A randomized study assessing the impact of cilostazol on platelet function profiles in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease on dual antiplatelet therapy: results of the OPTIMUS-2 study

The role of antiplatelets in hypertension and diabetes mellitus

Cardiovascular disease (CVD) remains the main cause of mortality and morbidity in patients with diabetes. Prevention of CVD in diabetes involves a multifactorial approach that aims to treat the cluster of risk factors including hyperglycemia, dyslipidemia, obesity, hypertension, and hypercoagulation associated with this condition. Antiplatelets reduce the prothrombotic environment in diabetes, but complications of this therapeutic approach include a general risk of bleeding, specifically intracranial hemorrhage, the risk of which increases in the presence of hypertension. Current guidelines recommend the use of antiplatelet agents after tight control of blood pressure, which, in clinical practice, is not always possible. In this review, the evidence for antiplatelet use in diabetes with particular emphasis on patients with associated hypertension is examined. Safe levels of blood pressure with antiplatelet therapy, various studies, and general recommendations for diabetes patients, in light of current evidence, are explored.

Pharmacodynamic Effects of Different Aspirin Dosing Regimens in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus Patients With Coronary Artery Disease

Background—

Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have reduced aspirin-induced pharmacodynamic effects. This may be attributed to increased platelet turnover rates resulting in an increased proportion of non–aspirin-inhibited platelets during the daily dosing interval. The hypothesis of this study was that an increase in the frequency of drug administration [twice daily (bid) versus once daily (od)] may provide more effective platelet inhibition in T2DM patients.

Methods and Results—

T2DM patients with stable coronary artery disease were prospectively recruited. Patients modified their aspirin regimen on a weekly basis according to the following scheme: 81 mg/od, 81 mg/bid, 162 mg/od, 162 mg/bid, and 325 mg/od. Pharmacodynamic assessments included light-transmittance aggregometry after arachidonic acid, collagen and adenosine diphosphate stimuli; VerifyNow-Aspirin assay; and serum thromboxane B 2 (TXB 2 ) levels. Twenty patients were analyzed. All patients were sensitive and compliant to aspirin irrespective of dose, as assessed by arachidonic acid–induced aggregation. When aspirin was administered once daily, there was no significant effect on platelet reactivity by increasing the once-daily dosing using aspirin-sensitive assays (collagen-induced aggregation and VerifyNow-Aspirin). An increase in aspirin dose by means of a second daily administration was associated with a significant reduction in platelet reactivity assessed by collagen-induced aggregation and VerifyNow-Aspirin between 81 mg/od and 81 mg/bid ( P <0.05 for both assays) and between 81 mg/od and 162 mg/bid ( P <0.05 for both assays). There was no impact of aspirin dosing regimens on adenosine diphosphate–induced aggregation. A dose-dependent effect of aspirin was observed on serum TXB 2 levels ( P =0.003).

Conclusions—

Aspirin dosing regimens are associated with different pharmacodynamic effects in platelets from T2DM patients and stable coronary artery disease, with a twice-daily, low-dose aspirin administration resulting in greater platelet inhibition than once-daily administration as assessed by aspirin-sensitive assays and a dose-dependent effect on serum TXB 2 levels. The clinical implications of a modified aspirin regimen tailored to T2DM patients warrant further investigation.

Clinical Trial Registration—

URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01201785.

Clinical value of antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes and in percutaneous coronary intervention

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel is recommended in all patients who have had an acute coronary syndrome or who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention to prevent further ischemic events. Resistance or reduced responsiveness to aspirin and/or clopidogrel has been associated with adverse cardiovascular outcomes, including stent thrombosis. There have been significant advances in this field, which aim to overcome antiplatelet resistance, including the development of new antiplatelet agents. The rationale for dual antiplatelet therapy, the impact of suboptimal efficacy and the potential ways of overcoming resistance or variability in response to antiplatelet agents will be reviewed in this article.

