High and low on-treatment platelet reactivity to P2Y12 inhibitors in a contemporary cohort of acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention

Comparison of clopidogrel and ticagrelor in treating acute coronary syndrome undergoing PCI: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The study aims to evaluate and compare the efficacy and safety between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).

Methods

We searched MEDLINE (via PubMed), Cochrane, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases for eligible citations (the last search was up to December 2021). Subgroup analyses were performed based on region, study design, dose, and single-center/multicenter. Meta regressions were conducted to explore the source of heterogeneity. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to assess the robustness of the results. Funnel plots and Egger's test were preformed to test publication bias of the meta-analysis.

Results

A total of 29 studies were included, totaling 165,981 patients. Ticagrelor reduced the overall incidence rate of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs) (HR 0.74; 95% CI, 0.62, 0.89; P = 0.001; I2 = 88.3%, P < 0.001) and all-cause mortality (HR 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75, 0.97; P = 0.019; I2 = 39.7%, P = 0.052) compared with clopidogrel. However, there was a higher risk of major bleeding (HR 1.21; 95% CI, 1.02,1.44; P = 0.026, I2 = 59.3%, P = 0.012) and all bleeding (HR 1.42; 95% CI, 1.24, 1.62; P < 0.001, I2 = 76.4%, P < 0.001) with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel. The stability of the results was demonstrated by sensitivity analysis. Furthermore, subgroup analyses and meta-regression revealed that the heterogeneity in the study may stem from factors such as whether it was conducted in a single-center or multicenter setting, as well as the geographical region.

Conclusion

Ticagrelor has demonstrated superior efficacy compared to clopidogrel in ACS patients undergoing PCI, particularly in Asia and Europe. Nevertheless, it is crucial to acknowledge that the utilization of ticagrelor is linked to a heightened risk of bleeding. To provide guidance for clinical decision-making regarding the use of ticagrelor, future multicenter randomized trials that are relevant and encompass longer follow-up periods are necessary.

The category of the manuscript a meta-analysis

PROSPERO registration number CRD42021274198.

Antiplatelet efficacy of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in Mediterranean patients with diabetes mellitus and chronic coronary syndromes: A crossover pharmacodynamic investigation

Introduction

Patients with diabetes mellitus (DM) have augmented platelet reactivity and diminished responsiveness to clopidogrel. Ticagrelor, a more potent P2Y12 inhibitor, is clinically superior to clopidogrel in acute coronary syndromes, although its role in chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is still the subject of debate. The aim of this investigation was to compare the pharmacodynamic effectiveness of ticagrelor and clopidogrel in Mediterranean DM patients with CCS.

Materials and methods

In this prospective, randomized, crossover study, patients (n = 20) were randomized (1:1) to receive, on top of aspirin therapy, either ticagrelor 180 mg loading dose (LD)/90 mg maintenance dose (MD) b.i.d. or clopidogrel 600 mg LD/75 mg MD o.d. for 1 week in a crossover fashion with a 2–4 week washout period between regimens. Platelet function measurements were performed at 4 timepoints in each period (baseline, 2 h and 24 h after LD, and 1 week), including light transmission aggregometry (LTA, primary endpoint), VASP assay, Multiplate and VerifyNow P2Y12.

Results

The ticagrelor LD achieved greater platelet inhibitory effect than clopidogrel LD, assessed with LTA (20 μM ADP as agonist), at 2 h (34.9 ± 3.9% vs. 63.6 ± 3.9%; p &lt; 0.001) and 24 h (39.4 ± 3.5% vs. 52.3 ± 3.8%; p = 0.014). After 1 week of therapy, platelet reactivity was again significantly inferior with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel (30.7 ± 3.0% vs. 54.3 ± 3.0%; p &lt; 0.001). The results were consistent with the other platelet function assays employed.

Conclusion

In Mediterranean patients with DM and CCS, ticagrelor provides a more potent antiplatelet effect than clopidogrel after the LD and during the maintenance phase of therapy.

