Efficacy of ticagrelor in the treatment of stable coronary heart disease: A protocol of systematic review

BACKGROUND

This study will assess the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor in the treatment of patients with stable coronary heart disease (SCHD).

METHODS

We will search the following databases for relevant potential studies in Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Google Scholar, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure. We will search all literature sources from inception to the present without limitations of language and publication status. We will only consider randomized controlled trials on exploring the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor for the treatment of SCHD. Investigators will separately examine studies, collect data and appraise study quality. Data synthesis and analysis will be performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

RESULTS

This study will summarize high quality synthesis of present evidence of ticagrelor for the treatment of SCHD.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study will provide evidence to appraise whether ticagrelor is effective for the treatment of patients with SCHD. OSF REGISTRATION NUMBER:: osf.io/fq69u.

Efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in East Asian patients with coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

AIMS

The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in East Asian patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains uncertain. The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in East Asian patients with CAD treated with PCI.

METHODS

A total of 12383 patients with CAD undergoing PCI who received dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) were consecutively enrolled in the ticagrelor group (n = 1321) and the clopidogrel group (n = 11062). Major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) and thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) bleeding events were compared according to ticagrelor or clopidogrel use were compared.

RESULTS

After propensity matching (n = 1321 in each group), ticagrelor was associated with lower incidence of MACCEs compared with clopidogrel (3.9 vs. 5.9%, hazard ratio [HR] = 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.92, p = .015). The incidence of TIMI bleeding events was higher in the ticagrelor group than in the clopidogrel group (4.5 vs. 2.9%, HR = 1.90, 95% CI 1.25-2.88, p = .024). The difference between ticagrelor and clopidogrel for net adverse clinical events was nonsignificant (4.3 vs. 4.9%, HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.61-1.27, p = .458).

CONCLUSIONS

Ticagrelor was associated with a lower incidence of MACCEs and an increased risk of TIMI bleeding events in East Asian patients with CAD receiving PCI.

Ticagrelor Inhibits Toll-Like and Protease-Activated Receptor Mediated Platelet Activation in Acute Coronary Syndromes

Purpose

Since ticagrelor inhibits the cellular uptake of adenosine, thereby increasing extracellular adenosine concentration and biological activity, we hypothesized that ticagrelor has adenosine-dependent antiplatelet properties. In the current study, we compared the effects of ticagrelor and prasugrel on platelet activation in acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Methods

Platelet surface expression of P-selectin and activated glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa in response to adenosine diphosphate (ADP), the toll-like receptor (TLR)-1/2 agonist Pam3CSK4, the TLR-4 agonist lipopolysaccharide (LPS), the protease-activated receptor (PAR)-1 agonist SFLLRN, and the PAR-4 agonist AYPGKF were measured by flow cytometry in blood from 80 ticagrelor- and 80 prasugrel-treated ACS patients on day 3 after percutaneous coronary intervention. Residual platelet aggregation to arachidonic acid (AA) and ADP were assessed by multiple electrode aggregometry and light transmission aggregometry.

Results

ADP-induced platelet activation and aggregation, and AA-induced platelet aggregation were similar in patients on ticagrelor and prasugrel, respectively (all p ≥ 0.3). Further, LPS-induced platelet surface expression of P-selectin and activated GPIIb/IIIa did not differ significantly between ticagrelor- and prasugrel-treated patients (both p > 0.4). In contrast, Pam3CSK4-induced platelet surface expression of P-selectin and activated GPIIb/IIIa were significantly lower in ticagrelor-treated patients (both p ≤ 0.005). Moreover, SFLLRN-induced platelet surface expression of P-selectin and activated GPIIb/IIIa were significantly less pronounced in patients on ticagrelor therapy compared to prasugrel-treated patients (both p < 0.03). Finally, PAR-4 mediated platelet activation as assessed by platelet surface expression of activated GPIIb/IIIa following stimulation with AYPGKF was significantly lower in patients receiving ticagrelor (p = 0.02).

Conclusion

Ticagrelor inhibits TLR-1/2 and PAR mediated platelet activation in ACS patients more strongly than prasugrel.

Ticagrelor as an Alternative Antiplatelet Therapy in Cardiac Patients Non-Sensitive to Aspirin

Background and Objectives: Aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid-ASA) is a first-line antiplatelet therapy provided to patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). However, it has been demonstrated that 20-30% of these patients are non-sensitive to their ASA therapy. ASA non-sensitivity is a phenomenon where low-dose ASA (81-325 mg) does not completely inhibit arachidonic-acid-induced platelet aggregation, putting patients at risk of adverse cardio-thrombotic events. Ticagrelor is a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor and alternative antiplatelet that has been approved to reduce the risk of stroke, myocardial infarction, and overall cardiovascular-related death. In this study, we aimed to identify ASA non-sensitive patients and evaluate if they would be sensitive to ticagrelor. Materials and Methods: For this pilot study, thirty-eight patients with CAD taking 81 mg ASA were recruited. Blood samples were collected from each patient and platelet rich plasma (PRP) from each sample was isolated. Light-transmission aggregometry (LTA) was used to determine baseline ASA sensitivity in each patient using 0.5 mg/mL arachidonic acid as a platelet agonist. Patients with ≥20% maximal platelet aggregation after activation were considered ASA non-sensitive. Fresh PRP samples from all patients were then spiked with a clinical dosage of ticagrelor (3 μM-approximately equivalent to a loading dose of 180 mg ticagrelor). Sensitivity was determined using LTA and 5 μM ADP as a platelet agonist. Patients with ≥46% maximal platelet aggregation were considered ticagrelor non-sensitive. Results: Of the 38 CAD patients taking 81 mg ASA, 32% (12/38) were non-sensitive to their 81 mg ASA therapy. All 38 of the recruited patients (100%) were sensitive to ticagrelor ex vivo. In conclusion, we were able to identify ASA non-sensitivity using LTA and determine that ASA non-sensitive patients were sensitive to ticagrelor. Conclusions: Our results suggest that ticagrelor is a promising alternative therapy for patients who are non-sensitive to ASA.

Meta-Analysis Comparing the Safety and Efficacy of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor in Acute Coronary Syndrome

Prasugrel and ticagrelor are preferred over clopidogrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention. We sought to determine the relative merits of 1 agent over the other. Multiple databases were queried to identify relevant randomized control trials (RCTs) and observational cohort studies. Random-effects model was used to calculate an unadjusted odds ratio (OR) for major adverse cardiovascular and cerbrovascular events (MACCE) and its components. A total of 27 (7 RCTs, 20 observational cohort studies) studies comprising 118,266 (prasugrel 62,716, ticagrelor 51,196) patients were included. At 30 days, prasugrel was associated with a significantly lower odds of MACCE (OR 0.75, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 0.85, p ≤0.0001) and mortality (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.71, p ≤0.0001). At 1 year, the overall odds of mortality favored prasugrel (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.68 to 0.92, p = 0.002), but no significant interdrug difference was seen in terms of MACCE (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.05, p = 0.16). There was no significant difference in the odds of overall myocardial infarction, revascularization, stent thrombosis, stroke, and major bleeding events between the 2 groups on both 30-day and 1-year follow-up. A subgroup analysis of RCTs data showed no significant difference between prasugrel and ticagrelor in terms of any end point at all time points. In conclusion, prasugrel might have lower odds of MACCE and mortality at 30 days. However, there was no difference in the safety and efficacy end points of 2 drugs at 1 year. The observed transient prasugrel-related mortality benefits were subject to the bias of nonrandomized assignment.

The Role of Aspirin After High-Risk Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Ticagrelor with Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients After Coronary Intervention Clinical Trial Experience

Traditionally, aspirin has played a significant role in both primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. However, emerging antithrombotic regimens with better efficacy and safety have challenged the foundation of aspirin. Aspirin-free strategies consisting of P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have now been tested in several large randomized controlled trials. In this article, we provide a contemporary overview of these data and suggest an algorithm to inform clinical decision with respect to antiplatelet pharmacotherapy after PCI.

Effect of Ticagrelor on Reducing the Risk of Gram-Positive Infections in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome

In light of recent studies describing the antibacterial properties of ticagrelor, the association between treatment with ticagrelor and subsequent risk for infection following acute coronary syndrome (ACS) is taking on increased importance. A single center, retrospective, matched cohort analysis was performed. All patients older than 30 years of age admitted between January 1, 2013 and November 1, 2019 for an ACS and discharged with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) were included. The primary outcome was defined as hospital admissions due to infections likely caused by gram-positive bacteria up to 1 year following the ACS hospitalization. The base cohort included 3,909 patients. About 2,035 (52.1%) were treated with ticagrelor and 1,874 (47.9%) with clopidogrel. Patients treated with ticagrelor had a 64% lower risk of gram-positive infection during the first year following hospitalization after adjusting for demographic and co-morbidity factors compared with those treated with clopidogrel (hazard ratio [HR], 0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.21 to 0.61; p <0.001). In a cohort starting from 1 year (conclusion of DAPT period) and up to 3 years following ACS hospitalization, the risk of gram-positive infection was comparable in both groups (HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.41 to 1.19; p = 0.182). Treatment with ticagrelor was not associated with a reduced risk of gram-negative infections (HR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.21 to 1.06; p = 0.07). In conclusion, DAPT regimen that includes aspirin and ticagrelor is associated with reduced risk of gram-positive infection compared with the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel.