A pharmacodynamic comparison of prasugrel vs. high-dose clopidogrel in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease: results of the Optimizing anti-Platelet Therapy In diabetes MellitUS (OPTIMUS)-3 Trial

Aims

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have increased platelet reactivity and reduced platelet response to clopidogrel compared with patients without DM. Prasugrel, a more potent antiplatelet agent, is associated with greater reductions in ischaemic events compared with clopidogrel, particularly in patients with DM. The aim of this study was to perform serial pharmacodynamic assessments of prasugrel with high-dose clopidogrel in patients with DM.

Methods and results

Optimizing anti-Platelet Therapy In diabetes MellitUS (OPTIMUS)-3 was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, crossover study in patients with type 2 DM and coronary artery disease (CAD). Patients (n= 35) were randomly assigned to either prasugrel 60 mg loading dose (LD)/10 mg maintenance dose (MD) or clopidogrel 600 mg LD/150 mg MD over two 1-week treatment periods separated by a 2-week washout period. Platelet function was assessed by VerifyNow^® P2Y12 assay, light transmission aggregometry, and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation at 0, 1, 4, and 24 h and 7 days. Greater platelet inhibition by VerifyNow^® P2Y12 was achieved by prasugrel compared with clopidogrel at 4 h post-LD (least squares mean, 89.3 vs. 27.7%, P< 0.0001; primary endpoint). The difference in platelet inhibition between prasugrel and clopidogrel was significant from 1 h through 7 days (P < 0.0001). Similar results were obtained using all other platelet function measures. Prasugrel resulted in fewer poor responders at all time points irrespective of definition used.

Conclusion

In patients with type 2 DM and CAD, standard-dose prasugrel is associated with greater platelet inhibition and better response profiles during both the loading and maintenance periods when compared with double-dose clopidogrel.

Clinical trial identifier: www.clinicaltrials.gov—NCT00642174

Clopidogrel resistance and the effect of combination cilostazol in patients with ischemic stroke or carotid artery stenting using the VerifyNow P2Y12 Assay

OBJECTIVE

The inhibitory response to clopidogrel considerably varies among individuals and clopidogrel resistance is a risk factor for thrombotic events in patients with cardiovascular disease. Based on the platelet aggregation evaluated by the VerifyNow P2Y12 Assay, the present study investigated clopidogrel resistance and the effect of cilostazol addition.

METHODS

We measured the ability of 20 µM ADP to aggregate platelets using the VerifyNow P2Y12 Assay. Clopidogrel resistance was defined as % inhibition of <20% in this assay.

PATIENTS

We examined 77 patients (53 men and 24 women, aged 65.8 ± 9.9 years) with ischemic stroke or carotid artery stenting who received clopidogrel (75 mg) for >7 days at our hospital between October 2009 and March 2010. For 62 patients (42 men and 20 women, aged 65.3 ± 9.9 years) 75 mg clopidogrel alone was administered (clopidogrel only group); the other 15 patients (11 men and 4 women, aged 67.9 ± 9.9 years) received 75 mg of clopidogrel plus 100 or 200 mg of cilostazol (cilostazol combination group).

RESULTS

Clopidogrel resistance was identified in 18 (29%) of the 62 patients in the clopidogrel only group. The percent inhibition was significantly higher in the cilostazol combination group than in the clopidogrel only group (41.7 ± 28.0% vs. 64.9 ± 22.7%, p=0.005). None of the patients in the cilostazol combination group had % inhibition of <20%.

CONCLUSION

Clopidogrel resistance developed in 29% of patients given clopidogrel alone. The addition of cilostazol to clopidogrel may have intensified platelet inhibition.