Clinical trial registration

[ClinicalTrials.gov], identifier [NCT02457130].

Impact of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor on Platelet Reactivity in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis

Background

This meta-analysis mainly aimed to compare the impact of prasugrel and ticagrelor on platelet reactivity (PR) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).

Methods

We searched four electronic databases to identify randomized controlled trials and cohort studies comparing the impact of prasugrel and ticagrelor on PR in patients with ACS. We performed group analyses according to three detection methods, drug dose [loading dose (LD) and maintenance dose (MTD)] and LD effect time, and assessed the robustness of the results through sensitivity analysis.

Results

Twenty-five studies with 5,098 patients were eligible. After LD, the incidence of high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) of ticagrelor was significantly lower than that of prasugrel within 6–18 h based on vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) test [RR = 0.25 (0.07, 0.85), P = 0.03], there was no significant difference between ticagrelor and prasugrel in the following results: platelets inhibitory effect within 24–48 h based on VerifyNow P2Y12 (VN) assay (P = 0.11) and VASP test (P = 0.20), and the incidence of HTPR within 2–6 h based on VN assay (P = 0.57) and within 24–48 h based on VN assay (P = 0.46) and VASP test (P = 0.72), the incidence of low on-treatment platelet reactivity (LTPR) within 6–18 h based on VASP test (P = 0.46) and 48 h based on VN assay (P = 0.97) and VASP test (P = 0.73). After MTD, the platelet inhibitory effect of ticagrelor was stronger than that of prasugrel based on VN assay [WMD = −41.64 (−47.16, −36.11), P &lt; 0.00001]and VASP test [WMD = −9.10 (−13.88, −4.32), P = 0.0002], the incidence of HTPR of ticagrelor was significantly lower than that of prasugrel based on VN assay [RR = 0.05 (0.02, 0.16), P &lt; 0.00001], the incidence of LTPR of ticagrelor was significantly higher than prasugrel based on VN assay [RR = 6.54 (4.21, 10.14), P &lt; 0.00001] and VASP test [RR = 2.65 (1.78, 3.96), P &lt; 0.00001], the results of Multiple Electrode Aggregometry (MEA) test was inconsistent with the other two detection methods in platelet inhibitory effect and the incidence of HTPR and LTPR. There was no significant difference between ticagrelor and prasugrel in the following clinical outcomes: all-cause death (P = 0.86), cardiovascular death (P = 0.49), myocardial infarction (P = 0.67), stroke (P = 0.51), target vessel revascularization (P = 0.51), stent thrombosis (P = 0.90), TIMI major bleeding (P = 0.86) and bleeding BARC type ≥ 2 (P = 0.77). The risk of bleeding BARC type 1 of ticagrelor was significantly higher than prasugrel [RR = 1.44 (1.03, 2.02), P = 0.03].

Conclusions

Compared with prasugrel, ticagrelor might have a stronger platelet inhibition effect, with a lower incidence of HTPR and a higher incidence of LTPR and bleeding BARC type 1, while there might be no significant difference in the risk of thrombosis/ischemic, bleeding BARC Type ≥ 2 and TIMI major bleeding. A higher incidence of LTPR might indicate a higher risk of bleeding BARC type 1. The results of VN assay were consistent with that of VASP test, and not with the MEA test.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022304205, identifier: CRD42022304205.

