Robert F. Storey

Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND Ticagrelor is an oral, reversible, direct-acting inhibitor of the adenosine diphosphate receptor P2Y12 that has a more rapid onset and more pronounced platelet inhibition than clopidogrel. METHODS In this multicenter, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose, 90 mg twice daily thereafter) and clopidogrel (300-to-600-mg loading dose, 75 mg daily thereafter) for the prevention of cardiovascular events in 18,624 patients admitted to the hospital with an acute coronary syndrome, with or without ST-segment elevation. RESULTS At 12 months, the primary end point--a composite of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke--had occurred in 9.8% of patients receiving ticagrelor as compared with 11.7% of those receiving clopidogrel (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 0.92; P<0.001). Predefined hierarchical testing of secondary end points showed significant differences in the rates of other composite end points, as well as myocardial infarction alone (5.8% in the ticagrelor group vs. 6.9% in the clopidogrel group, P=0.005) and death from vascular causes (4.0% vs. 5.1%, P=0.001) but not stroke alone (1.5% vs. 1.3%, P=0.22). The rate of death from any cause was also reduced with ticagrelor (4.5%, vs. 5.9% with clopidogrel; P<0.001). No significant difference in the rates of major bleeding was found between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups (11.6% and 11.2%, respectively; P=0.43), but ticagrelor was associated with a higher rate of major bleeding not related to coronary-artery bypass grafting (4.5% vs. 3.8%, P=0.03), including more instances of fatal intracranial bleeding and fewer of fatal bleeding of other types. CONCLUSIONS In patients who have an acute coronary syndrome with or without ST-segment elevation, treatment with ticagrelor as compared with clopidogrel significantly reduced the rate of death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke without an increase in the rate of overall major bleeding but with an increase in the rate of non-procedure-related bleeding. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00391872.)

ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: the Task Force for the management of dyslipidaemias of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS)

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) due to atherosclerosis of the arterial vessel wall and to thrombosis is the foremost cause of premature mortality and of disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in Europe, and is also increasingly common in developing countries.1 In the European Union, the economic cost of CVD represents annually E192 billion1 in direct and indirect healthcare costs. The main clinical entities are coronary artery disease (CAD), ischaemic stroke, and peripheral arterial disease (PAD). The causes of these CVDs are multifactorial. Some of these factors relate to lifestyles, such as tobacco smoking, lack of physical activity, and dietary habits, and are thus modifiable. Other risk factors are also modifiable, such as elevated blood pressure, type 2 diabetes, and dyslipidaemias, or non-modifiable, such as age and male gender. These guidelines deal with the management of dyslipidaemias as an essential and integral part of CVD prevention. Prevention and treatment of dyslipidaemias should always be considered within the broader framework of CVD prevention, which is addressed in guidelines of the Joint European Societies’ Task forces on CVD prevention in clinical practice.2 – 5 The latest version of these guidelines was published in 20075; an update will become available in 2012. These Joint ESC/European Atherosclerosis Society (EAS) guidelines on the management of dyslipidaemias are complementary to the guidelines on CVD prevention in clinical practice and address not only physicians [e.g. general practitioners (GPs) and cardiologists] interested in CVD prevention, but also specialists from lipid clinics or metabolic units who are dealing with dyslipidaemias that are more difficult to classify and treat.

2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation

ACC : American College of Cardiology ACCOAST : Comparison of Prasugrel at the Time of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention or as Pretreatment at the Time of Diagnosis in Patients with Non-ST Elevation Myocardial Infarction ACE : angiotensin-converting enzyme ACS : acute coronary syndromes ACT

Randomized Double-Blind Assessment of the ONSET and OFFSET of the Antiplatelet Effects of Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease The ONSET/OFFSET Study