Advances in antiplatelet therapy

Because of the central role of platelets in cardiovascular atherothrombosis, there is a well-established therapeutic role for antiplatelet therapy that includes aspirin (a cyclooxygenase 1 [COX1] inhibitor), clopidogrel (an antagonist of the ADP P2Y(12) receptor), and the GPIIb-GPIIIa (αIIbβ3) antagonists. However, there remains a significant incidence of arterial thrombosis in patients treated with currently available antiplatelet therapy. Novel P2Y(12) antagonists such as the recently US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved prasugrel, along with ticagrelor, cangrelor, and elinogrel, have advantages over clopidogrel, including more rapid, less variable, and more complete inhibition of platelet function. Currently ongoing phase 3 studies will determine whether these new P2Y(12) antagonists will result in better and/or more rapid antithrombotic effects than clopidogrel, without an unacceptable increase in hemorrhagic or other side effects, as has been recently reported in some clinical settings for prasugrel and ticagrelor. Antagonists of the thrombin receptor protease-activated receptor 1 (PAR1) are also undergoing phase 3 trials, and many other novel antiplatelet agents are under investigation as antithrombotic agents.

Platelet function in patients with diabetes mellitus: from a theoretical to a practical perspective

Patients with diabetes mellitus have an increased prevalence of vascular disease. Pathologic thrombosis associated with atherosclerotic plaque rupture is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Platelets are intimately involved in the initiation and propagation of thrombosis. Evidence suggests that platelets from patients with type 2 diabetes have increased reactivity and baseline activation compared to healthy controls. We review the pathophysiology of platelet hyperreactivity in DM patients and its implications in clinical practice, with particular focus on acute coronary syndromes, percutaneous coronary intervention, and novel antiplatelet agents.

Protecting against ischemia-reperfusion injury: antiplatelet drugs, statins, and their potential interactions

Statins and antiplatelet agents are currently used as therapeutic agents for patients with acute myocardial infarction. Statins limit myocardial infarct size by activating phosphatidylinositol-3-kinase (PI3K), ecto-5'-nucleotidase, Akt/endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS), and the downstream effectors inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) and cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2). Inhibition of PI3K, adenosine receptors, eNOS, iNOS, or COX-2 abrogates the protective effects of statins. At >5 mg/kg, aspirin attenuates the myocardial infarct-size-limiting effect of statins. In contrast, the combination of low-dose atoravastatin with either the phosphodiesterase-III inhibitor cilostazol or the adenosine reuptake inhibitor dipyridamole synergistically limits infarct size. Low-dose aspirin with dipyridamole started during ischemia augmented the infarct-size-limiting effects of simvastatin. In contrast, high-dose aspirin blocked the protective effect of simvastatin. The combination of dipyridamole with low-dose aspirin and simvastatin resulted in the smallest infarct size. According to the most current data available, we believe that antiplatelet regimens may require modification for patients who are receiving statins.

Antithrombotic therapy in patients with diabetes mellitus and coronary artery disease

Currently approved antiplatelet treatment strategies have proved successful for reducing cardiovascular adverse events in patients with CAD. However, despite the use of recommended antiplatelet treatment strategies, the presence of DM has been consistently associated with a negative impact on outcomes and a high rate of adverse cardiovascular events continue to occur in patients with DM. The elevated prevalence of low response to standard oral antiplatelet agents contribute to these impaired outcomes. Thus, the search for more potent antiplatelet treatment strategies is warranted in high-risk patients, such as those with DM. The present manuscript provides an overview on the current status of knowledge on currently available antiplatelet agents, focusing on the benefits and limitations of these therapies in DM patients, and evaluating the potential role of new antithrombotic agents and treatment strategies currently under development to overcome these limitations.