Differences in Optimal Platelet Reactivity after Potent P2Y12 Inhibitor Treatment in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background: East Asian patients receiving treatment with the potent P2Y12 inhibitors prasugrel or ticagrelor experience more potent platelet inhibition than with clopidogrel. Methods: This study investigated differences in OPR rates with reduced doses of prasugrel (n = 38) or ticagrelor (n = 40) for maintenance therapy in 118 Korean ACS patients who had undergone PCI, in comparison to conventional-dose clopidogrel (n = 40). We assessed drug responses at one- and three-months post-PCI with VerifyNow and multiple electrode aggregometry assays. Results: At the one-month period, patients receiving standard-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor had lower platelet reactivity as determined by the three assays than those receiving the conventional dose of clopidogrel (VN: p = 0.000; MEA: p = 0.000; LTA: p = 0.000). At the 3-month point, platelet reactivity was lower in those receiving reduced-dose prasugrel or ticagrelor than the clopidogrel-treated patients (VN: p = 0.000; MEA: p = 0.012; LTA: p = 0.002). Prasugrel resulted in significantly lower platelet inhibition than ticagrelor as determined by VN and LTA (VN: p = 0.000; LTA: p = 0.003). At three months, there was a significant overall difference in OPR among the three groups when measured by VN (p < 0.001), but not when measured by MEA (p = 0.596). OPR in the reduced-dose prasugrel group was not significantly different to the clopidogrel group at three months (VN: p = 0.180; MEA: p = 0.711). OPR in the reduced-dose ticagrelor group was similar to clopidogrel as determined by MEA at three months, but was different when assessed by VN (VN: p = 0.000; MEA: p = 0.540). Compared to standard-dose, the reduced-dose prasugrel OPR rate was significantly increased (VN: p = 0.008; MEA: p = 0.020). Conclusions: OPR values for reduced-dose prasugrel and conventional-dose clopidogrel at three months were similar but higher than for reduced-dose ticagrelor as determined by VN, but no differences were noted by MEA. The MEA assay might have less sensitivity and consistency than the VN assay. Further studies are needed to explore this discrepancy.

Genotype-Guided Use of P2Y12 Inhibitors: A Review of Current State of the Art

The pharmacodynamics of the purinergic receptor type Y, subtype 12 (P2Y12) inhibitors has evolved. Our understanding of the metabolism of P2Y12 inhibitors has revealed polymorphisms that impact drug metabolism and antiplatelet efficacy, leading to genetic testing guided therapy. In addition, assays of platelet function and biochemistry have provided insight into our understanding of the efficacy of "antiplatelet" therapy, identifying patients with high or low platelet reactivity on P2Y12 therapy. Despite the data, the implementation of these testing modalities has not gained mainstream adoption across hospital systems. Given differences in potency between the three clinically available P2Y12 inhibitors, the balance between thrombotic and bleeding complications must be carefully considered, especially for the large proportion of patients at higher risk for bleeding. Here we review the current data for genetic and functional testing, risk assessment strategies, and guidelines for P2Y12 inhibitors guided therapy.

Flow Cytometric Assessment of Changes in Platelet Reactivity after Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Systematic Review

Increased platelet activity is an important predictor for recurrent cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Flow cytometry is an advanced method for evaluation of platelet activity. We aimed to summarize the current literature on dynamic changes in platelet activity analyzed by flow cytometry in patients with ACS. Employing the guidelines of Preferred Report Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), we searched PubMed and Embase on October 26, 2021, and identified studies measuring platelet activity with flow cytometry in ACS patients in the acute phase (baseline) and at follow-up in a more stable phase. In the 12 included studies, fibrinogen receptor, α-granule secretion, platelet reactivity index, monocyte-platelet aggregates, neutrophil-platelet aggregates, and reticulated platelets were measured. The fibrinogen receptor and α-granule secretion were either unchanged or lower during follow-up measurements than in the acute phase. Platelet reactivity index showed inconsistent results. Values of monocyte-platelet aggregates and neutrophil-platelet aggregates were lower at follow-up than at baseline (p-values <0.05). Reticulated platelets were either unchanged (p-value >0.64) or lower at 1 to 2 months follow-up (p-value 0.04), and also lower at 5 months to 1-year follow-up (p-value >0.005) compared with baseline. Overall, flow cytometric analyses of platelet function in ACS patients showed that platelet activity was lower at follow-up than at baseline. However, in some patients, platelet activity remained unchanged from baseline to follow-up, possibly indicating a sustained high platelet activity that may increase the risk of recurrent cardiovascular events.

