The use of the VerifyNowsystem to monitor antiplatelet therapy: A review of the current evidence

Current Strategies to Guide the Antiplatelet Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndromes

The role of antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes is a moving target with considerable novelty in the last few years. The pathophysiological basis of the treatment depends on platelet biology and physiology, and the interplay between these aspects and clinical practice must guide the physician in determining the best therapeutic options for patients with acute coronary syndromes. In the present narrative review, we discuss the latest novelties in the antiplatelet therapy of patients with acute coronary syndromes. We start with a description of platelet biology and the role of the main platelet signal pathways involved in platelet aggregation during an acute coronary syndrome. Then, we present the latest evidence on the evaluation of platelet function, focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of each platelet's function test. We continue our review by describing the role of aspirin and P2Y12 inhibitors in the treatment of acute coronary syndromes, critically appraising the available evidence from clinical trials, and providing current international guidelines and recommendations. Finally, we describe alternative therapeutic regimens to standard dual antiplatelet therapy, in particular for patients at high bleeding risk. The aim of our review is to give a comprehensive representation of current data on antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes that could be useful both for clinicians and basic science researchers to be up-to-date on this complex topic.

Safety and efficacy of platelet glycoprotein VI inhibition in acute ischaemic stroke (ACTIMIS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1b/2a trial

BACKGROUND

Antagonists of glycoprotein VI-triggered platelet activation used in combination with recanalisation therapies are a promising therapeutic approach in acute ischaemic stroke. Glenzocimab is an antibody fragment that inhibits the action of platelet glycoprotein VI. We aimed to determine and assess the safety and efficacy of the optimal dose of glenzocimab in patients with acute ischaemic stroke eligible to receive alteplase with or without mechanical thrombectomy.

METHODS

This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study with dose-escalation (1b) and dose-confirmation (2a) phases (ACTIMIS) was done in 26 stroke centres in six European countries. Participants were adults (≥18 years) with disabling acute ischaemic stroke with a National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score of 6 or higher before alteplase administration. Patients were randomly assigned treatment using a central electronic procedure. Total administered dose at the end of the intravenous administration was 125 mg, 250 mg, 500 mg, and 1000 mg of glenzocimab or placebo in phase 1b and 1000 mg of glenzocimab or placebo in phase 2a. Treatment was initiated 4·5 h or earlier from stroke symptom onset in patients treated with alteplase with or without mechanical thrombectomy. The sponsor, study investigator and study staff, patients, and central laboratories were all masked to study treatment until database lock. Primary endpoints across both phases were safety, mortality, and intracranial haemorrhage (symptomatic, total, and fatal), assessed in all patients who received at least a partial dose of study medication (safety set). The trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03803007, and is complete.

FINDINGS

Between March 6, 2019, and June 27, 2021, 60 recruited patients were randomly assigned to 125 mg, 250 mg, 500 mg, or 1000 mg glenzocimab, or to placebo in phase 1b (n=12 per group) and were included in the safety analysis. Glenzocimab 1000 mg was well tolerated and selected as the phase 2a recommended dose; from Oct 2, 2020, to June 27, 2021, 106 patients were randomly assigned to glenzocimab 1000 mg (n=53) or placebo (n=53). One patient in the placebo group received glenzocimab in error and therefore 54 and 52, respectively, were included in the safety set. In phase 2a, the most frequent treatment-emergent adverse event was non-symptomatic haemorrhagic transformation, which occurred in 17 (31%) of 54 patients treated with glenzocimab and 26 (50%) of 52 patients treated with placebo. Symptomatic intracranial haemorrhage occurred in no patients treated with glenzocimab compared with five (10%) patients in the placebo group. All-cause deaths were lower with glenzocimab 1000 mg (four [7%] patients) than with placebo (11 [21%] patients).

INTERPRETATION

Glenzocimab 1000 mg in addition to alteplase, with or without mechanical thrombectomy, was well tolerated, and might reduce serious adverse events, intracranial haemorrhage, and mortality. These findings support the need for future research into the potential therapeutic inhibition of glycoprotein VI with glenzocimab plus alteplase in patients with acute ischaemic stroke.