Effect of Genotype-Guided Oral P2Y12 Inhibitor Selection vs Conventional Clopidogrel Therapy on Ischemic Outcomes After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The TAILOR-PCI Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

After percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), patients with CYP2C19*2 or *3 loss-of-function (LOF) variants treated with clopidogrel have increased risk of ischemic events. Whether genotype-guided selection of oral P2Y12 inhibitor therapy improves ischemic outcomes is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the effect of a genotype-guided oral P2Y12 inhibitor strategy on ischemic outcomes in CYP2C19 LOF carriers after PCI.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Open-label randomized clinical trial of 5302 patients undergoing PCI for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or stable coronary artery disease (CAD). Patients were enrolled at 40 centers in the US, Canada, South Korea, and Mexico from May 2013 through October 2018; final date of follow-up was October 2019.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients randomized to the genotype-guided group (n = 2652) underwent point-of-care genotyping. CYP2C19 LOF carriers were prescribed ticagrelor and noncarriers clopidogrel. Patients randomized to the conventional group (n = 2650) were prescribed clopidogrel and underwent genotyping after 12 months.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, and severe recurrent ischemia at 12 months. A secondary end point was major or minor bleeding at 12 months. The primary analysis was in patients with CYP2C19 LOF variants, and secondary analysis included all randomized patients. The trial had 85% power to detect a minimum hazard ratio of 0.50.

RESULTS

Among 5302 patients randomized (median age, 62 years; 25% women), 82% had ACS and 18% had stable CAD; 94% completed the trial. Of 1849 with CYP2C19 LOF variants, 764 of 903 (85%) assigned to genotype-guided therapy received ticagrelor, and 932 of 946 (99%) assigned to conventional therapy received clopidogrel. The primary end point occurred in 35 of 903 CYP2C19 LOF carriers (4.0%) in the genotype-guided therapy group and 54 of 946 (5.9%) in the conventional therapy group at 12 months (hazard ratio [HR], 0.66 [95% CI, 0.43-1.02]; P = .06). None of the 11 prespecified secondary end points showed significant differences, including major or minor bleeding in CYP2C19 LOF carriers in the genotype-guided group (1.9%) vs the conventional therapy group (1.6%) at 12 months (HR, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.60-2.51]; P = .58). Among all randomized patients, the primary end point occurred in 113 of 2641 (4.4%) in the genotype-guided group and 135 of 2635 (5.3%) in the conventional group (HR, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.65-1.07]; P = .16).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among CYP2C19 LOF carriers with ACS and stable CAD undergoing PCI, genotype-guided selection of an oral P2Y12 inhibitor, compared with conventional clopidogrel therapy without point-of-care genotyping, resulted in no statistically significant difference in a composite end point of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, and severe recurrent ischemia based on the prespecified analysis plan and the treatment effect that the study was powered to detect at 12 months.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01742117.

Comorbidity and low use of new antiplatelets in acute coronary syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Despite the use of the new generation P2Y12 inhibitors (Ticagrelor and Prasugrel) with aspirin is the recommended therapy in acute NSTE-ACS patients, their current use in clinical practice remains quite low and might be related, among several variables, with increased comorbidity burden. We aimed to assess the prevalence of these treatments and whether their use could be associated with comorbidity.

METHOD

A multicentric prospective registry was conducted at 8 Cardiac Intensive Care Units (October 2017-April 2018) in patients admitted with non ST elevation myocardial infarction. Antithrombotic treatment was recorded and the comorbidity risk was assessed using the Charlson Comorbidity Index. We created a multivariate model to identify the independent predictors of the use of new inhibitors of P2Y12.

RESULTS

A total of 629 patients were included, median age 67 years, 23.2% women, 359 patients (57.1%) treated with clopidogrel and 40.6% with new P2Y12 inhibitors: ticagrelor (228 patients, 36.2%) and prasugrel (30 patients, 4.8%). Among the patients with very high comorbidity (Charlson Score > 6) clopidogrel was the drug of choice (82.6%), meanwhile in patients with low comorbility (Charlson Score 0-1) was the ticagrelor or prasugrel (63.6%). Independent predictors of the use of ticagrelor or prasugrel were a low Charlson Comorbidity Index, a low CRUSADE score and the absence of prior bleeding.

CONCLUSION

Antiplatelet treatment with Ticagrelor or Pasugrel was low in patients admitted with NSTE-ACS. Comorbidity calculated with Charlson Comorbidity Index was a powerful predictor of the use of new generation P2Y12 inhibitors in this population.

Ticagrelor and Aspirin or Aspirin Alone in Acute Ischemic Stroke or TIA

BACKGROUND

Trials have evaluated the use of clopidogrel and aspirin to prevent stroke after an ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA). In a previous trial, ticagrelor was not better than aspirin in preventing vascular events or death after stroke or TIA. The effect of the combination of ticagrelor and aspirin on prevention of stroke has not been well studied.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial involving patients who had had a mild-to-moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke, with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score of 5 or less (range, 0 to 42, with higher scores indicating more severe stroke), or TIA and who were not undergoing thrombolysis or thrombectomy. The patients were assigned within 24 hours after symptom onset, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive a 30-day regimen of either ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose followed by 90 mg twice daily) plus aspirin (300 to 325 mg on the first day followed by 75 to 100 mg daily) or matching placebo plus aspirin. The primary outcome was a composite of stroke or death within 30 days. Secondary outcomes were first subsequent ischemic stroke and the incidence of disability within 30 days. The primary safety outcome was severe bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 11,016 patients underwent randomization (5523 in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and 5493 in the aspirin group). A primary-outcome event occurred in 303 patients (5.5%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 362 patients (6.6%) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71 to 0.96; P = 0.02). Ischemic stroke occurred in 276 patients (5.0%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 345 patients (6.3%) in the aspirin group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.93; P = 0.004). The incidence of disability did not differ significantly between the two groups. Severe bleeding occurred in 28 patients (0.5%) in the ticagrelor-aspirin group and in 7 patients (0.1%) in the aspirin group (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with a mild-to-moderate acute noncardioembolic ischemic stroke (NIHSS score ≤5) or TIA who were not undergoing intravenous or endovascular thrombolysis, the risk of the composite of stroke or death within 30 days was lower with ticagrelor-aspirin than with aspirin alone, but the incidence of disability did not differ significantly between the two groups. Severe bleeding was more frequent with ticagrelor. (Funded by AstraZeneca; THALES ClinicalTrial.gov number, NCT03354429.).

Evaluation and optimization of prescribed concomitant antiplatelet and anticoagulation therapy centrally managed by an anticoagulation management service

Patients on long-term anticoagulation combined with antiplatelet therapy have an increased risk of bleeding compared to patients on anticoagulation alone. The aim of this study was to evaluate the appropriateness of antiplatelet therapy in patients who are on long-term warfarin therapy and are managed by Brigham and Women's Hospital Anticoagulation Management Service (BWH AMS). This was a single-center, prospective chart review of patients managed by BWH AMS who were on long-term warfarin therapy plus full-dose aspirin (325 mg), an oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor) and/or acetylsalicylic acid/dipyridamole. Patients' cardiovascular (CV) benefit and risk of bleeding were assessed according to clinical guidelines. The major objective of the study was to determine the proportion of patients on dual antithrombotic therapy (DAT) or triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) whose risk of bleeding outweighed CV benefit. Of the 2677 patients evaluated for inclusion,145 were on concomitant long-term warfarin therapy plus aspirin (325 mg), an oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitor and/or acetylsalicylic acid/dipyridamole. A total of 85 patients (58.6%) had no clear indication for DAT or TAT per guideline recommendations and were categorized as bleeding risk outweighing CV benefit. The remaining 60 patients (41.4%) had an appropriate indication for DAT or TAT per guidelines and were categorized as CV benefit outweighing bleeding risk. BWH AMS pharmacists made 33 (22.9%) recommendations to providers to discontinue or de-escalate antiplatelet therapy. Interventions were accepted for 10 (30.3%) patients. Pharmacist involvement in the management of patients' antithrombotic regimens can optimize guideline-directed medical therapy and mitigate the potential risk of bleeding.

Ticagrelor to Reduce Myocardial Injury in Patients With High-Risk Coronary Artery Plaque

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to determine whether ticagrelor reduces high-sensitivity troponin I concentrations in patients with established coronary artery disease and high-risk coronary plaque.

BACKGROUND

High-risk coronary atherosclerotic plaque is associated with higher plasma troponin concentrations suggesting ongoing myocardial injury that may be a target for dual antiplatelet therapy.

METHODS

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, patients with multivessel coronary artery disease underwent coronary 18F-fluoride positron emission tomography/coronary computed tomography scanning and measurement of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin I. Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or matched placebo. The primary endpoint was troponin I concentration at 30 days in patients with increased coronary 18F-fluoride uptake.