Intensified P2Y12 inhibition for high-on treatment platelet reactivity

High on treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) during treatment with clopidogrel has been consistently found to be strong risk factor for recurrent ischemic events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Insufficient P2Y12 receptor inhibition contributes to HPR measured by the VerifyNow (VN) assay. Prasugrel and ticagrelor are more potent P2Y12 inhibitors than clopidogrel and commonly substituted for clopidogrel when HPR is documented, however benefit of VN guided intensified antiplatelet therapy is uncertain. We identified patients who had undergone platelet reactivity testing after PCI with VN after pretreatment with clopidogrel (n = 252) in a single center observational analysis. Patients who had HPR defined as PRU > 208 were switched to alternate P2Y12 inhibitors. Primary clinical endpoint was 1-year post PCI combined cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), and stent thrombosis. One hundred and eight (43%) subjects had HPR and were switched to prasugrel (n = 60) and ticagrelor (n = 48). Risk of recurrent 1-year primary endpoint remained higher for HPR patients switched to either ticagrelor or prasugrel as compared to subjects who had low on treatment platelet reactivity (n = 144) (LPR) on clopidogrel [Hazard Ratio: 3.5 (95% CI 1.1-11.1); p = 0.036)]. Propensity score matched analysis demonstrated higher event rates in patients with HPR on alternate P2Y12 inhibitor as compared to patients with LPR (log-rank: p = 0.044). The increased risk of recurrent events associated with HPR measured by VN is not completely attenuated by switching to more potent P2Y12 inhibitors. Non-P2Y12 mediated pathways likely contribute to increased incidence of thrombotic events after PCI in subjects with HPR.

Analysis of individualized antiplatelet therapy for patients of acute coronary syndrome after percutaneous coronary intervention under the guidance of platelet function: A one-center retrospective cohort study

There is controversy in clinical application of antiplatelet drugs by monitoring platelet function. Therefore, we explored whether early and dynamic medication could bring better clinical outcomes for patients under the guidance of platelet function tests (PFT).In this retrospective cohort study, we analyzed the prognostic events of 1550 patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) at Tianjin People's Hospital in China. They received dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) from January 2017 to December 2018. The primary endpoint was based on the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3 or 5 major bleeding. Secondary endpoints included MACCE (all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, and unplanned target vessel reconstruction) and BARC 1 to 2 minor bleeding. The endpoint events within 1 year after PCI were recorded. Patients were divided into a guided group and a control group according to the drug adjustment by PFT results. After the propensity scores matched, the end points of 2 groups were compared, and subgroup analysis was performed on major bleeding events.After propensity score matching, there were 511 cases in the guided group and the control group, respectively. The primary endpoint events occurred in 10 patients (1.96%) in the guided group and 23 patients (4.5%) in the control group (HR: 0.45; 95% CI, 0.21-0.95; P = .037). After the guided group adjusted drug doses, the risk of major bleeding was lower than standard DAPT of the control group. Although some patients in the guided group reduced doses earlier, the incidence of MACCE events did not increase in the guided group compared with the control group (4.89% vs 6.07%; P = .41). There was no statistical difference in BARC 1 to 2 minor bleeding (P = .22). Subgroup analysis showed that PFT was more effective in patients with diabetes and multivessel disease.Early observation of dynamic PFT in ACS patients after PCI can guide individualized antiplatelet therapy to reduce the risk of major bleeding without increasing the risk of ischemia.

Association of fractalkine with functional severity of heart failure and impact on clopidogrel efficacy in patients with ischemic heart disease

INTRODUCTION

Patients with heart failure (HF) display elevated levels of soluble fractalkine, a chemokine involved in inflammation processes, atherosclerosis and platelet activation. Further, fractalkine has been associated with reduced pharmacodynamic (PD) responsiveness to clopidogrel. The aim of this study was to investigate the association of fractalkine with the severity of HF and its impact on platelet activation and clopidogrel response in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) with and without HF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This prospective PD study included 116 stable CAD patients on DAPT with aspirin and clopidogrel. Subjects were classified in two groups: patients with HF and reduced (<40%) left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF group, n = 56) and patients without HF (no HF group, n = 60). Clinical severity of HF was graded according to NYHA classification. Platelet function assays included vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein assay, multiple electrode aggregometry and light transmittance aggregometry. Fractalkine and P-selectin concentrations were determined by ELISA.

