndrome at hospitalization and diabetes mellitus were the best discriminators for clopidogrel responder status.Conclusions: Phenotyping of platelet response to clopidogrel was a better predictor of stent thrombosis than genotyping.