FUNDING

Acticor Biotech.

Cerebral Vasculopathy in Children with Neurofibromatosis Type 1

Cerebrovascular abnormalities are a severe and often underrecognized complication of childhood neurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1). There are no prospective studies of cerebral vasculopathy in NF1; thus, the estimated frequency of vasculopathy varies between studies. The data is difficult to interpret due to the retrospective data collection and variability in whether imaging is done based on screening/surveillance or due to acute neurologic symptoms. The prevalent NF1-associated cerebral vasculopathy is moyamoya syndrome (MMS). Vascular changes can present without symptoms or with acute TIA or stroke-like symptoms or a range of progressive neurologic deficits. Advanced imaging may enhance sensitivity of neuroimaging in children. Medical and/or surgical interventions may prevent short- and long-term complications. Challenges for establishment of a screening protocol for cerebral vasculopathy in children with NF1 include the relatively large number of patients with NF1, the potential need for sedation to achieve quality imaging and the broad age range at time of detection for cerebral vascular changes. The goal of this review is to present the epidemiology, clinical presentation, imaging features and medical/surgical management of cerebral arteriopathies in children with NF1.

Influence of CYP450 Enzymes and ABCB1 Polymorphisms on Clopidogrel Response in Moroccan Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes

Introduction

Clopidogrel is an antiplatelet prodrug primarily prescribed to prevent or treat acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or acute ischemic stroke (IS), polymorphisms of genes encoding cytochrome P-450 (CYP) and P-glycoprotein transporter, could affect the efficiency of clopidogrel absorption and biotransformation, especially during the first critical hours following its administration.

Methods

The present study was designed to investigate the potential association of clopidogrel responsiveness and 14 polymorphisms in the genes encoding the CYPs (CYP2C9, 2C19, 3A4, 3A5, 1A2, and 2B6), the ATP binding cassette subfamily B member 1 (ABCB1). Platelet aggregation activity was measured after 8h of 300mg clopidogrel administration for fifty-five ACS patients.

Results

There was no significant association between polymorphism of the studied CYPs and clopidogrel responsiveness (P>0.05). The frequency of the ABCB1 3435 T allele in clopidogrel non-responders was higher (78.9%) compared to responders (52.8%), but this difference was not significant (P=0.057). Demographic characteristics, comorbidities, concomitant treatments were not associated with clopidogrel response.

Discussion

There was no effect of the studied genetic variations and demographic factors on the platelet activity of clopidogrel in Moroccan ACS patients.

Plasma protein signatures for high on-treatment platelet reactivity to aspirin and clopidogrel in peripheral artery disease

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) displays a poor response to aspirin and/or the platelet P2Y12 receptor antagonist clopidogrel. This phenomenon is reflected by high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) in platelet function assays in vitro and is associated with an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to elucidate specific plasma protein signatures associated with HTPR to aspirin and clopidogrel in PAD patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Based on targeted plasma proteomics, 184 proteins from two cardiovascular Olink panels were measured in 105 PAD patients. VerifyNow ASPI- and P2Y12-test values were transformed to a continuous variable representing HTPR as a spectrum instead of cut-off level-defined HTPR. Using the Boruta random forest algorithm, the importance of 3 plasma proteins for HTPR in the aspirin, six in clopidogrel and 10 in the pooled group (clopidogrel or aspirin) was confirmed. Network analysis demonstrated clusters with CD84, SLAMF7, IL1RN and THBD for clopidogrel and with F2R, SELPLG, HAVCR1, THBD, PECAM1, TNFRSF10B, MERTK and ADM for the pooled group. F2R, TNFRSF10B and ADM were higher expressed in Fontaine III patients compared to Fontaine II, suggesting their relation with PAD severity.

