Safety of reloading prasugrel in addition to clopidogrel loading in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Switching of Oral P2Y12 Inhibitor Treatment in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome: Prevalence, Predictors, and Prognosis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Dual antiplatelet therapy is one of the main treatments in acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Switching antiplatelet agents may be necessary in some patients to improve efficacy or safety. The objective of this study was to determine the prevalence, predictors, and implications of clinical switching in patients during hospital admission and 1-year follow-up at discharge.

METHODS

Observational, prospective, multicenter registry study in patients discharged following an admission for ACS and followed up for 1 year. We analyzed ischemic and bleeding events as well as treatment changes.

RESULTS

We recruited 1717 patients; in-hospital switching occurred in 425 (24.8%): 15.1% to clopidogrel and 84.9% to newer antiplatelet drugs (prasugrel or ticagrelor). Those switched to newer antiplatelets were younger, with lower scores on the GRACE and CRUSADE scales, admitted more frequently for ST-elevation myocardial infarction and underwent more invasive management and percutaneous revascularization. The clinical cardiologist was responsible for most in-hospital switching to newer antiplatelets (79.6%). The loading dose of the second antiplatelet did not affect incidence of bleeding events. Post-discharge switching was infrequent (2%) and depended mainly on clinical indications; only 30% was related to a new ACS.

CONCLUSIONS

In a contemporary registry with ACS, in-hospital switching of antiplatelet drugs was frequent. Those switched to newer antiplatelets were younger and admitted more frequently for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Post-discharge switching was infrequent.

Short term outcome following acute phase switch among P2Y12 inhibitors in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome treated with PCI: A systematic review and meta-analysis including 22,500 patients from 14 studies

Introduction

The efficacy and safety of switching P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonists in patients admitted for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) remain unclear. We assessed the short-term clinical outcomes (in-hospital and within 30 days) of switching P2Y₁₂ inhibitor (P2Y₁₂I) drugs versus maintaining the same regimen by performing a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of available data.

Methods

MEDLINE/PubMed/SCOPUS/Cochrane databases were screened for studies regarding switching of P2Y₁₂I in patients with ACS that reported 30 days follow-up. Major cardiac events (MACE) and bleeding were compared between patients who were switched/not switched.

Results

22,500 patients from 14 studies were included. Unstable angina/non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (62.0%, interquartile range, 52.8%–68.0%) was the most common clinical presentation. The total number switched was 4294 (19.1%); escalation in 3416 (79.5%) patients (from clopidogrel to prasugrel, 62.9%) and de-escalation in 18.5%. Pooled analysis revealed no significant differences in MACE for any comparison; risk of bleeding was significantly increased among switched patients overall (odds ratio [OR], 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.22–2.10) and increased in the escalation group (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.06–2.16).

Conclusions

Among patients presenting with ACS, switching from one P2Y₁₂I agent to another in the acute phase seems associated with a short-term increased risk of bleeding. Accurate upfront selection and prescription of a P2Y₁₂I based on ischemic and bleeding risks is paramount to avoid adverse events switching-related during hospitalization and in the first 30 days.

Switching P2Y12 Receptor Inhibiting Therapies

Antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y₁₂ receptor inhibitor is the cornerstone of treatment of patients with atherothrombotic disease manifestations. Switching between P2Y₁₂ inhibitors occurs commonly in clinical practice for a variety of reasons, including safety, efficacy, adherence, and economic considerations. There are concerns about the optimal approach for switching because of potential drug interactions, which may lead to ineffective platelet inhibition and thrombotic complications, or potential overdosing due to overlap in drug therapy, which might cause excessive platelet inhibition and increased bleeding. This review provides practical considerations of switching based on pharmacodynamic and clinical data available from the literature.

2018 Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology Focused Update of the Guidelines for the Use of Antiplatelet Therapy

Antiplatelet therapy (APT) has become an important tool in the treatment and prevention of atherosclerotic events, particularly those associated with coronary artery disease. A large evidence base has evolved regarding the relationship between APT prescription in various clinical contexts and risk/benefit relationships. The Guidelines Committee of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society and Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology publishes regular updates of its recommendations, taking into consideration the most recent clinical evidence. The present update to the 2011 and 2013 Canadian Cardiovascular Society APT guidelines incorporates new evidence on how to optimize APT use, particularly in situations in which few to no data were previously available. The recommendations update focuses on the following primary topics: (1) the duration of dual APT (DAPT) in patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for acute coronary syndrome and non-acute coronary syndrome indications; (2) management of DAPT in patients who undergo noncardiac surgery; (3) management of DAPT in patients who undergo elective and semiurgent coronary artery bypass graft surgery; (4) when and how to switch between different oral antiplatelet therapies; and (5) management of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy in patients who undergo PCI. For PCI patients, we specifically analyze the particular considerations in patients with atrial fibrillation, mechanical or bioprosthetic valves (including transcatheter aortic valve replacement), venous thromboembolic disease, and established left ventricular thrombus or possible left ventricular thrombus with reduced ejection fraction after ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. In addition to specific recommendations, we provide values and preferences and practical tips to aid the practicing clinician in the day to day use of these important agents.