Comparison of platelet reactivity and periprocedural outcomes in patients with versus without diabetes mellitus and treated with clopidogrel and percutaneous coronary intervention

The effect of periprocedural platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes in diabetic patients taking clopidogrel and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is unclear. The aim of the present study was to prospectively evaluate the influence of diabetes mellitus (DM) on platelet reactivity measured by the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay and on periprocedural outcomes in patients receiving clopidogrel and undergoing PCI. A total of 285 consecutive clopidogrel-treated patients undergoing elective PCI were included. Platelet function analysis was performed using the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay. High platelet reactivity (HPR) after clopidogrel was defined as a platelet reaction unit value > or =240. Cardiac biomarkers were measured before and 8 and 24 hours after intervention. Patients with DM had significantly higher platelet reactivity before PCI compared to nondiabetics (214 +/- 83 vs 193 +/- 68 platelet reaction units, p = 0.02). HPR was more frequently observed in diabetics (36% vs 22%, p = 0.01) before PCI. Patients with DM had an increased incidence of periprocedural myocardial infarction (MI; 11% vs 4%, p = 0.04). When the entire population was divided by the presence or absence of DM and HPR, patients with DM and HPR presented the highest incidence of periprocedural MI (p for trend = 0.0008). HPR was an independent predictor of periprocedural MI (odds ratio 8.34, 95% confidence interval 2.60 to 26.76, p = 0.0003). In conclusion, patients with DM undergoing PCI have higher platelet reactivity at the time of PCI despite adequate clopidogrel pretreatment and subsequently worse periprocedural outcomes. Point-of-care platelet function testing may help to identify patients at higher risk of periprocedural MI.

Point-of-care testing for assessment of adequacy of oral antiplatelet therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease

Studies with recently introduced point-of-care (POC) platelet function tests have shown that individuals are variably responsive to aspirin and clopidogrel therapy, and that hyporesponsiveness to antiplatelet therapy is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events. However, the currently available POC tests have undergone only limited clinical evaluation and clinicians are uncertain about the best POC test, the optimal cut-off point to define hyporesponsiveness in different patient populations and clinical settings, the appropriate management of patients demonstrating hyporesponsiveness and the cost effectiveness of adjusting treatment on the basis of the results of POC platelet function testing. Several large randomized controlled trials currently underway are examining whether adjusting antiplatelet therapy on the basis of a POC test result can improve patient-important outcomes. Until these issues are resolved, POC testing to monitor antiplatelet therapy will largely remain a research tool and patients should continue to receive oral antiplatelet therapy without routine monitoring at doses that have been demonstrated to be effective in randomized controlled trials.

Effects of polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids on responsiveness to dual antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the OMEGA-PCI (OMEGA-3 fatty acids after pci to modify responsiveness to dual antiplatelet therapy) study

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs) are able to modify platelet responsiveness to dual antiplatelet therapy in stable coronary artery disease patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

BACKGROUND

Although previous studies have suggested antiplatelet properties of omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids, it is unknown whether they can enhance platelet inhibition on standard aspirin and clopidogrel treatment.

METHODS

The OMEGA-PCI (OMEGA-3 Fatty Acids After PCI to Modify Responsiveness to Dual Antiplatelet Therapy) study was an investigator-initiated, prospective, single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study. Patients receiving standard dual antiplatelet therapy (aspirin 75 mg/day and clopidogrel 600 mg loading dose followed by 75 mg/day) were randomly assigned to receive the addition of 1 g of omega-3 ethyl esters (n = 33) or placebo (n = 30) for 1 month. Platelet function was measured serially by light transmission aggregometry (adenosine diphosphate and arachidonic acid [AA] were used as agonists) and assessment of the phosphorylation status of the vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein at baseline, 12 h, 3 to 5 days, and 30 days after randomization.

RESULTS

The P2Y(12) reactivity index was significantly lower, by 22.2%, after 1 month of treatment with omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids compared with placebo when used in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy (p = 0.020). Maximal platelet aggregation induced by 5 and 20 micromol/l adenosine diphosphate was lower by 13.3% (p = 0.026) and 9.8% (p = 0.029), respectively, after 1 month of treatment with omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids compared with placebo. Platelet aggregation after AA stimulation was low and did not change significantly throughout the study. There were no cases of aspirin resistance during follow-up that was suggestive of good compliance with the medication.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of omega-3 ethyl esters to the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel significantly potentiates platelet response to clopidogrel after percutaneous coronary intervention.