CONCLUSIONS

A plasma protein signature, including eight targets involved in proatherogenic dysfunction of blood cell-vasculature interaction, coagulation and cell death, is associated with HTPR (aspirin and/or clopidogrel) in PAD. This may serve as important systems-based determinants of poor platelet responsiveness to aspirin and/or clopidogrel in PAD and other cardiovascular diseases and may contribute to identify novel treatment strategies.

Testing strategies used in the diagnosis of rare inherited bleeding disorders

INTRODUCTION

Rare Bleeding Disorders have a low population prevalence and may not be recognized by most clinicians. In addition, knowledge gaps of the indicated laboratory tests and their availability add to the potential for delayed diagnosis or misdiagnosis. The lack of widely available commercial, regulatory body approved esoteric tests limit them to reference laboratories, thus limiting easy access for patients.

AREAS COVERED

A literature search of Pubmed, Medline, Embase and review of international society guidelines was performed. Additional references from published articles were reviewed. A patient-centered approach to recognition and evaluation of RBD is discussed.

EXPERT OPINION

Recognition of RBD relies on obtaining a detailed patient personal and family hemostatic history. Inquiry into a history of involvement of other organ systems is important and if present should lead to suspicion of an inherited platelet disorder or a variant of Ehlers Danlos Syndrome. Multiple factors contribute to the complexity of development of efficient algorithms for diagnostic testing. Limitations in diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of screening tests, diagnostic tests, and esoteric tests further compound the complexity of establishing a diagnosis. Educational efforts focusing on clinician awareness of RBDs and available testing options are vital for optimal management of such patients.

Ticagrelor and primidone interaction masquerading as dual antiplatelet therapy noncompliance

Ticagrelor and aspirin is a common dual antiplatelet therapy regimen for patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention. Despite its ability to significantly reduce cardiovascular complications, ticagrelor response may be altered by other medications causing subtherapeutic effects. Traditionally, ticagrelor is thought to have fewer drug-drug interactions compared to other thienopyridine antiplatelet medications such as clopidogrel. Primidone, metabolized into phenobarbital, is a strong CYP-3A inducer that can reduce serum concentrations of ticagrelor resulting in ineffective antiplatelet therapy. We present a 67-year-old male who suffered in-stent thrombosis after percutaneous intervention possibly due to the interaction between primidone and ticagrelor.

Enhancement of the haemostatic effect of platelets in the presence of high normal concentrations of von Willebrand factor for critically ill patients needing platelet transfusion-a protocol for the will-plate randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

von Willebrand Factor (vWF) is a key protein mediating platelet adhesion on the surface of damaged endothelia. To the best of our knowledge, no trial exists that investigated the effect of platelet transfusion in combination with the administration of balanced vWF in severe blood loss, despite being widely used in clinical practice. The Basel Will-Plate study will investigate the impact of the timely administration of balanced vWF (1:1 vWF and FVIII) in addition to platelet transfusion on the need for blood and coagulation factor transfusion in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) who suffer from severe bleeding. The study hypothesis is based on the assumption that adding balanced vWF to platelets will reduce the overall need for transfusion of blood products compared to the transfusion of platelets alone.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The Will-Plate study is an investigator-initiated, single-centre, double-blinded randomised controlled clinical trial in 120 critically ill patients needing platelet transfusion. The primary outcome measure will be the number of fresh frozen plasma (FFP) and red blood cell (RBC) transfusions according to groups. Secondary outcome measures include the number of platelet concentrates transfused within the first 48 h after treatment of study medication, quantity of blood loss in the first 48 h after treatment with the study medication, length of stay in ICU and hospital, number of revision surgeries for haemorrhage control, ICU mortality, hospital mortality, 30-day mortality and 1-year mortality. Patients will be followed after 30 days and 1 year for activities of daily living and mortality assessment. The sample size was calculated to detect a 50% reduction in the number of blood products subsequently transfused within 2 days in patients with Wilate® compared to placebo.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Ethics Committee of Northwestern and Central Switzerland and will be conducted in compliance with the protocol, the current version of the Declaration of Helsinki, the ICH-GCP or ISO EN 14155 (as far as applicable) and all national legal and regulatory requirements. The study results will be presented at international conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIALS REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04555785.

