Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of coronary artery diseases--comparison of REDUCtion of prasugrEl dose or POLYmer TECHnology in ACS patients (HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS RCT): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Prasugrel-Based De-Escalation in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome According to Renal Function

Background

Patients with coronary artery disease and impaired renal function are at higher risk for both bleeding and ischemic adverse events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Objectives

This study assessed the efficacy and safety of a prasugrel-based de-escalation strategy in patients with impaired renal function.

Methods

We conducted a post hoc analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS study. Patients with available estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (n = 2,311) were categorized into 3 groups. (high eGFR: >90 mL/min; intermediate eGFR: 60 to 90 mL/min; and low eGFR: <60 mL/min). The end points were bleeding outcomes (Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 2 or higher), ischemic outcomes (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, repeated revascularization, and ischemic stroke), and net adverse clinical event (including any clinical event) at 1-year follow-up.

Results

Prasugrel de-escalation was beneficial regardless of baseline renal function (P for interaction = 0.508). The relative reduction in bleeding risk from prasugrel de-escalation was higher in the low eGFR group than in both the intermediate and high eGFR groups (relative reductions, respectively: 64% (HR: 0.36; 95% CI: 0.15-0.83) vs 50% (HR: 0.50; 95% CI: 0.28-0.90) and 52% (HR: 0.48; 95% CI: 0.21-1.13) (P for interaction = 0.646). Ischemic risk from prasgurel de-escalation was not significant in all eGFR groups (HR: 1.18 [95% CI: 0.47-2.98], HR: 0.95 [95% CI: 0.53-1.69], and HR: 0.61 [95% CI: 0.26-1.39]) (P for interaction = 0.119).

Conclusions

In patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving PCI, prasugrel dose de-escalation was beneficial regardless of the baseline renal function.

Durable polymer versus biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention: a post hoc analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial

BACKGROUND

Comparative data of durable polymer (DP) versus biodegradable polymer (BP) drug-eluting stents (DES) are limited in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing complex percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

AIMS

We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of DP-DES and BP-DES in ACS patients receiving complex PCI.

METHODS

This study was a post hoc analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. ACS patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to DP-DES or BP-DES in the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. Complex PCI was defined as having at least 1 of the following features: ≥3 stents implanted, ≥3 lesions treated, total stent length ≥60 mm, bifurcation PCI with 2 stents, left main PCI, or heavy calcification. Patient-oriented (POCO, a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and any repeat revascularisation) and device-oriented composite outcomes (DOCO, a composite of cardiac death, target vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularisation) were evaluated at 12 months.

RESULTS

Among 3,301 patients for whom full procedural data were available, 1,140 patients received complex PCI. Complex PCI was associated with higher risks of POCO and DOCO. The risks of POCO were comparable between DP-DES and BP-DES in both the complex (HR 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.57-1.33; p=0.522) and non-complex (HR 0.83, 95% CI: 0.56-1.24; p=0.368; p for interaction=0.884) PCI groups. DOCO was also not significantly different between DP-DES and BP-DES in both the complex (HR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.43-1.27; p=0.278) and non-complex (HR 0.67, 95% CI: 0.38-1.19; p=0.175; p for interaction=0.814) PCI groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In ACS patients, DP-DES and BP-DES showed similar clinical outcomes irrespective of PCI complexity.

Prasugrel-based De-Escalation of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With STEMI

There is a fundamental trade-off that exists between ischemic and bleeding risk that must be considered in deciding the optimal strategy of dual antiplatelet therapy. Prasugrel-based de-escalation decreased the risk of net adverse clinical event (NACE) due to a reduction in bleeding in the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. In non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes patients, prasugrel-based dose de-escalation from one-month post-percutaneous coronary intervention reduced the risk of NACE. In ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), de-escalation showed no benefit for NACE and a statistically insignificant but numerically higher rate of ischemic events. Our data raises caution about prasugrel dose reduction in higher thrombotic conditions.

Background and Objectives

De-escalation of dual-antiplatelet therapy through dose reduction of prasugrel improved net adverse clinical events (NACEs) after acute coronary syndrome (ACS), mainly through the reduction of bleeding without an increase in ischemic outcomes. Whether the benefits of de-escalation are sustained in highly thrombotic conditions such as ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) is unknown. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of de-escalation therapy in patients with STEMI or non-ST-segment elevation ACS (NSTE-ACS).