Platelet adenosine diphosphate P2Y12 receptor antagonism: benefits and limitations of current treatment strategies and future directions

Platelet P2Y12 receptor antagonism with clopidogrel has represented a major advancement in the pharmacological management of patients with atherothrombotic disease, in particular those with acute coronary syndromes and undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. Despite the benefit associated with clopidogrel therapy in these high risk settings, laboratory and clinical experience have led to identify some of its caveats, among which its wide range of platelet inhibitory response is the most relevant. Genetic, cellular and clinical factors are implied in variability in response to clopidogrel. Importantly, pharmacodynamic findings have shown to have important prognostic implications, underscoring the need for more optimal antiplatelet treatment strategies. The aim of this manuscript is to provide an overview on the current status and future directions in P2Y12 receptor antagonism, with particular emphasis on interindividual variability in response to clopidogrel and strategies, including novel antiplatelet agents, to improve platelet P2Y12 inhibition.

Adding cilostazol to dual antiplatelet therapy achieves greater platelet inhibition than high maintenance dose clopidogrel in patients with acute myocardial infarction: Results of the adjunctive cilostazol versus high maintenance dose clopidogrel in patients with AMI (ACCEL-AMI) study

BACKGROUND

Optimal platelet inhibition is an important therapeutic adjunct in patients acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing coronary stenting. Whether adjunctive cilostazol to dual antiplatelet therapy (triple antiplatelet therapy) can inhibit enhanced platelet reactivity in patients with AMI yet has not been determined. The aim of this study was to assess the degree of platelet inhibition by triple antiplatelet therapy in patients with AMI.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Immediately after emergency room arrival, patients with AMI received clopidogrel (600-mg loading dose, followed by 75 mg daily) and aspirin (300-mg loading dose and 200 mg daily throughout the study period). After patients underwent coronary stenting (n=90), they were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups before discharge: standard group, clopidogrel of 75 mg daily (n=30); high maintenance dose (MD) group, clopidogrel of 150 mg daily (n=30); and triple group, adjunctive cilostazol of 100 mg twice daily to clopidogrel of 75 mg daily (n=30). Platelet reactivity was assessed at predischarge and 30-day follow-up by conventional aggregometry and the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay. Predischarge platelet reactivities were similar in the 3 groups. At 30-day follow-up, inhibition of maximal aggregation with 20 microM ADP stimuli was 6.0% in the standard group, 19.1% in the high-MD group, and 42.4% in the triple group (P<0.001), whereas inhibition of late aggregation with 20microM ADP stimuli was 10.8%, 38.1%, and 66.4%, respectively (P<0.001). Similar results were demonstrated when 5 microM ADP was used. Furthermore, percent changes of P2Y12 reaction unit were significantly different among regimens (10.6% in the standard group, 30.7% in the high-MD group, and 43.0% in the triple group; P<0.001). With respect to high-postclopidogrel platelet reactivity (prespecified as 20 microM ADP-induced maximal aggregation >50% of light transmission), fewer patients in the triple group (13.3%) met the criteria as compared with those in the standard (76.7%) and high-MD groups (56.7%) at 30-day follow-up (P<0.001). In the triple group, there were more potent and consistent platelet inhibitions by all parameters as compared with the high-MD group except for percent changes of P2Y12 reaction unit (P=0.071).

CONCLUSIONS

Among patients with AMI undergoing coronary stenting, triple antiplatelet therapy results in a greater antiplatelet effect at 30 days as compared with a high-MD clopidogrel or standard dual antiplatelet therapy.