PROTOCOL VERSION

Clinical Study Protocol Version 2, 01.11.2020. Registered on Sept. 21, 2020.

Aspirin Resistance in Vascular Disease: A Review Highlighting the Critical Need for Improved Point-of-Care Testing and Personalized Therapy

Aspirin resistance describes a phenomenon where patients receiving aspirin therapy do not respond favorably to treatment, and is categorized by continued incidence of adverse cardiovascular events and/or the lack of reduced platelet reactivity. Studies demonstrate that one in four patients with vascular disease are resistant to aspirin therapy, placing them at an almost four-fold increased risk of major adverse limb and adverse cardiovascular events. Despite the increased cardiovascular risk incurred by aspirin resistant patients, strategies to diagnose or overcome this resistance are yet to be clinically validated and integrated. Currently, five unique laboratory assays have shown promise for aspirin resistance testing: Light transmission aggregometry, Platelet Function Analyzer-100, Thromboelastography, Verify Now, and Platelet Works. Newer antiplatelet therapies such as Plavix and Ticagrelor have been tested as an alternative to overcome aspirin resistance (used both in combination with aspirin and alone) but have not proven to be superior to aspirin alone. A recent breakthrough discovery has demonstrated that rivaroxaban, an anticoagulant which functions by inhibiting active Factor X when taken in combination with aspirin, improves outcomes in patients with vascular disease. Current studies are determining how this new regime may benefit those who are considered aspirin resistant.

Platelet reactivity testing in peripheral artery disease

DISCLAIMER

In an effort to expedite the publication of articles related to the COVID-19 pandemic, AJHP is posting these manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time.

PURPOSE

Oral antiplatelet therapy is routinely used to prevent adverse cardiovascular events in patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD). Several laboratory tests are available to quantify the degree of platelet inhibition following antiplatelet therapy. This article aims to provide a review of the literature surrounding platelet functional testing in patients with PAD receiving oral P2Y12 inhibitors and to offer guidance to clinicians for the use and interpretation of these tests.

SUMMARY

A literature search of PubMed and the Web of Science Core Collection database was conducted. All studies that performed platelet function testing and reported clinical outcomes in patients with PAD were included. Evaluation of the data suggests that, among the available testing strategies, the VerifyNow platelet reactivity unit (PRU) test is the most widely used. Despite numerous investigations attempting to define a laboratory threshold indicating suboptimal response to antiplatelet therapy, controversy exists about which PRU value best correlates with cardiovascular outcomes (ie, mortality, stent thrombosis, etc). In the PAD literature, the most commonly used PRU thresholds are 208 or higher and 235 or higher. Nonetheless, adjusting antiplatelet regimens based on suboptimal P2Y12 reactivity values has yet to be proven useful in reducing the incidence of adverse cardiovascular outcomes. This review examines platelet function testing in patients with PAD and discusses the interpretation and application of these tests when monitoring the safety and efficacy of P2Y12 inhibitors.

CONCLUSION

Although platelet functional tests may be simple to use, clinical trials thus far have failed to show benefit from therapy adjustments based on test results. Clinicians should be cautioned against relying on this test result alone and should instead consider a combination of laboratory, clinical, and patient-specific factors when adjusting P2Y12 inhibitor therapy in clinical practice.

Management of stroke in patients on antithrombotic therapy: Practical issues in the era of direct oral anticoagulants

Antithrombotic drugs (ADs) are the mainstay of secondary prevention of thrombotic vascular diseases. Management of patients under long-term treatment with ADs admitted for acute cerebrovascular disease, either ischemic stroke (IS) or intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH), has become a frequent situation that might influence decision-making processes from diagnosis to therapeutic strategies. The aim of this review is to summarize current data from the literature to help clinicians in their decisions for stroke care in patients taking ADs. While a large body of data have made it possible to codify the management of patients presenting IS or ICH under antiplatelet drugs and vitamin K antagonists, the increasing use of direct oral anticoagulants (DOAs) and future development of new antiplatelet drugs raise new problems. Development of rapid assessment tools measuring specific biological activity and reversion agents dedicated to each class of DOAs should make it possible to optimize individual therapeutic strategies. This review highlights the main steps of IS and ICH management from early identification of ADs, and use of dedicated biological assays, to the stepwise strategy to apply revascularization or reversal therapies and finally the resumption of ADs with a focus on individual clinical and radiological characteristics for more personalized care.