Combination antiplatelet treatment in coronary artery disease patients: A necessary evil or an overzealous practice?

In seeking to improve care in coronary artery disease patients, further platelet inhibition has been occasionally applied beyond that provided by aspirin and a P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist. This review aims to offer insights about the rationale, the efficacy and safety of combination antiplatelet therapy, involving three or more agents. Overall, the use of glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitors did not significantly modify the treatment effect of different antiplatelet strategies, including double vs standard clopidogrel, prasugrel vs clopidogrel, ticagrelor vs clopidogrel, cangrelor vs clopidogrel, and vorapaxar vs placebo. With the caveat that the use of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor was not randomized, adding such an agent to aspirin and a P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist appears to carry a significantly increased bleeding potential. Moreover, adding vorapaxar to aspirin- and clopidogrel-treated patients is associated with more bleeding events, while the bleeding potential is further exacerbated in cases of quadruplicate antiplatelet treatment including aspirin, clopidogrel, vorapaxar, and a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor. In ST-segment elevation, myocardial infarction patients' administration of an intravenous antiplatelet agent (GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor or cangrelor), in addition to aspirin and a P2Y₁₂ receptor antagonist, efficiently bridges the pharmacodynamic gap of oral agents. Cilostazol on top of aspirin and clopidogrel appears to be safe, although of questionable clinical benefit. In conclusion, combination antiplatelet therapy should be reserved only for selected cases and following thoughtful consideration of the associated risk/benefit ratio.

Clinical pathways and management of antithrombotic therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS): a Consensus Document from the Italian Association of Hospital Cardiologists (ANMCO), Italian Society of Cardiology (SIC), Italian Society of Emergency Medicine (SIMEU) and Italian Society of Interventional Cardiology (SICI-GISE)

Antiplatelet therapy is the cornerstone of the pharmacologic management of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). Over the last years, several studies have evaluated old and new oral or intravenous antiplatelet agents in ACS patients. In particular, research was focused on assessing superiority of two novel platelet ADP P2Y12 receptor antagonists (i.e., prasugrel and ticagrelor) over clopidogrel. Several large randomized controlled trials have been undertaken in this setting and a wide variety of prespecified and post-hoc analyses are available that evaluated the potential benefits of novel antiplatelet therapies in different subsets of patients with ACS. The aim of this document is to review recent data on the use of current antiplatelet agents for in-hospital treatment of ACS patients. In addition, in order to overcome increasing clinical challenges and implement effective therapeutic interventions, this document identifies all potential specific care pathway for ACS patients and accordingly proposes individualized therapeutic options.

Switching of platelet P2Y12 receptor inhibitors in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Review of the literature and practical considerations

The combination of aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor is the cornerstone of treatment in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACSs) and in those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). At the present time, 3 different oral P2Y12 receptor inhibitors are available on the market; 2 have obtained the indication for ACS (clopidogrel and ticagrelor) and 1 for ACS with planned PCI (prasugrel). An intravenous direct acting P2Y12 inhibitor, cangrelor, has also been recently approved by US and European regulatory agencies for patients undergoing PCI. Although the correct timing and modality of transition from intravenous cangrelor to oral P2Y12 inhibitors is still controversial and needs further evidence, switching between oral P2Y12 receptor inhibitors frequently occurs in clinical practice for several reasons. This practice raises the question of the relative safety of this strategy and of which switching approaches are preferable. In this article, we review the data on switching antiplatelet treatment strategies with P2Y12 receptor inhibitors and discuss practical considerations for switching therapies in patients with ACS undergoing PCI.

Safety and Efficacy of Switching From Clopidogrel to Prasugrel in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Study-level Meta-analysis From 15 Studies

BACKGROUND

There is poor evidence on clinical outcome of switching from clopidogrel to prasugrel in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

OBJECTIVES

Data on the topic are limited and we performed a study-level meta-analysis to assess safety and efficacy of such strategy.

METHODS

A total of 15 studies and 3974 patients were included. The following comparisons were performed: prasugrel switching versus prasugrel only therapy; and prasugrel switching versus clopidogrel only therapy. Outcome measures were overall bleeding, major bleeding, and major adverse cardiac events (MACE).