Background— Ticagrelor is the first reversibly binding oral P2Y12 receptor antagonist. This is the first study to compare the onset and offset of platelet inhibition (IPA) with ticagrelor using the PLATO (PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes) trial loading dose (180 mg) with a high loading dose (600 mg) of clopidogrel. Methods and Results— In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, 123 patients with stable coronary artery disease who were taking aspirin therapy (75 to 100 mg/d) received ticagrelor (180-mg load, 90-mg BID maintenance dose [n=57]), clopidogrel (600-mg load, 75-mg/d maintenance dose [n=54]), or placebo (n=12) for 6 weeks. Greater IPA (20 &mgr;mol/L ADP, final extent) occurred with ticagrelor than with clopidogrel at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 24 hours after loading and at 6 weeks (P<0.0001 for all); by 2 hours after loading, a greater proportion of patients achieved >50% IPA (98% versus 31%, P<0.0001) and >70% IPA (90% versus 16%, P<0.0001) in the ticagrelor group than in the clopidogrel group, respectively. A faster offset occurred with ticagrelor than with clopidogrel (4-to-72–hour slope [% IPA/h] −1.04 versus −0.48, P<0.0001). At 24 hours after the last dose, mean IPA was 58% for ticagrelor versus 52% for clopidogrel (P=NS). IPA for ticagrelor on day 3 after the last dose was comparable to clopidogrel at day 5; IPA on day 5 for ticagrelor was similar to clopidogrel on day 7 and did not differ from placebo (P=NS). Conclusions— Ticagrelor achieved more rapid and greater platelet inhibition than high-loading-dose clopidogrel; this was sustained during the maintenance phase and was faster in offset after drug discontinuation. Clinical Trial Registration Information— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00528411.

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.).

Randomized Double-Blind Assessment of the ONSET and OFFSET of the Antiplatelet Effects of Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease Randomized Double-Blind Assessment of the ONSET and OFFSET of the Antiplatelet Effects of Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With Stable Cornonary Disease: The ONSET/OFFSET Study

Background— Ticagrelor is the first reversibly binding oral P2Y12 receptor antagonist. This is the first study to compare the onset and offset of platelet inhibition (IPA) with ticagrelor using the PLATO (PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes) trial loading dose (180 mg) with a high loading dose (600 mg) of clopidogrel. Methods and Results— In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind study, 123 patients with stable coronary artery disease who were taking aspirin therapy (75 to 100 mg/d) received ticagrelor (180-mg load, 90-mg BID maintenance dose [n=57]), clopidogrel (600-mg load, 75-mg/d maintenance dose [n=54]), or placebo (n=12) for 6 weeks. Greater IPA (20 &mgr;mol/L ADP, final extent) occurred with ticagrelor than with clopidogrel at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 8, and 24 hours after loading and at 6 weeks (P<0.0001 for all); by 2 hours after loading, a greater proportion of patients achieved >50% IPA (98% versus 31%, P<0.0001) and >70% IPA (90% versus 16%, P<0.0001) in the ticagrelor group than in the clopidogrel group, respectively. A faster offset occurred with ticagrelor than with clopidogrel (4-to-72–hour slope [% IPA/h] −1.04 versus −0.48, P<0.0001). At 24 hours after the last dose, mean IPA was 58% for ticagrelor versus 52% for clopidogrel (P=NS). IPA for ticagrelor on day 3 after the last dose was comparable to clopidogrel at day 5; IPA on day 5 for ticagrelor was similar to clopidogrel on day 7 and did not differ from placebo (P=NS). Conclusions— Ticagrelor achieved more rapid and greater platelet inhibition than high-loading-dose clopidogrel; this was sustained during the maintenance phase and was faster in offset after drug discontinuation. Clinical Trial Registration Information— URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00528411.

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.).

Comparison of ticagrelor with clopidogrel in patients with a planned invasive strategy for acute coronary syndromes (PLATO): a randomised double-blind study

BACKGROUND Variation in and irreversibility of platelet inhibition with clopidogrel has led to controversy about its optimum dose and timing of administration in patients with acute coronary syndromes. We compared ticagrelor, a more potent reversible P2Y12 inhibitor with clopidogrel in such patients. METHODS At randomisation, an invasive strategy was planned for 13 408 (72.0%) of 18 624 patients hospitalised for acute coronary syndromes (with or without ST elevation). In a double-blind, double-dummy study, patients were randomly assigned in a one-to-one ratio to ticagrelor and placebo (180 mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice a day), or to clopidogrel and placebo (300-600 mg loading dose or continuation with maintenance dose followed by 75 mg per day) for 6-12 months. All patients were given aspirin. The primary composite endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. Analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00391872. FINDINGS 6732 patients were assigned to ticagrelor and 6676 to clopidogrel. The primary composite endpoint occurred in fewer patients in the ticagrelor group than in the clopidogrel group (569 [event rate at 360 days 9.0%] vs 668 [10.7%], hazard ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.75-0.94; p=0.0025). There was no difference between clopidogrel and ticagrelor groups in the rates of total major bleeding (691 [11.6%] vs 689 [11.5%], 0.99 [0.89-1.10]; p=0.8803) or severe bleeding, as defined according to the Global Use of Strategies To Open occluded coronary arteries, (198 [3.2%] vs 185 [2.9%], 0.91 [0.74-1.12]; p=0.3785). INTERPRETATION Ticagrelor seems to be a better option than clopidogrel for patients with acute coronary syndromes for whom an early invasive strategy is planned.