Application of Auxiliary VerifyNow Point-of-Care Assays to Assess the Pharmacodynamics of RUC-4, a Novel αIIbβ3 Receptor Antagonist

Introduction  Prehospital therapy of ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) with αIIbβ3 antagonists improves clinical outcomes, but they are difficult to use in prehospital settings. RUC-4 is a novel αIIbβ3 antagonist being developed for prehospital therapy of STEMI that rapidly achieves high-grade platelet inhibition after subcutaneous administration. Standard light transmission aggregometry (LTA) is difficult to perform during STEMI, so we applied VerifyNow (VN) assays to assess the pharmacodynamics of RUC-4 relative to aspirin and ticagrelor.

Methods  Blood from healthy volunteers was anticoagulated with phenylalanyl-prolyl-arginyl chloromethyl ketone (PPACK) or sodium citrate, treated in vitro with RUC-4, aspirin, and/or ticagrelor, and tested with the VN ADP + PGE ₁ , iso-TRAP, and base channel (high concentration iso-TRAP + PAR-4 agonist) assays. The results were correlated with both ADP (20 µM)-induced LTA and flow cytometry measurement of receptor occupancy and data from individuals treated in vivo with RUC-4.

Results  RUC-4 inhibited all three VN assays, aspirin did not affect the assays, and ticagrelor markedly inhibited the ADP + PGE ₁ assay, slightly inhibited the iso-TRAP assay, and did not inhibit the base channel assay. RUC-4's antiplatelet effects were potentiated in citrate compared with PPACK. Cut-off values were determined to correlate the results of the VN iso-TRAP and base channel assays with 80% inhibition of LTA.

Conclusion  The VN assays can differentiate the early potent anti-αIIbβ3 effects of RUC-4 from delayed effects of P2Y12 antagonists in the presence of aspirin. These pharmacodynamic assays can help guide the clinical development of RUC-4 and potentially be used to monitor RUC-4's effects in clinical practice.

Evaluation of aspirin platelet inhibition in left ventricular assist device population

INTRODUCTION

Aspirin therapy is recommended in durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients to prevent thromboembolic complications. Up to 30% of patients treated with aspirin may demonstrate aspirin resistance, which has been related to thrombotic complications. However, it is unknown whether individual patients exhibit temporal alterations in aspirin sensitivity during LVAD support. We hypothesized that aspirin platelet inhibition would wane after the initial postimplant period.

METHODS

This was a retrospective, observational, single center study conducted at an academic medical center. This study evaluated changes in aspirin platelet inhibition over the first 6 months of LVAD support. Patients who underwent placement of centrifugal LVAD with aspirin platelet sensitivity assays were included for analysis. Aspirin responsiveness was assessed postimplant after 5 days, 3 months, and 6 months.

RESULTS

A total of 28 patients were included for analysis of which 7% of patients were aspirin resistant initially. At 3 months, 32% (odds ratio [OR], 6.1, p = .03) of patients were aspirin resistant and 28% (OR, 4.1, p = .1) at 6 months. Over the first 3 months postimplant, the odds of aspirin resistance increased sixfold and remained relatively constant at 6 months. Patients who were aspirin resistant and received an increase in aspirin dose at 3 months subsequently had a sensitive ARU at 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Aspirin responsiveness not only varies between patients but can significantly wane within individual LVAD patients over time. Additional study is needed to determine if monitoring aspirin resistance may prevent thrombotic complications after LVAD implantation.