RESULTS

In total, 202 patients were randomized to treatment, and 191 met the pre-specified criteria for inclusion in the primary analysis. In patients with increased coronary 18F-fluoride uptake (120 of 191), there was no evidence that ticagrelor had an effect on plasma troponin concentrations at 30 days (ratio of geometric means for ticagrelor vs. placebo: 1.11; 95% confidence interval: 0.90 to 1.36; p = 0.32). Over 1 year, ticagrelor had no effect on troponin concentrations in patients with increased coronary 18F-fluoride uptake (ratio of geometric means: 0.86; 95% confidence interval: 0.63 to 1.17; p = 0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

Dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor did not reduce plasma troponin concentrations in patients with high-risk coronary plaque, suggesting that subclinical plaque thrombosis does not contribute to ongoing myocardial injury in this setting. (Dual Antiplatelet Therapy to Reduce Myocardial Injury [DIAMOND]; NCT02110303).

TicagRelor Or Clopidogrel in severe or terminal chronic kidney patients Undergoing PERcutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome: The TROUPER trial

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with an increased risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and cardiovascular death. CKD patients suffering from ACS are exposed to an increased risk of thrombotic recurrences and a higher bleeding rate than patients with normal renal function. However, CKD patients are excluded or underrepresented in clinical trials. Therefore, determining the optimal antiplatelet strategy in this population is of utmost importance. We designed the TicagRelor Or Clopidogrel in severe or terminal chronic kidney patients Undergoing PERcutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome (TROUPER) trial: a prospective, controlled, multicenter, randomized trial to investigate the optimal P2Y12 antagonist in CKD patients with ACS. Patients with stage ≥3b CKD are eligible if the diagnosis of ACS is made and invasive strategy scheduled. Patients are randomized 1:1 between a control group with a 600-mg loading dose of clopidogrel followed by a 75-mg/d maintenance dose for 1 year and an experimental group with a 180-mg loading dose of ticagrelor followed by a 90-mg twice daily maintenance dose for the same duration. The primary end point is defined by the rate of major adverse cardiovascular events, including death, myocardial infarction, urgent revascularization, and stroke at 1 year. Safety will be evaluated by the bleeding rate (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium). To demonstrate the superiority of ticagrelor on major adverse cardiovascular events, we calculated that 508 patients are required. The aim of the TROUPER trial is to compare the efficacy of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in stage >3b CKD patients presenting with ACS and scheduled for an invasive strategy. RCT# NCT03357874.

Gut Microbiota-Dependent Trimethylamine N-oxide and Cardiovascular Outcomes in Patients With Prior Myocardial Infarction: A Nested Case Control Study From the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 Trial

Background Trimethylamine N-oxide (TMAO) may have prothrombotic properties. We examined the association of TMAO quartiles with major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and the effect of TMAO on the efficacy of ticagrelor. Methods and Results PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin - Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 54) randomized patients with prior myocardial infarction to ticagrelor or placebo (median follow-up 33 months). Baseline plasma concentrations of TMAO were measured in a nested case-control study of 597 cases with cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (MACE) and 1206 controls matched for age, sex, and estimated glomerular filtration rate [eGFR]. Odds ratios (OR) were used for the association between TMAO quartiles and MACE, adjusting for baseline clinical characteristics (age, sex, eGFR, region, body mass index, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes mellitus, smoking, peripheral artery disease, index event, aspirin dosage and treatment arm), and cardiovascular biomarkers (hs-TnT [high-sensitivity troponin T], hs-CRP [high-sensitivity C-reactive protein], NT-proBNP [N-terminal-pro-B-type natriuretic peptide]). Higher TMAO quartiles were associated with risk of MACE (OR for quartile 4 versus quartile 1, 1.43, 95% CI, 1.06-1.93, P trend=0.015). The association was driven by cardiovascular death (OR 2.25, 95% CI, 1.28-3.96, P trend=0.003) and stroke (OR 2.68, 95% CI, 1.39-5.17, P trend<0.001). After adjustment for clinical factors, the association persisted for cardiovascular death (ORadj 1.89, 95% CI, 1.03-3.45, P trend=0.027) and stroke (ORadj 2.01, 95% CI, 1.01-4.01, P trend=0.022), but was slightly attenuated after adjustment for cardiovascular biomarkers (cardiovascular death: ORadj 1.74, 95% CI, 0.88-3.45, P trend=0.079; and stroke: ORadj 1.82, 95% CI, 0.88-3.78, P trend=0.056). The reduction in MACE with ticagrelor was consistent across TMAO quartiles (P interaction=0.92). Conclusions Among patients with prior myocardial infarction, higher TMAO levels were associated with cardiovascular death and stroke but not with recurrent myocardial infarction. The efficacy of ticagrelor was consistent regardless of TMAO levels. Registration URL: https://www.clini​caltr​ials.gov; Unique identifiers: PEGASUS-TIMI 54, NCT01225562.

Monotherapy with a P2Y12 inhibitor or aspirin for secondary prevention in patients with established atherosclerosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Antiplatelet therapy is recommended among patients with established atherosclerosis. We compared monotherapy with a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor versus aspirin for secondary prevention.

METHODS

In this systematic review and meta-analysis, all randomised trials comparing P2Y₁₂ inhibitor with aspirin monotherapy for secondary prevention in patients with cerebrovascular, coronary, or peripheral artery disease were evaluated for inclusion. On Dec 18, 2019, we searched PubMed, Embase, BioMedCentral, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Additionally, we reviewed references from identified articles and searched abstracts from 2017 to 2019 presented at relevant scientific meetings. Data about year of publication, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample size, baseline patients' features including the baseline condition determining study inclusion (ie, cerebrovascular, coronary, or peripheral artery disease), P2Y₁₂ inhibitor type and dosage, aspirin dosage, endpoint definitions, effect estimates, follow-up duration, and percentage of patients lost to follow-up were collected. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs were used as metric of choice for treatment effects with random-effects models. Co-primary endpoints were myocardial infarction and stroke. Key secondary endpoints were all-cause death and vascular death. Heterogeneity was assessed with the I² index. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018115037).

FINDINGS

A total of nine randomised trials were identified and included in this study, and 42 108 patients randomly allocated to a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (n=21 043) or aspirin (n=21 065) were included in our analyses. Patients who received a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor had a borderline reduction for the risk of myocardial infarction compared with those who received aspirin (OR 0·81 [95% CI 0·66-0·99]; I²=10·9%). Risks of stroke (OR 0·93 [0·82-1·06]; I²=34·5%), all-cause death (OR 0·98 [0·89-1·08]; I²=0%), and vascular death (OR 0·97 [0·86-1·09]; I²=0%) did not differ between patients who received a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor and those who received aspirin. Similarly, the risk of major bleeding (OR 0·90 [0·74-1·10]; I²=3·9%) did not differ between patients who received a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor and those who received aspirin. The number needed to treat to prevent one myocardial infarction with P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy was 244 patients. Findings were consistent regardless of the type of P2Y₁₂ inhibitor used.

INTERPRETATION

Compared with aspirin monotherapy, P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy is associated with a risk reduction for myocardial infarction and a comparable risk of stroke in the setting of secondary prevention. The benefit of P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy is of debatable clinical relevance, in view of the high number needed to treat to prevent a myocardial infarction and the absence of any effect on all-cause and vascular mortality.

FUNDING

Italian Ministry of Education.

Bleeding risk of ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel in intensive care unit patients with acute coronary syndrome: A propensity-score matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Intensive care unit (ICU) patients with the most severe forms of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) require invasive therapies such as extracorporeal life support. The risk of bleeding in ICU patients with ACS treated with a dual antiplatelet therapy of aspirin and ticagrelor is unknown. The primary objective of this study was to compare the bleeding risk of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in ICU patients with ACS.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a retrospective study based on a propensity score and a proportional hazards model. All patients with ACS hospitalized in the ICU of a French university hospital between January 2013 and January 2017 were included in the study. Bleeding during ICU stay was defined as all Thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) major or minor events. A total of 155 patients were included in the study. According to propensity score matching, 57 patients treated with aspirin and ticagrelor were matched with 57 patients treated with aspirin and clopidogrel. Median (first-third quartile) Simplified Acute Physiology Score II was 61.5 (41.0-85.0). Bleeding during ICU stay occurred in 12 patients (21.1%) treated with clopidogrel and in 35 patients (61.4%) treated with ticagrelor (p<0.0001). This significant association was found for both TIMI major bleeding (12.3% vs. 35.1%, p = 0.004) and TIMI minor bleeding (8.8% vs. 26.3%, p = 0.01). The relative risk of bleeding occurrence during ICU stay was 2.60 (confidence interval 95%: 1.55-4.35) for ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel. No significant difference in ICU mortality was found between the two groups (45.6% in the clopidogrel group vs. 29.8% in the ticagrelor group, p = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

Bleeding complications are frequent and serious in ICU patients with ACS. A dual antiplatelet therapy of aspirin and ticagrelor is associated with a higher risk of bleeding compared to a dual antiplatelet therapy of aspirin and clopidogrel.