Methods

This is a pre-specified subgroup analysis of the HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS trial. ACS patients were randomized to prasugrel de-escalation (5 mg daily) or conventional dose (10 mg daily) at 1-month post-percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint was a NACE, defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, clinically driven revascularization, stroke, and bleeding events of grade ≥2 Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria at 1 year.

Results

Among 2,338 patients included in the randomization, 326 patients were diagnosed with STEMI. In patients with NSTE-ACS, the risk of the primary endpoint was significantly reduced with de-escalation (hazard ratio [HR], 0.65; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48–0.89; p=0.006 for de-escalation vs. conventional), mainly driven by a reduced bleeding. However, in those with STEMI, there was no difference in the occurrence of the primary outcome (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.48–2.26; p=0.915; p for interaction=0.271).

Conclusions

Prasugrel dose de-escalation reduced the rate of NACE and bleeding, without increasing the rate of ischemic events in NSTE-ACS patients but not in STEMI patients.

Durable Polymer Versus Biodegradable Polymer Drug-Eluting Stents After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: The HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS Trial

BACKGROUND

Large-scale randomized comparison of drug-eluting stents (DES) based on durable polymer versus biodegradable polymer technology is currently insufficient in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The present study aimed to prove the noninferiority of the durable polymer DES (DP-DES) compared with the biodegradable polymer DES (BP-DES) in such patients.

METHODS

The HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS (Harmonizing Optimal Strategy for Treatment of Coronary Artery Diseases-Comparison of Reduction of Prasugrel Dose or Polymer Technology in ACS Patients) trial is an investigator-initiated, randomized, open-label, adjudicator-blinded, multicenter, noninferiority trial comparing the efficacy and safety of DP-DES and BP-DES in patients with ACS. The primary end point was a patient-oriented composite outcome (a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and any repeat revascularization) at 12 months. The key secondary end point was device-oriented composite outcome (a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction, or target lesion revascularization) at 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 3413 patients were randomized to receive the DP-DES (1713 patients) and BP-DES (1700 patients). At 12 months, patient-oriented composite outcome occurred in 5.2% in the DP-DES group and 6.4% in the BP-DES group (absolute risk difference, -1.2%; P_{noninferiority}<0.001). The key secondary end point, device-oriented composite outcome, occurred less frequently in the DP-DES group (DP-DES vs BP-DES, 2.6% vs 3.9%; hazard ratio, 0.67 [95% CI, 0.46-0.98]; P=0.038), mostly because of a reduction in target lesion revascularization. The rate of spontaneous nonfatal myocardial infarction and stent thrombosis were extremely low, with no significant difference between the 2 groups (0.6% versus 0.8%; P=0.513 and 0.1% versus 0.4%; P=0.174, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In ACS patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention, DP-DES was noninferior to BP-DES with regard to patient-oriented composite outcomes at 12 months after index percutaneous coronary intervention. Registration: URL: https://wwwclinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02193971.

Prasugrel-based de-escalation of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome (HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS): an open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised trial

BACKGROUND

A potent P2Y12 inhibitor-based dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended for up to 1 year in patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The greatest benefit of the potent agent is during the early phase, whereas the risk of excess bleeding continues in the chronic maintenance phase. Therefore, de-escalation of antiplatelet therapy might achieve an optimal balance between ischaemia and bleeding. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of a prasugrel-based dose de-escalation therapy.

METHODS

HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS is a randomised, open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority trial done at 35 hospitals in South Korea. We enrolled patients with acute coronary syndrome receiving PCI. Patients meeting the core indication for prasugrel were randomly assigned (1:1) to the de-escalation group or conventional group using a web-based randomisation system. The assessors were masked to the treatment allocation. After 1 month of treatment with 10 mg prasugrel plus 100 mg aspirin daily, the de-escalation group received 5 mg prasugrel, while the conventional group continued to receive 10 mg. The primary endpoint was net adverse clinical events (all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, repeat revascularisation, stroke, and bleeding events of grade 2 or higher according to Bleeding Academic Research Consortium [BARC] criteria) at 1 year. The absolute non-inferiority margin for the primary endpoint was 2·5%. The key secondary endpoints were efficacy outcomes (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and ischaemic stroke) and safety outcomes (bleeding events of BARC grade ≥2). The primary analysis was in the intention-to-treat population. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02193971.