Ticagrelor Versus Clopidogrel in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Results From the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) Trial

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study is to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG), as a post-randomization strategy. BACKGROUND Ticagrelor is a novel, reversibly binding, oral, direct-acting P2Y(12)-receptor antagonist. In the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) trial, which randomized 18,624 patients with acute coronary syndromes, ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel significantly reduced the risk of the primary composite end point of cardiovascular (CV) death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77 to 0.92; p < 0.001). This report investigated the outcomes of patients treated with CABG during the trial. METHODS In total, 1,899 patients underwent CABG post-randomization. The protocol recommended ticagrelor/placebo to be withheld for 24 to 72 h and clopidogrel/placebo for 5 days preoperatively. In all, 1,261 patients underwent CABG and were receiving study drug treatment <7 days before surgery. The statistical analysis was based on events occurring from the CABG procedure until the end of the study, excluding 3 patients with CABG after study end. RESULTS In the 1,261 patient cohort, the relative reduction of primary composite end point at 12 months (10.6% [66 of 629] with ticagrelor versus 13.1% [79 of 629] with clopidogrel; HR: 0.84; 95% CI: 0.60 to 1.16; p = 0.29) was consistent with the results of the whole trial. Total mortality was reduced from 9.7% (58 of 629) to 4.7% (29 of 629; HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.77; p < 0.01), CV death from 7.9% (47 of 629) to 4.1% (25 of 629; HR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.32 to 0.85; p < 0.01), and non-CV death numerically from 2.0% to 0.7% (p = 0.07). There was no significant difference in CABG-related major bleeding between the randomized treatments. CONCLUSIONS In the subgroup of patients undergoing CABG within 7 days after the last study drug intake, ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel was associated with a substantial reduction in total and CV mortality without excess risk of CABG-related bleeding.

Response to Ticagrelor in Clopidogrel Nonresponders and Responders and Effect of Switching Therapies. The RESPOND Study

Background— The antiplatelet effects of the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial dose of ticagrelor in patients nonresponsive to clopidogrel and after they switch agents are unknown. Methods and Results— Patients with stable coronary artery disease on aspirin therapy received a 300-mg clopidogrel load; nonresponders were identified by light transmittance aggregometry. In a 2-way crossover design, nonresponders (n=41) and responders (n=57) randomly received clopidogrel (600 mg/75 mg once daily) or ticagrelor (180 mg/90 mg twice daily) for 14 days during period 1. In period 2, all nonresponders switched treatment; half of the responders continued the same treatment, whereas the others switched treatment. Inhibition of platelet aggregation was higher in nonresponders treated with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel (P<0.05). Treatment with ticagrelor among nonresponders resulted in a >10%, >30%, and >50% decrease in platelet aggregation from baseline in 100%, 75%, and 13% of patients, respectively. Platelet aggregation fell from 59±9% to 35±11% in patients switched from clopidogrel to ticagrelor and increased from 36±14% to 56±9% in patients switched from ticagrelor to clopidogrel (P<0.0001 for both). Platelet reactivity was below the cut points previously associated with ischemic risk measured by light transmittance aggregometry, VerifyNow P2Y12 assay, and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation in 98% to 100% of patients after ticagrelor therapy versus 44% to 76% of patients after clopidogrel therapy. Conclusions— Ticagrelor therapy overcomes nonresponsiveness to clopidogrel, and its antiplatelet effect is the same in responders and nonresponders. Nearly all clopidogrel nonresponders and responders treated with ticagrelor will have platelet reactivity below the cut points associated with ischemic risk. Clinical Trial Registration— http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique Identifier: NCT00642811.