Antiplatelet therapies in diabetes

Cardiovascular complications remain the main cause of mortality and morbidity in diabetes. This is related to advanced vascular pathology in this population, together with an enhanced thrombotic environment. The increased risk in thrombosis is secondary to platelet hyper-reactivity and increased levels and/or altered activity of coagulation factors. The current review is focused on the role of antiplatelet agents in modulating the thrombotic milieu in diabetes and improving vascular outcome in this high-risk population. We review the latest evidence for the use of aspirin in primary vascular prevention together with long-term treatment with this agent for secondary prevention. We also discuss the effects of the various P2Y₁₂ inhibitors, including clopidogrel, prasugrel and ticagrelor, on both short- and long-term secondary vascular prevention. Moreover, we briefly review antiplatelet therapies in special groups of people including those intolerant to aspirin, individuals with peripheral vascular disease and those with cerebrovascular pathology. The overall aim of this review is to provide the healthcare professional with a pragmatic guide for the management of thrombotic risk using established antiplatelet therapies to improve vascular outcome in persons with diabetes.

Clopidogrel versus ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients aged 70 years or older with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (POPular AGE): the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND

Current guidelines recommend potent platelet inhibition with ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients after an acute coronary syndrome. However, data about optimal platelet inhibition in older patients are scarce. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of clopidogrel compared with ticagrelor or prasugrel in older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS).

METHODS

We did the open-label, randomised controlled POPular AGE trial in 12 sites (ten hospitals and two university hospitals) in the Netherlands. Patients aged 70 years or older with NSTE-ACS were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio using an internet-based randomisation procedure with block sizes of six to receive a loading dose of clopidogrel 300 mg or 600 mg, or ticagrelor 180 mg or prasugrel 60 mg, and then a maintenance dose for the duration of 12 months (clopidogrel 75 mg once daily, ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily, or prasugrel 10 mg once daily) on top of standard care. Patient and treating physicians were aware of the allocated treatment strategy, but the outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. Primary bleeding outcome consisted of PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO; major or minor bleeding [superiority hypothesis]). Co-primary net clinical benefit outcome consisted of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, PLATO major and minor bleeding (non-inferiority hypothesis, margin of 2%). Follow-up duration was 12 months. Analyses were done on intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NL3804), ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02317198), and EudraCT (2013-001403-37).

FINDINGS

Between June 10, 2013, and Oct 17, 2018, 1002 patients were randomly assigned to clopidogrel (n=500) or ticagrelor or prasugrel (n=502). Because 475 (95%) patients received ticagrelor in the ticagrelor or prasugrel group, we will refer to this group as the ticagrelor group. Premature discontinuation of the study drug occurred in 238 (47%) of 502 ticagrelor group patients randomly assigned to ticagrelor, and in 112 (22%) of 500 patients randomly assigned to clopidogrel. Primary bleeding outcome was significantly lower in the clopidogrel group (88 [18%] of 500 patients) than in the ticagrelor group (118 [24%] of 502; hazard ratio 0·71, 95% CI 0·54 to 0·94; p=0·02 for superiority). Co-primary net clinical benefit outcome was non-inferior for the use of clopidogrel (139 [28%]) versus ticagrelor (161 [32%]; absolute risk difference -4%, 95% CI -10·0 to 1·4; p=0·03 for non-inferiority). The most important reasons for discontinuation were occurrence of bleeding (n=38), dyspnoea (n=40), and the need for treatment with oral anticoagulation (n=35).

INTERPRETATION

In patients aged 70 years or older presenting with NSTE-ACS, clopidogrel is a favourable alternative to ticagrelor, because it leads to fewer bleeding events without an increase in the combined endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and bleeding. Clopidogrel could be an alternative P2Y12 inhibitor especially for elderly patients with a higher bleeding risk.

FUNDING

ZonMw.

Pharmacodynamic Effects of Vorapaxar in Prior Myocardial Infarction Patients Treated With Potent Oral P2Y12 Receptor Inhibitors With and Without Aspirin: Results of the VORA-PRATIC Study

Background Vorapaxar as an adjunct to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) reduces thrombotic events in patients with prior myocardial infarction at the expense of increased bleeding. Withdrawal of aspirin has emerged as a bleeding reduction strategy. The pharmacodynamic effects of vorapaxar with potent P2Y12 inhibitors as well as the impact of dropping aspirin is unexplored and represented the aim of the VORA-PRATIC (Vorapaxar Therapy in Patients With Prior Myocardial Infarction Treated With Newer Generation P2Y12 Receptor Inhibitors Prasugrel and Ticagrelor) study. Methods and Results Post-myocardial infarction patients (n=130) on standard DAPT (aspirin+prasugrel or ticagrelor) were randomized to 1 of 3 arms: (1) triple therapy: aspirin+prasugrel/ticagrelor+vorapaxar; (2) dual therapy (drop aspirin): prasugrel/ticagrelor+vorapaxar; (3) DAPT: aspirin+prasugrel/ticagrelor. Pharmacodynamic assessments were performed at 3 time points (baseline and 7 and 30 days). Vorapaxar reduced CAT (collagen-ADP-TRAP)-induced platelet aggregation, a marker of platelet-mediated global thrombogenicity (triple therapy versus DAPT at 30 days: mean difference=-27; 95% CI,-35 to -19; P<0.001; primary end point). This effect was attenuated but still significant in the absence of aspirin (dual therapy versus DAPT at 30 days: mean difference=-15; 95% CI,-23 to -7; P<0.001; between-group comparisons, P<0.05). Vorapaxar abolished TRAP-induced aggregation (P<0.001), without affecting thrombin generation and clot strength. There were no differences in markers of P2Y12 reactivity. Markers sensitive to aspirin-induced effects increased (P<0.001) in the dual-therapy arm. Conclusions In post-myocardial infarction patients treated with potent P2Y12 inhibitors, vorapaxar reduces platelet-driven global thrombogenicity, an effect that persisted, albeit attenuated, in the absence of aspirin and without affecting markers of P2Y12 reactivity or clot kinetics. The clinical implications of these PD observations warrant future investigation. Registration URL: https://www.clini​caltr​ials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02545933.

Repurposing a platelet aggregation inhibitor ticagrelor as an antimicrobial against Clostridioides difficile

Drug resistance in Clostridioides difficile becomes a public health concern worldwide, especially as the hypervirulent strains show decreased susceptibility to the first-line antibiotics for C. difficile treatment. Therefore, the simultaneous discovery and development of new compounds to fight this pathogen are urgently needed. In order to determinate new drugs active against C. difficile, we identified ticagrelor, utilized for the prevention of thrombotic events, as exhibiting potent growth-inhibitory activity against C. difficile. Whole-cell growth inhibition assays were performed and compared to vancomycin and metronidazole, followed by determining time-kill kinetics against C. difficile. Activities against biofilm formation and spore germination were also evaluated. Leakage analyses and electron microscopy were applied to confirm the disruption of membrane structure. Finally, ticagrelor's ability to synergize with vancomycin and metronidazole was determined using checkerboard assays. Our data showed that ticagrelor exerted activity with a MIC range of 20-40 µg/mL against C. difficile. This compound also exhibited an inhibitory effect on biofilm formation and spore germination. Additionally, ticagrelor did not interact with vancomycin nor metronidazole. Our findings revealed for the first time that ticagrelor could be further developed as a new antimicrobial agent for fighting against C. difficile.

Impact of Anemia on the Risk of Bleeding Following Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Patients ≥75 Years of Age

Bleeding risk stratification is an unresolved issue in older adults. Anemia may reflect subclinical blood losses that can be exacerbated after percutaneous coronary intervention . We sought to prospectively determine the contribution of anemia to the risk of bleeding in 448 consecutive patients aged 75 or more years, treated by percutaneous coronary interventions without concomitant indication for oral anticoagulation. We evaluated the effect of WHO-defined anemia on the incidence of 1-year nonaccess site-related major bleeding. The prevalence of anemia was 39%, and 13.1% of anemic and 5.2% of nonanemic patients suffered a bleeding event (hazard ratio 2.75, 95% confidence interval 1.37 to 5.54, p = 0.004). Neither PRECISE-DAPT nor CRUSADE scores were superior to hemoglobin for the prediction of bleeding. In conclusion, anemia is a powerful predictor of bleeding with potential utility for simplifying tailoring therapies.

Premature Ticagrelor Discontinuation in Secondary Prevention of Atherosclerotic CVD: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Ticagrelor is a cornerstone of modern antithrombotic therapy alongside aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndrome and after percutaneous coronary intervention. Adverse effects such as bleeding and dyspnea have been associated with premature ticagrelor discontinuation, which may limit any potential advantage of ticagrelor over clopidogrel. The randomized trials of ticagrelor captured adverse events, offering the opportunity to more precisely quantify these effects across studies. Therefore, a meta-analysis of 4 randomized clinical trials of ticagrelor conducted between January 2007 and June 2017 was performed to quantify the incidence and causes of premature ticagrelor discontinuation. Among 66,870 patients followed for a median 18 months, premature ticagrelor discontinuation was seen in 25%; bleeding was the most common cause of discontinuation followed by dyspnea. Versus the comparators, the relative risk of dyspnea-related discontinuation during follow-up was 6.4-fold higher, the relative risk of bleeding was 3.2-fold higher, and the relative risk of discontinuation due to any adverse event was 59% higher for patients receiving ticagrelor. Understanding these potential barriers to adherence to ticagrelor is crucial for informed patient-physician decision making and can inform future efforts to improve ticagrelor adherence. This review discusses the incidence, causes, and biological mechanisms of ticagrelor-related adverse effects and offers strategies to improve adherence to ticagrelor.