Platelet thrombin receptor antagonism and atherothrombosis

Clinical manifestations of atherothrombotic disease, such as acute coronary syndromes, cerebrovascular events, and peripheral arterial disease, are major causes of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Platelet activation and aggregation are ultimately responsible for the progression and clinical presentations of atherothrombotic disease. The current standard of care, dual oral antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and the P2Y(12) adenosine diphosphate (ADP) receptor inhibitor clopidogrel, has been shown to improve outcomes in patients with atherothrombotic disease. However, aspirin and P2Y(12) inhibitors target the thromboxane A(2) and the ADP P2Y(12) platelet activation pathways and minimally affect other pathways, while agonists such as thrombin, considered to be the most potent platelet activator, continue to stimulate platelet activation and thrombosis. This may help explain why patients continue to experience recurrent ischaemic events despite receiving such therapy. Furthermore, aspirin and P2Y(12) receptor antagonists are associated with bleeding risk, as the pathways they inhibit are critical for haemostasis. The challenge remains to develop therapies that more effectively inhibit platelet activation without increasing bleeding complications. The inhibition of the protease-activated receptor-1 (PAR-1) for thrombin has been shown to inhibit thrombin-mediated platelet activation without increasing bleeding in pre-clinical models and small-scale clinical trials. PAR-1 inhibition in fact does not interfere with thrombin-dependent fibrin generation and coagulation, which are essential for haemostasis. Thus PAR-1 antagonism coupled with existing dual oral antiplatelet therapy may potentially offer more comprehensive platelet inhibition without the liability of increased bleeding.

Efficacy of cilostazol in reducing restenosis in patients undergoing contemporary stent based PCI: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

AIMS

Cilostazol has been associated with reduction in restenosis in patients undergoing coronary and peripheral arterial angioplasty. Our objective was to evaluate the impact of cilostazol on restenosis in patients undergoing contemporary PCI with bare metal (BMS) or drug eluting stents (DES) and treated with aspirin and thienopyridine.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Ten randomised trials (n=2,809 patients) comparing triple antiplatelet therapy (aspirin, thienopyridine and cilostazol) with standard dual antiplatelet therapy were included. Summary risk ratios for restenosis, late loss, target lesion revascularisation (TLR) and target vessel revascularisation (TVR) were calculated using fixed-effects models. Cilostazol was associated with a significant reduction in late loss in BMS (mean difference 0.24 mm, 95% CI 0.15-0.33, p<0.001) and DES groups (mean difference 0.12 mm, 95% CI 0.07-0.18, p<0.001). Cilostazol therapy was associated with a significant reduction in angiographic restenosis (Odds ratio [OR] 0.52, 95% CI 0.41- 0.66, p<0.001) with consistent benefits in patients treated with BMS (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.35-0.70, p<0.001) or DES (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.76, p=0.001). Addition of cilostazol to dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with a significant reduction in TLR (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.25-0.58, p<0.001), with no difference in subacute stent thrombosis (OR 1.91, 95% CI 0.33-11.08, p=0.47), or major bleeding (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.44-1.74, P=0.69) but with an increased risk of skin rash (OR 3.67, 95% CI 1.86-7.24, p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Cilostazol in addition to dual antiplatelet therapy is associated with a reduction in angiographic restenosis in patients undergoing stent based PCI. This inexpensive drug may be particularly beneficial in patients who are at high risk of restenosis and it should undergo further evaluation in large, definitive randomised controlled trials.

Aspirin and clopidogrel: efficacy and resistance in diabetes mellitus

Diabetes mellitus patients are characterized by enhanced platelet reactivity which exposes them to an increased risk of atherothrombotic events in the setting of acute coronary syndromes or percutaneous coronary interventions. Although aspirin and clopidogrel, used either solely or in combination, are associated with improved clinical outcomes in high-risk patients, diabetics patients treated with antiplatelet agents remain at higher risk of recurrent ischemic events. Recent laboratory findings suggest that this observation may be related to a reduced responsiveness or 'resistance' to these agents. In this chapter the efficacy of currently available oral antiplatelet agents in preventing ischemic events is reviewed. In addition, the antiplatelet 'resistance' phenomenon in the diabetic population and its impact on clinical outcomes is summarized. Finally, future developments in the field directed towards individualized treatment strategies and novel antiplatelet agents are examined.