RESULTS

There was no statistically significant increased bleeding risk in the prasugrel switching versus prasugrel only group [overall bleeding: OR 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.69-1.66; P = 0.77; major bleeding: OR 0.69, 95% CI, 0.32-1.49; P = 0.34]; MACE rates were also comparable. Incidence of safety end points was similar in the prasugrel switching and clopidogrel only groups (overall bleeding: OR 1.27, 95% CI, 0.75-2.15; P = 0.37; major bleeding: OR 0.70, 95% CI, 0.29-1.68; P = 0.42); occurrence of MACE was 3.8% in the prasugrel switching versus 8.3% in the clopidogrel only group (P = 0.23). No statistically significant difference in the safety outcomes was present stratifying by clinical presentation.

CONCLUSIONS

Switching from clopidogrel to prasugrel does not increase bleeding complications during follow-up of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention; however, the strength of the data is not sufficient to make definitive clinical recommendations.

The impact of switching P2Y12 receptor inhibitor therapy during index hospitalization: a systematic review

PURPOSE

With the availability of novel P2Y12 receptor inhibitors, patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) may receive more than one type of this drug during index hospitalization. We sought to determine the effect of switching from clopidogrel to a novel P2Y12 receptor inhibitor on the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and bleeding.

METHODS

We conducted a literature search on SCOPUS for English language entries until 7 March 2015. Out of 188 citations, seven studies encompassing 16,431 patients were selected for analysis of (i) switching to a novel P2Y12 agent (switching group) versus continued clopidogrel or (ii) switching to a novel P2Y12 agent (switching group) versus upfront novel agent initiation during index hospitalization

RESULTS

MACE was significantly lower in the switching group (odds ratio (OR) 0.77, 95 % confidence interval (CI) 0.63-0.96, p = 0.02), whereas bleeding was higher (OR 1.55, 1.29-1.85, p < 0.01) compared with continued clopidogrel. Conversely, MACE was similar with switching to a novel agent and upfront novel therapy initiation (OR 1.01, 95 % CI 0.8-1.29, p = 0.90), but bleeding was higher in the switching group (OR 1.24, 95 % CI 1.03-1.48, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

The current study suggests that switching to a novel P2Y12 agent in patients with ACS and/or patients undergoing coronary stenting is more efficacious than continuing clopidogrel. In this cohort, switching to a novel agent did not result in worse ischemic outcomes than upfront initiation of novel therapies. However, switching was associated with greater bleeding compared with both continued clopidogrel as well as upfront use of novel P2Y12 agents.

High Platelet Reactivity in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Prasugrel and Clopidogrel

Background

Prasugrel is more effective than clopidogrel in reducing platelet aggregation in acute coronary syndromes. Data available on prasugrel reloading in clopidogrel treated patients with high residual platelet reactivity (HRPR) i.e. poor responders, is limited.

Objectives

To determine the effects of prasugrel loading on platelet function in patients on clopidogrel and high platelet reactivity undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Patients

Patients with ACS on clopidogrel who were scheduled for PCI found to have a platelet reactivity ≥40 AUC with the Multiplate Analyzer, i.e. “poor responders” were randomised to prasugrel (60 mg loading and 10 mg maintenance dose) or clopidogrel (600 mg reloading and 150 mg maintenance dose). The primary outcome measure was proportion of patients with platelet reactivity <40 AUC 4 hours after loading with study medication, and also at one hour (secondary outcome). 44 patients were enrolled and the study was terminated early as clopidogrel use decreased sharply due to introduction of newer P2Y12 inhibitors.

Results

At 4 hours after study medication 100% of patients treated with prasugrel compared to 91% of those treated with clopidogrel had platelet reactivity <40 AUC (p = 0.49), while at 1 hour the proportions were 95% and 64% respectively (p = 0.02). Mean platelet reactivity at 4 and 1 hours after study medication in prasugrel and clopidogrel groups respectively were 12 versus 22 (p = 0.005) and 19 versus 34 (p = 0.01) respectively.

Conclusions

Routine platelet function testing identifies patients with high residual platelet reactivity (“poor responders”) on clopidogrel. A strategy of prasugrel rather than clopidogrel reloading results in earlier and more sustained suppression of platelet reactivity. Future trials need to identify if this translates into clinical benefit.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01339026

Switching from Clopidogrel to Prasugrel in patients undergoing PCI: A meta-analytic overview