Differential Impact of Cytochrome 2C19 Allelic Variants on Three Different Platelet Function Tests in Clopidogrel-Treated Patients

On-treatment platelet reactivity in clopidogrel-treated patients can be measured with several platelet function tests (PFTs). However, the agreement between different PFTs is only slight to moderate. Polymorphisms of the CYP2C19 gene have an impact on the metabolization of clopidogrel and, thereby, have an impact on on-treatment platelet reactivity. The aim of the current study is to evaluate the differential effects of the CYP2C19 genotype on three different PFTs. Methods: From a prospective cohort study, we included patients treated with clopidogrel following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). One month after PCI, we simultaneously performed three different PFTs; light transmission aggregometry (LTA), VerifyNow P2Y12, and Multiplate. In whole EDTA blood, genotyping of the CYP2C19 polymorphisms was performed. Results: We included 308 patients treated with clopidogrel in combination with aspirin (69.5%) and/or anticoagulants (33.8%) and, based on CYP2C19 genotyping, classified them as either extensive (36.4%), rapid (34.7%), intermediate (26.0%), or poor metabolizers (2.9%). On-treatment platelet reactivity as measured by LTA and VerifyNow is significantly affected by CYP2C19 metabolizer status (p < 0.01); as metabolizer status changes from rapid, via extensive and intermediate, to poor, the mean platelet reactivity increases accordingly (p < 0.01). On the contrary, for Multiplate, no such ordering of metabolizer groups was found (p = 0.10). Conclusions: For VerifyNow and LTA, the on-treatment platelet reactivity in clopidogrel-treated patients correlates well with the underlying CYP2C19 polymorphism. For Multiplate, no major effect of genetic background could be shown, and effects of other (patient-related) variables prevail. Thus, besides differences in test principles and the influence of patient-related factors, the disagreement between PFTs is partly explained by differential effects of the CYP2C19 genotype.

Clinical importance of testing for clopidogrel resistance in patients undergoing carotid artery stenting-a systematic review

Dual antiplatelet therapy is frequently prescribed for patients undergoing carotid artery stenting (CAS), however clopidogrel resistance might cause thromboembolic complications. The role of testing for clopidogrel resistance in patients undergoing CAS is unclear. In this study, we aimed to review the periprocedural thromboembolic outcomes in clopidogrel resistant patients who underwent CAS. We conducted a review of PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library up to October 7, 2020. Studies were included that investigated at least ten patients aged 18 years or older with a symptomatic carotid artery stenosis requiring CAS. Studies were excluded that investigated patients with a carotid artery dissection, case reports, case series of less than ten patients, reviews, commentaries, letters to the editors, and conference abstracts. The primary endpoint was the incidence of thromboembolic events. One hundred seventy-seven unique articles were identified of which three studies were included in our systematic review. The sample sizes ranged from 76 to 449 patients and the follow-up duration from 24 hours to 2 years postprocedural. Two retrospective observational studies determined clopidogrel resistance using measurement of P2Y12 reaction units, and one historical cohort study used genetic testing. Two studies concluded that clopidogrel resistance was a risk factor for thromboembolic complications, the other found higher values of P2Y12 reaction units in patients with thromboembolic events compared to those without. In conclusion, current literature supports a possible relationship between clopidogrel resistance and thromboembolic complications in patients who underwent CAS. Preprocedural testing for clopidogrel resistance might therefore be of additional value. Randomized studies using a valid, reliable clopidogrel resistance test and clinical endpoints, are however required to make a definitive statement and to determine the impact of the thromboembolic complications. This study was registered within PROSPERO (CRD42020197318).