Comparison of major bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndrome that underwent coronary artery bypass grafting treated with clopidogrel or ticagrelor: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: There is controversy among physicians regarding the use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Moreover, the evidence of previous studies about this topic remained inconclusive. This study aimed to perform a meta-analysis concerning the relation between the risk of major bleeding and the use of different DAPT (clopidogrel or ticagrelor) in ACS patients treated with CABG. Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted during March to October 2019. Searches were carried out in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science. The predictor covariate in our present study was DAPT (clopidogrel or ticagrelor), and the outcome measure was the risk of major bleeding. Sub-group analysis was also performed, where data were classified into pre- and post-CABG. Furthermore, to determine the correlation and effect estimation, data were analyzed using fixed or random effect model. Results: A total of 13 studies consisting 34,015 patients treated with clopidogrel and 32,661 patients treated with ticagrelor was included in our study. Our pooled calculation revealed that the incidence of major bleeding was not different significantly between clopidogrel and ticagrelor. In pre- and post-CABG sub-groups, our results also found no significant difference in major bleeding incidence between clopidogrel and ticagrelor groups. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis clarifies that clopidogrel, compared to ticagrelor, or vice versa, is not associated with the risk of major bleeding in ACS patients treated with CABG.

Homocysteine levels and platelet reactivity in coronary artery disease patients treated with ticagrelor

BACKGROUND AND AIM

Recurrent atherothrombotic events have been reported in certain higher risk subsets of patients even with ticagrelor, a potent first-line antiplatelet agent for the management of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Hyperhomocysteinemia is a known determinant of platelet function abnormalities. Therefore, the aim of our study was to evaluate the impact of homocysteine (Hcy) levels on platelet reactivity in patients receiving Ticagrelor.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with ACS undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization and on dual antiplatelet therapy with ASA + Ticagrelor (90mg/twice a day) were scheduled for platelet function assessment 30-90 days post-discharge. Aggregation tests were performed by Multiple Electrode Aggregometry (MEA). Suboptimal platelet inhibition HRPR-high residual platelet reactivity was defined if above the lower limit of normality (417 AU*min). We included 432 patients, divided according to Hcy tertiles. Higher Hcy levels were associated with age, renal failure, creatinine levels and use diuretics (p < 0.001). Patients with higher Hcy levels displayed a higher platelet reactivity at COL test (p = 0.002), and ADP test (p = 0.04), with a linear relationship between Hcy and platelet aggregation after stimulation with collagen (r = 0.202, p < 0.001), thrombin receptor peptide (r = 0.104, p = 0.05) and ADP (r = 0.145, p = 0.006). However, Hcy levels did not significantly affect the rate of HRPR with Ticagrelor (9.9% vs 13.7% vs 10.7%, p = 0.89; adjusted OR [95% CI] = [0.616-1.51], p = 0.99).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with ACS, despite the elevated platelet reactivity associated to hyperhomocysteinemia, DAPT with ticagrelor could overcome such phenomenon, achieving an adequate platelet inhibition in the majority of the patients.

Comparison of major bleeding in patients with acute coronary syndrome that underwent coronary artery bypass grafting treated with clopidogrel or ticagrelor: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: There is controversy among physicians regarding the use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Moreover, the evidence of previous studies about this topic remained inconclusive. This study aimed to perform a meta-analysis concerning the relation between the risk of major bleeding and the use of different DAPT (clopidogrel or ticagrelor) in ACS patients treated with CABG. Methods: A meta-analysis was conducted during March to October 2019. Searches were carried out in Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane, and Web of Science. The predictor covariate in our present study was DAPT (clopidogrel or ticagrelor), and the outcome measure was the risk of major bleeding. Sub-group analysis was also performed, where data were classified into pre- and post-CABG. Furthermore, to determine the correlation and effect estimation, data were analyzed using fixed or random effect model. Results: A total of 13 studies consisting 34,015 patients treated with clopidogrel and 32,661 patients treated with ticagrelor was included in our study. Our pooled calculation revealed that the incidence of major bleeding was not different significantly between clopidogrel and ticagrelor. In pre- and post-CABG sub-groups, our results also found no significant difference in major bleeding incidence between clopidogrel and ticagrelor groups. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis clarifies that clopidogrel, compared to ticagrelor, or vice versa, is not associated with the risk of major bleeding in ACS patients treated with CABG.

Ticagrelor-based antiplatelet regimens in patients with atherosclerotic artery disease-A meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Randomized trials did not consistently support superiority of ticagrelor, as monotherapy or in combination with aspirin, in terms of efficacy or safety, in patients with atherosclerotic artery disease.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and scientific session abstracts were searched for trials of patients with coronary or peripheral artery disease (with >1,000 participants and a follow-up ≥3 months) randomly assigned to ticagrelor-based or conventional antiplatelet therapies. Trial-level hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled using a fixed- or random-effect model (in case of significant heterogeneity) with the inverse variance weighting. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. Other outcomes were myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and major bleeding.

RESULTS

Overall 77,489 patients received either ticagrelor-based (n = 38,721) or conventional antiplatelet regimens (n = 38,768) in 6 trials. The primary outcome occurred in 4.5% of patients treated with experimental therapy and 4.9% of patients treated with control therapy (HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.81-1.01; P = .07). Overall, patients treated with ticagrelor-based versus conventional antiplatelet regimens showed no significant difference in terms of all-cause death, MI, stroke, or major bleeding after 20 months. However, in trials of patients with coronary artery disease as primary diagnosis, the risk for all-cause death (HR = 0.84 [0.77-0.91], P < .001) and MI (HR = 0.87 [0.80-0.94], P = .007) was significantly reduced by experimental therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with atherosclerotic artery disease, the benefit of ticagrelor-based therapies was confined to patients treated for coronary artery disease. The drug significantly reduced the risk for all-cause death and MI without excess risk of bleeding in these patients. In consideration of limitations of subgroup analyses, these results need further validation.

Prescription Patterns of Clopidogrel, Prasugrel, and Ticagrelor After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Stent Implantation (from the NCDR PINNACLE Registry)

The use of prasugrel and ticagrelor as part of dual antiplatelet therapy is increasing in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Accordingly, we aimed to evaluate their prescription patterns in the National Cardiovascular Data Registry (NCDR) Practice Innovation and Clinical Excellence (PINNACLE) registry. We analyzed patients enrolled in NCDR PINNACLE registry from January 2013 to March 2015 who underwent PCI with drug-eluting stent and were prescribed dual antiplatelet therapy. All patients received aspirin. The primary study outcome was a 3-level variable denoting the second antiplatelet agent prescribed: (1) clopidogrel, (2) prasugrel, or (3) ticagrelor. Baseline characteristics were compared among the 3 groups. Odds ratios and 95% credible intervals were calculated from a nested hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression models to identify independent predictors of prescription of antiplatelet medications, incorporating practice and provider as random effects. Our study cohort consisted of 26,710 patients during our study period January 2013 to March 2015. Seventy nine percent of patients were prescribed clopidogrel, 12% prasugrel, and 11% ticagrelor. Patients aged ≥75 years, women, history of tobacco use, Peripheral Arterial Disease (PAD), hypertension, diabetes, previous vascular complication, heart failure, and stroke/transient ischemic attack were more likely to be on clopidogrel than prasugrel or ticagrelor. The relative percentages of ticagrelor and prasugrel were higher in patients with history of myocardial infarction, compared with those without myocardial infarction. In summary, our study highlights the prescription patterns associated with prescription of antiplatelet agents after PCI. We found that both ticagrelor and prasugrel were mostly prescribed per the current practice guidelines, thus reflecting appropriate guideline adherence by practices in NCDR PINNACLE registry.

Ascertainment of Silent Myocardial Infarction in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (from the GLOBAL LEADERS Trial)

Q-wave myocardial infarction (QWMI) comprises 2 entities. First, a clinically evident MI, which can occur spontaneously or be related to a coronary procedure. Second, silent MI which is incidentally detected on serial electrocardiographic (ECG) assessment. The prevalence of silent MI after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the drug-eluting stent era has not been fully investigated. The GLOBAL LEADERS is an all-comers multicenter trial which randomized 15,991 patients who underwent PCI to 2 antiplatelet treatment strategies. The primary end point was a composite of all-cause death or nonfatal new QWMI at 2-years follow-up. ECGs were collected at discharge, 3-month and 2-year visits, and analyzed by an independent ECG core laboratory following the Minnesota code. All new QWMI were further reviewed by a blinded independent cardiologist to identify a potential clinical correlate by reviewing clinical information. Of 15,968 participants, ECG information was complete in 14,829 (92.9%) at 2 years. A new QWMI was confirmed in 186 (1.16%) patients. Transient new Q-waves were observed in 28.5% (53 of 186) of them during the follow-up. The majority of new QWMI (78%, 146 of 186) were classified as silent MI due to the absence of a clinical correlate. Silent MI accounted for 22.1% (146 of 660) of all MI events. The prevalence of silent MI did not differ significantly between treatment strategies (experimental vs reference: 0.88% vs 0.98%, p = 0.5027). In conclusion, we document the prevalence of silent MI in an all-comers population undergoing PCI in this large-scale randomized trial.