Despite the demonstrated benefits of Prasugrel, a new generation thienopyridine, in the prevention of thrombotic complications after percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) for Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS), its use is still precluded to those many patients arriving to the cath lab pre-treated with Clopidogrel. Conclusive data on the strategy of switching from Clopidogrel to Prasugrel are still missing, therefore we aimed to perform a meta-analysis of current studies evaluating the safety and efficacy of switching from Clopidogrel to Prasugrel (PS) as compared to a standard thienopyridine therapy with Clopidogrel or Prasugrel in patients undergoing PCI. Literature archives and main scientific sessions' abstracts were scanned for studies comparing a switching strategy from Clopidogrel to Prasugrel vs. Prasugrel or Clopidogrel. Primary efficacy endpoint was overall mortality. Secondary endpoints were: non-fatal myocardial infarction and definite/probable stent thrombosis. Safety endpoint was the rate of major bleedings according to a per-protocol definition. A total of 12 studies, involving 3956 patients, were included. Among them, 1396 patients (35.3%), received Prasugrel after a Clopidogrel treatment (PS), while 2560 (64.7%) received either Prasugrel or Clopidogrel. The switch from Clopidogrel to Prasugrel was in the majority of the studies periprocedural. The mortality was numerically lower, but not statistically significant, in the PS group as compared with patients who did not switch (1.7% vs. 3.8%, OR [95% CI] = 0.68 [0.40,1.15], p = 0.15, phet = 0.61), without any relationship with patients' risk profile (r = -0.68 [-2.09, 0.73], p = 0.35). Similar results were obtained for secondary efficacy endpoints and at sensitivity analysis in the majority of subgroups evaluated. Moreover, the PS strategy did not increase major bleedings as compared with standard therapy (1.4% vs. 2.5%, OR [95% CI = 0.70 [0.39, 1.25], p = 0.23, phet = 0.6). The present meta-analysis confirms that, among patients undergoing PCI, switching from Clopidogrel to Prasugrel may be safely performed and therefore should be encouraged among patients eligible to Prasugrel.

In-hospital switching from clopidogrel to prasugrel following thrombolysis for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a 3-year single center experience

BACKGROUND

Prasugrel has proved its superiority over clopidogrel for reducing ischemic events among patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) undergoing urgent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Data on switching of antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndrome patients in clinical practice are very limited. Importantly, the safety of in-hospital switching from clopidogrel to prasugrel following thrombolysis has not been addressed.

METHODS

We reviewed consecutive STEMI patients from February 2011 to April 2014 who were transferred to a tertiary center after receiving thrombolysis and a loading dose of clopidogrel in a non-PCI-capable center. If not contraindicated, these patients were reloaded and treated with prasugrel. A control group, three times larger, was selected from patients who underwent primary PCI and were initially treated with prasugrel. In-hospital outcomes were examined.

RESULTS

Cases (n=45, 13% female, mean age 56 years) and controls (n=135, 11% female, mean age 54 years) did not differ significantly with respect to MI location, left ventricular systolic function, and extent of coronary artery disease. Mean time from thrombolysis to prasugrel loading was 32±19 hours. No significant differences were found between cases and controls in TIMI major or minor bleeding (0% vs. 3%), overall mortality (0% vs. 1.5%), and hospitalization length (4.8 vs. 5.5 days).

CONCLUSIONS

In-hospital reloading and subsequent maintenance therapy with prasugrel in patients who received thrombolysis and a loading dose of clopidogrel appears to be as safe as in STEMI patients managed by primary PCI; however, larger studies are needed to verify these results.

In-hospital switching of oral P2Y12 inhibitor treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: prevalence, predictors and short-term outcome

BACKGROUND

P2Y12 inhibitor switching has appeared in clinical practice as a consequence of prasugrel and ticagrelor availability, apart from clopidogrel, for use in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

METHODS

In the context of the GReek AntiPlatelet REgistry (GRAPE) we assessed the prevalence, predictive factors and short-term outcome of in-hospital P2Y12 inhibitor switching in 1794 ACS patients undergoing PCI.

RESULTS

Switching occurred in 636 (35.5%) patients of which in the form of clopidogrel to a novel agent, novel agent to clopidogrel and between prasugrel and ticagrelor in 574 (90.4%), 34 (5.3%) and 27 (4.3%) patients, respectively. Presentation to non PCI-capable hospital, bivalirudin use, age ≥75 years (inverse predictor), and regional trends emerged as predictive factors of switching to a novel agent. At combined in-hospital and one-month follow-up, propensity matched pairs analysis showed no differences in major adverse cardiovascular (MACE) or bleeding events between switching from clopidogrel to a novel agent vs novel agent constant administration. More Bleeding Academic Research Consortium type 1, type 2 and any type events and fewer MACE were seen when switching from clopidogrel to a novel agent vs only clopidogrel administration (23.7%, 3.8%, 30.6%, 1.2% vs 8.9%, 1.2%, 12.0%, 3.8% with P < .001, P = .03, P < .001 and P = .03 respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

In a real-life experience with contemporary antiplatelet treatment in ACS patients undergoing PCI, in-hospital switching represents common clinical practice. Clinical factors and regional practice differences seem to affect this strategy's choice, while switching to a novel agent may be associated with higher risk of bleeding.