Update on oral antiplatelet therapy: principles, problems and promises

Platelets are major players in arterial thrombosis, and antiplatelet therapy has a clear clinical benefit in the treatment and prevention of cardiovascular events. In particular, aspirin and clopidogrel have become cornerstones in the treatment of patients with atherothrombosis. However, despite the proven efficacy of antiplatelet drugs, cardiovascular events remain an important cause of morbidity and mortality in these patients. Furthermore, a considerable variability in platelet reactivity during treatment with established oral antiplatelet therapy has prompted the search for novel drugs against platelet-dependent thrombosis. Possible benefits of upcoming drugs include a more efficient platelet inhibition and a reversible effect on platelet function. Aspirin, clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor, terutroban, E5555, SCH 530348 and cilostazol are discussed. This review highlights the rationale for important oral antiplatelet drugs in development and provides clinical perspectives on their pharmacological advantages and challenges.

Diabetes mellitus: a prothrombotic state implications for outcomes after coronary revascularization

Coronary stent thrombosis is a serious problem in the drug-eluting stent era. Despite aggressive antiplatelet therapy during and after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the incidence of sub-acute stent thrombosis remains approximately 0.5%–2%, which may represent a catastrophic clinical situation. Both procedural factors and discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy are normally associated with this event. We report on simultaneous stent thromboses of two drug-eluting stents implanted in two different vessels, which resulted in a life-threatening clinical condition. Possible contributing factors that led to synergistic thrombotic effects are discussed.

Cilostazol in addition to aspirin and clopidogrel improves long-term outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a randomized, controlled study

BACKGROUND

Cilostazol has been widely used to prevent peripheral vascular events, and its antiplatelet mechanisms may different from aspirin and clopidogrel. We hypothesized that cilostazol in addition to aspirin and clopidogrel effectively reduces systemic ischemic events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in high-risk patients.

METHODS

In this prospective study, 1,212 patients with acute coronary syndromes were randomly assigned to receive either standard dual-antiplatelet treatment with aspirin and clopidogrel (n = 608) or triple-antiplatelet therapy with the addition of a 6-month course of cilostazol (n = 604) after successful PCI. The primary end point was a composite of cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, or target vessel revascularization (TVR) at 1 year after randomization. The secondary end points were TVR and hemorrhagic events.

RESULTS

Triple-antiplatelet treatment was associated with a significantly lower incidence of the primary end points (10.3% vs 15.1%; P = .011). The need for TVR was similar between patients who received triple- and dual-antiplatelet treatment (7.9% vs 10.7%; P = .10). Multivariate analysis showed that female patients and clinically or angiographically high-risk patients benefited more from the triple-antiplatelet treatment. There were no significant differences between the 2 regimens in terms of the risks for major and minor bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

For patients with acute coronary syndromes, triple-antiplatelet therapy consisting of cilostazol, aspirin, and clopidogrel reduced long-term cardiac and cerebral events after PCI, especially for patients with high-risk profiles.

Variability in responsiveness to oral antiplatelet therapy

Patients who have acute coronary syndromes or are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention receive antiplatelet therapy to reduce the risk of atherothrombotic complications. Current guidelines favor the use of aspirin in combination with clopidogrel based on the results of a number of large-scale clinical trials. Aspirin alone is a relatively weak antiplatelet agent because it inhibits only one of many paths to platelet activation. By blockade of an adjunctive signaling pathway, the addition of clopidogrel to aspirin leads to synergistic platelet inhibitory effects. Dual antiplatelet therapy reduces the number of patients who experience adverse cardiovascular outcomes by 20% over aspirin alone. Nevertheless, approximately 10% of patients experience further atherothrombotic events, even while receiving dual antiplatelet therapy. Variability in individual responsiveness, including "resistance," has been attributed to the occurrence of these events. This article discusses variability in individual responses to oral antiplatelet therapy and its implications for clinical outcomes.