Impact of recruitment and retention on all-cause mortality in a large all-comers randomised controlled trial: insights from the GLOBAL LEADERS trial

OBJECTIVE

Recruitment and retention in trials may bias the results and subsequently complicate their interpretation and validity. The aim of this study is to evaluate the impact of recruitment and retention on all-cause mortality in a large all-comers trial.

METHODS

The recruitment rate in each investigating center of the GLOBAL LEADERS trial was assessed and the 130 centers were subdivided into low and high recruiters according to the median, with all-cause mortality then compared between the two groups. Vital status was obtained from public records in patients with incomplete follow-up.

RESULTS

The trial randomized 15,991 (7.86%) of 203,483 eligible patients with percutaneous coronary intervention during the recruitment period, of whom 15,267 (95.47%) completed follow-up, 23 (0.14%) patients withdrew consent and formally requested to be deleted from the database; 183 (1.14%) withdrew consent but only objected to future data collection; 303 (1.89%) discontinued the study; and 215 (1.34%) were lost to follow-up. Vital status was finally obtained in all but 31 patients (99.81%). Patients from low recruiters had a significantly lower all-cause mortality than high ones (2.26% vs. 3.24%; hazard ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval: 0.55-0.87; p = 0.002). There was a significant difference in all-cause mortality among the incomplete follow-up groups (log-rank p < 0.001) with a significantly higher mortality in the 183 patients who withdrew consent than those who completed follow-up (7.38% vs. 2.99%, p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Recruitment and retention significantly impacted all-cause mortality. Search for vital status through public domains is of paramount importance in the interpretation and validity of large clinical trials.

Ticagrelor with or without Aspirin in High-Risk Patients after PCI

BACKGROUND

Monotherapy with a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor after a minimum period of dual antiplatelet therapy is an emerging approach to reduce the risk of bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

In a double-blind trial, we examined the effect of ticagrelor alone as compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin with regard to clinically relevant bleeding among patients who were at high risk for bleeding or an ischemic event and had undergone PCI. After 3 months of treatment with ticagrelor plus aspirin, patients who had not had a major bleeding event or ischemic event continued to take ticagrelor and were randomly assigned to receive aspirin or placebo for 1 year. The primary end point was Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3, or 5 bleeding. We also evaluated the composite end point of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke, using a noninferiority hypothesis with an absolute margin of 1.6 percentage points.

RESULTS

We enrolled 9006 patients, and 7119 underwent randomization after 3 months. Between randomization and 1 year, the incidence of the primary end point was 4.0% among patients randomly assigned to receive ticagrelor plus placebo and 7.1% among patients assigned to receive ticagrelor plus aspirin (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45 to 0.68; P<0.001). The difference in risk between the groups was similar for BARC type 3 or 5 bleeding (incidence, 1.0% among patients receiving ticagrelor plus placebo and 2.0% among patients receiving ticagrelor plus aspirin; hazard ratio, 0.49; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.74). The incidence of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke was 3.9% in both groups (difference, -0.06 percentage points; 95% CI, -0.97 to 0.84; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.25; P<0.001 for noninferiority).

CONCLUSIONS

Among high-risk patients who underwent PCI and completed 3 months of dual antiplatelet therapy, ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a lower incidence of clinically relevant bleeding than ticagrelor plus aspirin, with no higher risk of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. (Funded by AstraZeneca; TWILIGHT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02270242.).

Comparison of atrial fibrillation predictors in patients with acute coronary syndrome using ticagrelor or clopidogrel

Background/aim

Ticagrelor is a drug widely used in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) that specifically increases the plasma level of adenosine, which is likely to cause atrial fibrillation (AF). Therefore, in this study we aimed to investigate the electrocardiographic and echocardiographic predictors of AF development after P2Y12 receptor antagonists in ACS patients.

Materials and methods

This cross-sectional study included 831 patients with ACS (486 [58.5%] with ST elevated myocardial infarction [STEMI] and 345 [41.5%] with non-ST elevated myocardial infarction [NSTEMI]). Patients were divided into ticagrelor (n = 410) and clopidogrel (n = 421) groups. P wave properties including P wave dispersion and atrial electromechanical conduction properties were measured as AF predictors with surface ECG and tissue Doppler imaging.

Results

Baseline characteristics such as age, sex, heart rate, blood pressure, and laboratory parameters were almost the same in the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups. The statistical analysis showed no significant difference in P wave dispersion (PWD) between ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups (40.98 ± 12 ms versus 40.06 ± 12 ms, P = 0.304). Subgroups analysis according to ACS types also showed no significant difference in PWD (NSTEMI: 41.16 ± 13.8 ms versus 40.76 ± 13.55 ms, P = 0.799; STEMI: 40.9 ± 12.62 ms versus 39.19 ± 11.18 ms, P = 0.132). In addition, we did not find significant difference in atrial electromechanical delay (EMD) with tissue Doppler imaging (interatrial EMD 24.11 ± 3.06 ms versus 24.46 ± 3.23 ms, P = 0.279).

Conclusion

In conclusion, we did not find any difference in detailed electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters as AF predictors between ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups in patients with ACS

A Genotype-Guided Strategy for Oral P2Y12 Inhibitors in Primary PCI

BACKGROUND

It is unknown whether patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) benefit from genotype-guided selection of oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitors.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, open-label, assessor-blinded trial in which patients undergoing primary PCI with stent implantation were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either a P2Y₁₂ inhibitor on the basis of early CYP2C19 genetic testing (genotype-guided group) or standard treatment with either ticagrelor or prasugrel (standard-treatment group) for 12 months. In the genotype-guided group, carriers of CYP2C19*2 or CYP2C19*3 loss-of-function alleles received ticagrelor or prasugrel, and noncarriers received clopidogrel. The two primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events - defined as death from any cause, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, stroke, or major bleeding defined according to Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) criteria - at 12 months (primary combined outcome; tested for noninferiority, with a noninferiority margin of 2 percentage points for the absolute difference) and PLATO major or minor bleeding at 12 months (primary bleeding outcome).

RESULTS

For the primary analysis, 2488 patients were included: 1242 in the genotype-guided group and 1246 in the standard-treatment group. The primary combined outcome occurred in 63 patients (5.1%) in the genotype-guided group and in 73 patients (5.9%) in the standard-treatment group (absolute difference, -0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.0 to 0.7; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The primary bleeding outcome occurred in 122 patients (9.8%) in the genotype-guided group and in 156 patients (12.5%) in the standard-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.98; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing primary PCI, a CYP2C19 genotype-guided strategy for selection of oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitor therapy was noninferior to standard treatment with ticagrelor or prasugrel at 12 months with respect to thrombotic events and resulted in a lower incidence of bleeding. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; POPular Genetics ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01761786; Netherlands Trial Register number, NL2872.).

Association of Pulse Pressure With Clinical Outcomes in Patients Under Different Antiplatelet Strategies After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Analysis of GLOBAL LEADERS

BACKGROUND

We evaluated the association of pulse pressure (PP) and different antiplatelet regimes with clinical and safety outcomes in an all-comers percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) population.

METHODS

In this analysis of GLOBAL LEADERS (n = 15,936) we compared the experimental therapy of 23 months of ticagrelor after 1 month of dual-antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) vs standard DAPT for 12 months followed by aspirin monotherapy in subjects who underwent PCI and were divided into 2 groups according to the median PP (60 mm Hg). The primary end point (all-cause death or new Q-wave myocardial infarction) and the composite end points: patient-oriented composite end points (POCE), Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5, and net adverse clinical events (NACE) were evaluated.

RESULTS

At 2 years, subjects in the high-PP group (n = 7971) had similar rates of the primary end point (4.3% vs 3.9%; P = 0.058), POCE (14.9% vs 12.7%; P = 0.051), and BARC 3 or 5 (2.5% vs 1.7%; P = 0.355) and higher rates of NACE (16.4% vs 13.7%; P = 0.037) compared with the low-PP group (n = 7965). Among patients with PP < 60 mm Hg, the primary end point (3.4% vs 4.4%, adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-0.96), POCE (11.8% vs 13.5%, aHR 0.86, 95% CI 0.76-0.98), NACE (12.8% vs 14.7%, aHR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76-0.96), and BARC 3 or 5 (1.4% vs 2.1%, aHR 0.69, 95% CI 0.49-0.97) were lower with ticagrelor monotherapy compared with DAPT. The only significant interaction was for BARC 3 or 5 (P = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

After contemporary PCI, subjects with high PP levels experienced high rates of NACE at 2 years. In those with low PP, ticagrelor monotherapy led to a lower risk of bleeding events compared with standard DAPT.