RESULTS

Fractalkine levels progressively increased with the severity of the disease in the HFrEF group (NYHA I: 471.2 ± 52.4 pg/ml, NYHA II: 500.5 ± 38.4 pg/ml, NYHA III: 638.9 ± 54.3 pg/ml, p for linear trend 0.023). Numerically higher concentrations of fractalkine were observed in the HFrEF group compared to the no HF group with borderline significance (p = 0.052). No significant differences in clopidogrel-induced platelet inhibition according to fractalkine values were observed in any of the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Fractalkine levels were increased in patients with HFrEF and positively associated with the functional severity of the disease. No evident impact of fractalkine on clopidogrel PD efficacy was found.

[Recommendations on antithrombotic treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Position statement of the Working Group on Cardiovascular Thrombosis of the Spanish Society of Cardiology]

The new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which gives rise to the highly contagious COVID-19 disease, has caused a pandemic that is overwhelming health care systems worldwide. Affected patients have been reported to have a heightened inflammatory state that increases their thrombotic risk. However, there is very scarce information on the management of thrombotic risk, coagulation disorders, and anticoagulant therapy. In addition, the situation has also greatly influenced usual care in patients not infected with COVID-19. This article by the Working Group on Cardiovascular Thrombosis of the Spanish Society of Cardiology aims to summarize the available information and to provide a practical approach to the management of antithrombotic therapy.

Recommendations on antithrombotic treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic. Position statement of the Working Group on Cardiovascular Thrombosis of the Spanish Society of Cardiology

The new coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which gives rise to the highly contagious COVID-19 disease, has caused a pandemic that is overwhelming health care systems worldwide. Affected patients have been reported to have a heightened inflammatory state that increases their thrombotic risk. However, there is very scarce information on the management of thrombotic risk, coagulation disorders, and anticoagulant therapy. In addition, the situation has also greatly influenced usual care in patients not infected with COVID-19. This article by the Working Group on Cardiovascular Thrombosis of the Spanish Society of Cardiology aims to summarize the available information and to provide a practical approach to the management of antithrombotic therapy.

Efficacy and Safety of Ticagrelor Compared to Clopidogrel in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

The Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) study found that ticagrelor plus aspirin (TA) was more effective than clopidogrel plus aspirin (CA), without an increase in the risk of massive bleeding in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Data from other studies indicate that the conclusion is controversial with the results obtained by PLATO.

AIM

To investigate the efficacy and safety of TA, compared with CA, in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) after PCI.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases to compare the efficacy and safety of CA and TA treatment in patients with ACS after PCI. The endpoints were major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI), stent thrombosis, and bleeding events. The data analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software, and the odds ratios (ORs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated. The standards of reporting were in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

13 studies with a total of 58,062 patients were included in this study with a subgroup analysis of the European/American and Asian populations. In terms of effectiveness for MACEs, the European, American and Asian populations benefitted more from the TA treatment than the CA treatment (European and American populations, OR = 0.82, P = 0.0002; Asian, OR = 0.66, P < 0.0001; total, OR = 0.78, P < 0.0001). In terms of specific effectiveness indicators, such as stroke, MI, and stent thrombosis, the results of TA and CA groups in the European, American, and Asian populations were not consistent. In terms of safety, there was no statistical difference in total bleeding events between TA and CA treatments (OR = 1.19, P = 0.21). However, in the Asian population, the incidence of total bleeding events (OR = 1.52, P = 0.0004) in the TA group was higher than that in the CA group.

CONCLUSION

The TA treatment in the European and American populations is more beneficial and safer than CA treatment. However, although the Asian population has this benefit, the risk of bleeding is significantly increased as well, and antiplatelet drugs should be chosen carefully.