RESULTS

From Sept 30, 2014, to Dec 18, 2018, 3429 patients were screened, of whom 1075 patients did not meet the core indication for prasugrel and 16 were excluded due to randomisation error. 2338 patients were randomly assigned to the de-escalation group (n=1170) or the conventional group (n=1168). The primary endpoint occurred in 82 patients (Kaplan-Meier estimate 7·2%) in the de-escalation group and 116 patients (10·1%) in the conventional group (absolute risk difference -2·9%, p_{non-inferiority}<0·0001; hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·52-0·92], p_equivalence=0·012). There was no increase in ischaemic risk in the de-escalation group compared with the conventional group (0·76 [0·40-1·45]; p=0·40), and the risk of bleeding events was significantly decreased (0·48 [0·32-0·73]; p=0·0007).

INTERPRETATION

In east Asian patients with acute coronary syndrome patients receiving PCI, a prasugrel-based dose de-escalation strategy from 1 month after PCI reduced the risk of net clinical outcomes up to 1 year, mainly driven by a reduction in bleeding without an increase in ischaemia.

FUNDING

Daiichi Sankyo, Boston Scientific, Terumo, Biotronik, Qualitech Korea, and Dio.

2020 Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction Expert Consensus Document on Pharmacotherapy for Acute Myocardial Infarction

Clinical practice guidelines published by the European Society of Cardiology and the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association summarize the available evidence and provide recommendations for health professionals to enable appropriate clinical decisions and improve clinical outcomes for patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI). However, most current guidelines are based on studies in non-Asian populations in the pre-percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) era. The Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry is the first nationwide registry to document many aspects of AMI from baseline characteristics to treatment strategies. There are well-organized ongoing and published randomized control trials especially for antiplatelet therapy among Korean patients with AMI. Here, members of the Task Force of the Korean Society of Myocardial Infarction review recent published studies during the current PCI era, and have summarized the expert consensus for the pharmacotherapy of AMI.

Effectiveness of Upper Limb Wearable Technology for Improving Activity and Participation in Adult Stroke Survivors: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

With advances in technology, the adoption of wearable devices has become a viable adjunct in poststroke rehabilitation. Upper limb (UL) impairment affects up to 77% of stroke survivors impacting on their ability to carry out everyday activities. However, despite an increase in research exploring these devices for UL rehabilitation, little is known of their effectiveness.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to assess the effectiveness of UL wearable technology for improving activity and participation in adult stroke survivors.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and randomized comparable trials of UL wearable technology for poststroke rehabilitation were included. Primary outcome measures were validated measures of activity and participation as defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health. Databases searched were MEDLINE, Web of Science (Core collection), CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool was used to assess the methodological quality of the RCTs and the Downs and Black Instrument for the quality of non RCTs.

RESULTS

In the review, we included 11 studies with collectively 354 participants at baseline and 323 participants at final follow-up including control groups and participants poststroke. Participants' stroke type and severity varied. Only 1 study found significant between-group differences for systems functioning and activity (P≤.02). The 11 included studies in this review had small sample sizes ranging from 5 to 99 participants at an average (mean) age of 57 years.

CONCLUSIONS

This review has highlighted a number of reasons for insignificant findings in this area including low sample sizes and the appropriateness of the methodology for complex interventions. However, technology has the potential to measure outcomes, provide feedback, and engage users outside of clinical sessions. This could provide a platform for motivating stroke survivors to carry out more rehabilitation in the absence of a therapist, which could maximize recovery.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017057715; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=57715.

2018 update of expert consensus statement on antiplatelet therapy in East Asian patients with ACS or undergoing PCI

East Asians are the most populous race in the world and their health status is an important global issue. Compared with Caucasian populations, East Asian patients have a different benefit/risk ratio when using antithrombotic treatment. Despite this observation, treatment strategies in East Asian patients are mostly based on the American and European guidelines. Despite a lower platelet inhibitory response to clopidogrel, East Asian patients show a similar or even a lower rate of ischemic event occurrence and higher bleeding risk compared with Caucasian patients. For potent P2Y₁₂ inhibitors (ticagrelor and prasugrel), East Asian patients have shown less favorable net clinical benefits compared with Caucasian patients, which may be related to differences in pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic profiles and therapeutic zone of antiplatelet effect. This updated consensus mainly focuses on state-of-the-art and current controversies in the East Asian population. In addition, when East Asian patients are administered potent P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitors, the strategies and ongoing trials to overcome the related hurdles are discussed.