Ticagrelor or Prasugrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes

BACKGROUND

The relative merits of ticagrelor as compared with prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes for whom invasive evaluation is planned are uncertain.

METHODS

In this multicenter, randomized, open-label trial, we randomly assigned patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes and for whom invasive evaluation was planned to receive either ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary end point was the composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 1 year. A major secondary end point (the safety end point) was bleeding.

RESULTS

A total of 4018 patients underwent randomization. A primary end-point event occurred in 184 of 2012 patients (9.3%) in the ticagrelor group and in 137 of 2006 patients (6.9%) in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 1.70; P = 0.006). The respective incidences of the individual components of the primary end point in the ticagrelor group and the prasugrel group were as follows: death, 4.5% and 3.7%; myocardial infarction, 4.8% and 3.0%; and stroke, 1.1% and 1.0%. Definite or probable stent thrombosis occurred in 1.3% of patients assigned to ticagrelor and 1.0% of patients assigned to prasugrel, and definite stent thrombosis occurred in 1.1% and 0.6%, respectively. Major bleeding (as defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium scale) was observed in 5.4% of patients in the ticagrelor group and in 4.8% of patients in the prasugrel group (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.51; P = 0.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients who presented with acute coronary syndromes with or without ST-segment elevation, the incidence of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was significantly lower among those who received prasugrel than among those who received ticagrelor, and the incidence of major bleeding was not significantly different between the two groups. (Funded by the German Center for Cardiovascular Research and Deutsches Herzzentrum München; ISAR-REACT 5 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01944800.).

Ticagrelor in Patients with Stable Coronary Disease and Diabetes

BACKGROUND

Patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes mellitus who have not had a myocardial infarction or stroke are at high risk for cardiovascular events. Whether adding ticagrelor to aspirin improves outcomes in this population is unclear.

METHODS

In this randomized, double-blind trial, we assigned patients who were 50 years of age or older and who had stable coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus to receive either ticagrelor plus aspirin or placebo plus aspirin. Patients with previous myocardial infarction or stroke were excluded. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. The primary safety outcome was major bleeding as defined by the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 19,220 patients underwent randomization. The median follow-up was 39.9 months. Permanent treatment discontinuation was more frequent with ticagrelor than placebo (34.5% vs. 25.4%). The incidence of ischemic cardiovascular events (the primary efficacy outcome) was lower in the ticagrelor group than in the placebo group (7.7% vs. 8.5%; hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.81 to 0.99; P = 0.04), whereas the incidence of TIMI major bleeding was higher (2.2% vs. 1.0%; hazard ratio, 2.32; 95% CI, 1.82 to 2.94; P<0.001), as was the incidence of intracranial hemorrhage (0.7% vs. 0.5%; hazard ratio, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.18 to 2.48; P = 0.005). There was no significant difference in the incidence of fatal bleeding (0.2% vs. 0.1%; hazard ratio, 1.90; 95% CI, 0.87 to 4.15; P = 0.11). The incidence of an exploratory composite outcome of irreversible harm (death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, fatal bleeding, or intracranial hemorrhage) was similar in the ticagrelor group and the placebo group (10.1% vs. 10.8%; hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.02).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes without a history of myocardial infarction or stroke, those who received ticagrelor plus aspirin had a lower incidence of ischemic cardiovascular events but a higher incidence of major bleeding than those who received placebo plus aspirin. (Funded by AstraZeneca; THEMIS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01991795.).

Ticagrelor in patients with diabetes and stable coronary artery disease with a history of previous percutaneous coronary intervention (THEMIS-PCI): a phase 3, placebo-controlled, randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with stable coronary artery disease and diabetes with previous percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), particularly those with previous stenting, are at high risk of ischaemic events. These patients are generally treated with aspirin. In this trial, we aimed to investigate if these patients would benefit from treatment with aspirin plus ticagrelor.

METHODS

The Effect of Ticagrelor on Health Outcomes in diabEtes Mellitus patients Intervention Study (THEMIS) was a phase 3 randomised, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial, done in 1315 sites in 42 countries. Patients were eligible if 50 years or older, with type 2 diabetes, receiving anti-hyperglycaemic drugs for at least 6 months, with stable coronary artery disease, and one of three other mutually non-exclusive criteria: a history of previous PCI or of coronary artery bypass grafting, or documentation of angiographic stenosis of 50% or more in at least one coronary artery. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either ticagrelor or placebo, by use of an interactive voice-response or web-response system. The THEMIS-PCI trial comprised a prespecified subgroup of patients with previous PCI. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (measured in the intention-to-treat population).

FINDINGS

Between Feb 17, 2014, and May 24, 2016, 11 154 patients (58% of the overall THEMIS trial) with a history of previous PCI were enrolled in the THEMIS-PCI trial. Median follow-up was 3·3 years (IQR 2·8-3·8). In the previous PCI group, fewer patients receiving ticagrelor had a primary efficacy outcome event than in the placebo group (404 [7·3%] of 5558 vs 480 [8·6%] of 5596; HR 0·85 [95% CI 0·74-0·97], p=0·013). The same effect was not observed in patients without PCI (p=0·76, p_interaction=0·16). The proportion of patients with cardiovascular death was similar in both treatment groups (174 [3·1%] with ticagrelor vs 183 (3·3%) with placebo; HR 0·96 [95% CI 0·78-1·18], p=0·68), as well as all-cause death (282 [5·1%] vs 323 [5·8%]; 0·88 [0·75-1·03], p=0·11). TIMI major bleeding occurred in 111 (2·0%) of 5536 patients receiving ticagrelor and 62 (1·1%) of 5564 patients receiving placebo (HR 2·03 [95% CI 1·48-2·76], p<0·0001), and fatal bleeding in 6 (0·1%) of 5536 patients with ticagrelor and 6 (0·1%) of 5564 with placebo (1·13 [0·36-3·50], p=0·83). Intracranial haemorrhage occurred in 33 (0·6%) and 31 (0·6%) patients (1·21 [0·74-1·97], p=0·45). Ticagrelor improved net clinical benefit: 519/5558 (9·3%) versus 617/5596 (11·0%), HR=0·85, 95% CI 0·75-0·95, p=0·005, in contrast to patients without PCI where it did not, p_interaction=0·012. Benefit was present irrespective of time from most recent PCI.

INTERPRETATION

In patients with diabetes, stable coronary artery disease, and previous PCI, ticagrelor added to aspirin reduced cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke, although with increased major bleeding. In that large, easily identified population, ticagrelor provided a favourable net clinical benefit (more than in patients without history of PCI). This effect shows that long-term therapy with ticagrelor in addition to aspirin should be considered in patients with diabetes and a history of PCI who have tolerated antiplatelet therapy, have high ischaemic risk, and low bleeding risk.

FUNDING

AstraZeneca.

Ticagrelor after pharmacological thrombolysis in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarctions: insight from a trial sequential analysis

Few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have compared ticagrelor to clopidogrel after thrombolytic therapy in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). To assess the quality of the current evidence, a trial sequential analysis (TSA) of all the available RCTs was performed. A literature search through electronic databases for relevant RCTs was completed. Trial sequential boundaries were applied to the meta-analysis to guard against statistical error, calculate the information size (IS), and assess the quality of the currently available evidence. The safety outcome was bleeding at 30-days and the efficacy outcome was major adverse cardiovascular events at 30-days. There were 3 RCTs with a total of 3999 patients were included. For the safety and efficacy outcomes, there was no difference between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel groups (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.56-1.60, p = 0.83) and (RR 0.87; 95% CI 0.49-1.52, p = 0.62), respectively. The corresponding TSA revealed an IS of 20,928 and 37,266 for safety and efficacy outcomes, respectively. The Z-curves for both outcomes failed to cross the conventional boundary of significance and TSA boundary, indicating no statistical difference between the ticagrelor and clopidogrel group and lack of firm evidence from the currently available RCTs to draw conclusion. Based on the current available RCTs, there is not enough evidence to support or refute better outcomes with ticagrelor in patients with STEMI treated with thrombolytics. Larger RCTs with enough power are needed before firm recommendations can be applied.

Are There Different Evidence Thresholds for Genomic Versus Clinical Precision Medicine? A Value of Information-Based Framework Applied to Antiplatelet Drug Therapy

BACKGROUND

The threshold of sufficient evidence for adoption of clinically- and genomically-guided precision medicine (PM) has been unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate evidence thresholds for clinically guided PM versus genomically guided PM.

METHODS

We develop an "evidence threshold criterion" (ETC), which is the time-weighted difference between expected value of perfect information and incremental net health benefit minus the cost of research, and use it as a measure of evidence threshold that is proportional to the upper bound of disutility to a risk-averse decision maker for adopting a new intervention under decision uncertainty. A larger (more negative) ETC value indicates that only decision makers with low risk aversion would adopt new intervention. We evaluated the ETC plus cost of research (ETCc), assuming the same cost of research for both interventions, over time for a pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing intervention and avoidance of a drug-drug interaction (aDDI) intervention for acute coronary syndrome patients indicated for antiplatelet therapy. We then examined how the ETC may explain incongruous decision making across different national decision-making bodies.

RESULTS

The ETCc for PGx increased over time, whereas the ETCc for aDDI decreased to a negative value over time, indicating that decision makers with even low risk aversion will have doubts in adopting PGx, whereas decision makers who are highly risk-averse will continue to have doubts about adopting aDDI. National recommendation bodies appear to be consistent over time within their own decision making, but had different levels of risk aversion.

CONCLUSION

The ETC may be a useful metric for assessing policy makers' risk preferences and, in particular, understanding differences in policy recommendations for genomic versus clinical PM.

Ticagrelor for Secondary Prevention of Atherothrombotic Events in Patients With Multivessel Coronary Disease

BACKGROUND

Patients with prior myocardial infarction (MI) and multivessel coronary disease (MVD) are at high risk for recurrent coronary events.

OBJECTIVES

The authors investigated the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus placebo in patients with MVD in the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 54) trial.

METHODS

Patients with a history of MI 1 to 3 years before inclusion in the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial were stratified in a pre-specified analysis based on the presence of MVD. The effect of ticagrelor (60 mg and 90 mg) on the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke (major adverse cardiovascular events [MACE]), as well as the composite of coronary death, MI, or stent thrombosis (coronary events), and on TIMI major bleeding, intracranial hemorrhage (ICH), and fatal bleeding were evaluated over a median of 33 months.

RESULTS

A total of 12,558 patients (59.4%) had MVD. In the placebo arm, compared with patients without MVD, those with MVD were at higher risk for MACE (9.37% vs. 8.57%, adjusted hazard ratio [HR_adj]: 1.24; p = 0.026) and for coronary events (7.67% vs. 5.34%, HR_adj: 1.49; p = 0.0005). In patients with MVD, ticagrelor reduced the risk of MACE (7.94% vs. 9.37%, HR: 0.82; p = 0.004) and coronary events (6.02% vs. 7.67%, HR: 0.76; p < 0.0001), including a 36% reduction in coronary death (HR: 0.64; 95% confidence interval: 0.48 to 0.85; p = 0.002). In this subgroup, ticagrelor increased the risk of TIMI major bleeding (2.52% vs. 1.08%, HR: 2.67; p < 0.0001), but not ICH or fatal bleeds.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with prior MI and MVD are at increased risk of MACE and coronary events, and experience substantial relative and absolute risk reductions in both outcomes with long-term ticagrelor treatment relative to those without MVD. Ticagrelor increases the risk of TIMI major bleeding, but not ICH or fatal bleeding. For patients with prior MI and MVD, ticagrelor is an effective option for long-term antiplatelet therapy. (Prevention of Cardiovascular Events [e.g., Death From Heart or Vascular Disease, Heart Attack, or Stroke] in Patients With Prior Heart Attack Using Ticagrelor Compared to Placebo on a Background of Aspirin [PEGASUS]; NCT01225562).

Update on Dual Antiplatelet Therapy for Secondary Stroke Prevention

Aspirin is recommended for patients with acute ischemic stroke within 24 hours of symptom onset. It may be beneficial for dual antiplatelet therapy including clopidogrel and aspirin to be administered in patients with minor stroke or transient ischemic attack for early secondary prevention, however, bleeding risk remains uncertain. This article will review the published literature concerning the role of dual antiplatelet therapy for secondary stroke prevention with focus on balancing both risk and benefit.

De-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

De-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) may occur for a variety of reasons, including side effects (bleeding and non-bleeding) and costs. This study sought to assess the prevalence of de-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel and the occurrence of adverse clinical outcomes following de-escalation. We conducted a systematic review of clinical trials and real-world studies in ACS patients treated with ticagrelor. Real-world data on the prevalence of de-escalation during hospitalization or at discharge, after hospital discharge, and during the whole study period were included for meta-analysis. Major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and bleeding events occurring after de-escalation were also assessed. A total of 12 studies were eligible for meta-analysis of the prevalence of de-escalation. De-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel therapy occurred with a mean prevalence of 19.8% [95% confidence interval (CI) 11.2-28.4%]. De-escalation occurred more frequently in-hospital or at discharge than after hospital discharge (23.7% vs. 15.8%). For assessment of clinical outcomes, a total of six studies were eligible for meta-analysis. Mean rate of MACE for patients with de-escalation was 2.1% (95% CI 1.1-4.1%) and the rate of major bleeding events was 1.3% (95% CI 0.4-4.5%). In conclusion, de-escalation commonly occurs in real-world practice. Although rates of major cardiovascular and bleeding events in this analysis were generally low, the profile of patients suitable for de-escalation, the impact of de-escalation on adverse clinical outcomes and how this is affected by the timing after index ACS warrants further large-scale investigation.

Ticagrelor in patients with heart failure after acute coronary syndromes-Insights from the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial

BACKGROUND

Heart failure (HF) following acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is associated with worse prognosis; however, the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor in patients with HF and if ticagrelor influences the risk of new-onset HF are unknown.

METHODS

We examined the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel in patients with ACS in the randomized PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial subdivided by strata: (1) previous HF and/or clinical signs of HF on admission or (2) no HF on admission. The primary outcome was the combination of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke evaluated by multivariable Cox regression models. The safety outcome was major bleeding. New-onset HF was defined as an HF event after discharge in patients without previous HF.

RESULTS

Data were available in 18,556 patients, whom 2,862 (15.4%) patients had HF, including 1,584 (8.5%) patients with previous HF. Patients randomized to ticagrelor had lower risk of the composite end point regardless of HF status: hazard ratio (HR) 0.87 (95% CI: 0.73-1.03) in patients with HF and HR 0.84 (95% CI: 0.75-0.93) in patients with no HF (P = .76). Corresponding HR for major bleeding were HR 1.08 (95% CI: 0.87-1.34) and HR 1.03 (95% CI: 0.94-1.14) (P = .71). There was no difference in new-onset HF at 12 months between patients randomized to ticagrelor (4.1%, n = 278) or clopidogrel (4.0%, n = 276).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ACS, ticagrelor is more efficacious in protecting against new ischemic events and mortality than clopidogrel irrespective of the presence of HF. There is no difference between ticagrelor or clopidogrel treatment in new-onset HF post-ACS.

Ticagrelor plus aspirin versus clopidogrel plus aspirin for platelet reactivity in patients with minor stroke or transient ischaemic attack: open label, blinded endpoint, randomised controlled phase II trial

OBJECTIVE

To test the hypothesis that ticagrelor plus aspirin is safe and superior to clopidogrel plus aspirin for reducing high platelet reactivity at 90 days and stroke recurrence in patients with minor stroke or transient ischaemic attack, particularly in carriers of the CYP2C19 loss-of-function allele and patients with large artery atherosclerosis.

DESIGN

Open label, blinded endpoint, randomised controlled phase II trial.

SETTING

Prospective studies conducted at 26 centres in China, August 2015 to March 2017.

PARTICIPANTS

675 patients with acute minor stroke or transient ischaemic attack.

INTERVENTION

Ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose, 90 mg twice daily thereafter) or clopidogrel (300 mg loading dose, 75 mg daily thereafter) on a background of aspirin (100 mg daily for the first 21 days) within 24 hours of symptom onset.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcome was the proportion of patients with high platelet reactivity at 90 days. High platelet reactivity was defined as P2Y12 reaction units of more than 208. Secondary outcomes included high platelet reactivity at 90 days (7 days either way) in patients carrying genetic variants that would affect clopidogrel metabolism, and any stroke (ischaemic or haemorrhagic) recurrence at 90 days (7 days either way), six months, and one year.

RESULTS

At 90 days, high platelet reactivity occurred in 35 (12.5%) of 280 patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group and 86 (29.7%) of 290 patients in the clopidogrel/aspirin group (risk ratio 0.40; 95% confidence interval 0.28 to 0.56; P<0.001), and in 10.8% versus 35.4% (0.31; 0.18 to 0.49; P<0.001) of patients carrying CYP2C19 loss-of-function alleles. Stroke occurred in 21 (6.3%) of 336 patients in the ticagrelor/aspirin group and 30 (8.8%) of 339 patients in the clopidogrel/aspirin group (hazard ratio 0.70; 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 1.22; P=0.20). Patients with large artery atherosclerosis in the ticagrelor/aspirin group had a lower stroke recurrence at 90 days than those in the clopidogrel/aspirin group (6.0% v 13.1%; hazard ratio 0.45, 95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.98; P=0.04). No difference was seen in the rates of major or minor haemorrhagic events between the ticagrelor/aspirin and clopidogrel/aspirin groups (4.8% v 3.5%; P=0.42).

CONCLUSION

Patients with minor stroke or transient ischaemic attack who are treated with ticagrelor plus aspirin have a lower proportion of high platelet reactivity than those who are treated with clopidogrel plus aspirin, particularly for those who are carriers of the CYP2C19 loss-of-function allele. The results of this study should be evaluated further in large scale, phase III trials and in different populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02506140.