Plateletworks® as a Point-of-Care Test for ASA Non-Sensitivity

Aspirin (ASA) therapy is proven to be effective in preventing adverse cardiovascular events; however, up to 30% of patients are non-sensitive to their prescribed ASA dosage. In this pilot study, we demonstrated, for the first time, how ASA non-sensitivity can be diagnosed using Plateletworks®, a point-of-care platelet function test. Patients prescribed 81 mg of ASA were recruited in a series of two successive phases-a discovery phase and a validation phase. In the discovery phase, a total of 60 patients were recruited to establish a cut-off point (COP) for ASA non-sensitivity using Plateletworks®. Each sample was simultaneously cross-referenced with a light transmission aggregometer (LTA). Our findings demonstrated that >52% maximal platelet aggregation using Plateletworks® had a sensitivity, specificity, and likelihood ratio of 80%, 70%, and 2.67, respectively, in predicting ASA non-sensitivity. This COP was validated in a secondary cohort of 40 patients prescribed 81 mg of ASA using Plateletworks® and LTA. Our data demonstrated that our established COP had a 91% sensitivity and 69% specificity in identifying ASA non-sensitivity using Plateletworks®. In summary, Plateletworks® is a point-of-care platelet function test that can appropriately diagnose ASA non-sensitive patients with a sensitivity exceeding 80%.

Platelet dysfunction in patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage: Do desmopressin and platelet therapy help or harm?

BACKGROUND

Pre-injury anti-platelet use has been associated with increased risk of progression of traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (TICH) and worse outcomes. VerifyNow® assays assess platelet inhibition due to aspirin/clopidogrel. This study assesses the outcomes of patients with TICH and platelet dysfunction treated with desmopressin and/or platelets.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective chart review of patients with mild TICH at a level 1 trauma center 1/1/2013-6/1/2016. Patients with documented platelet dysfunction who received desmopressin and/or platelets were compared to those who were untreated. Primary outcomes were progression of TICH and neurologic outcomes at discharge.

RESULTS

Of 565 patients with a mild TICH, 200 patients had evidence of platelet dysfunction (a positive VerifyNow® assay). Patients had similar baseline demographics, injury characteristics, and rate of TICH progression; but patients who received desmopressin and/or platelets had worse Glasgow Outcomes Score at discharge.

CONCLUSION

Treatment of patients with mild TICH and platelet dysfunction with desmopressin and/or platelets did not affect TICH progression but correlated with worse neurologic status at discharge.

Performance comparison of aspirin assay between anysis and verifynow: Assessment of therapeutic platelet inhibition in patients with cardiac diseases

BACKGROUND:

Assessment of platelet inhibition for aspirin therapy is important to manage patients who are at potential risk of developing thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications.

OBJECTIVE:

This study aimed to evaluate a new platelet assay (Anysis-aspirin), compare it with VerifyNow-aspirin in patients with cardiac diseases, and analyze the aspirin resistance rates between the two devices.

METHODS:

Citrated blood samples were collected from patients with cardiac diseases referred for the aspirin response test. In the Anysis assay, a test result was provided with a blood flow migration distance (MD) until blood flow stoppage, which was comparable to aspirin reaction units (ARUs) obtained using VerifyNow. The measurements were simultaneously conducted using the two devices and compared.

RESULTS:

The MD without and with aspirin use was 160±33 and 254±23 mm, respectively (p < 0.0001). Compared with VerifyNow (reference), the sensitivity and specificity of Anysis-200 were 96.3 and 90.3%, respectively (area under the curve, 0.968). Furthermore, the aspirin resistance rate in aspirin-administered patients was 20.9%using VerifyNow and 16.5%for Anysis-200. The Cohen’s kappa coefficient between the two devices was 0.81, indicating an almost perfect agreement between the two devices.

CONCLUSIONS:

Anysis-aspirin, a novel aspirin assay for assessing platelet inhibition, showed excellent agreement with VerifyNow-aspirin with high accuracy and precision. The Anysis-aspirin assay would be used as a point-of-care test to assess aspirin non-responsiveness and abnormal platelet reactivity.

Assessment of therapeutic platelet inhibition in cardiac patients: Comparative study between VerifyNow-P2Y12 and Anysis-P2Y12 assay

BACKGROUND

Analyzing responsiveness to P2Y12 therapy is vital to preventing thrombotic and hemorrhagic complications in patients with cardiovascular diseases.

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates a new Anysis-P2Y12 assay system against VerifyNow-P2Y12 in cardiac patients and analyzes the P2Y12 low-response rates of the two devices with various cutoff values.

METHODS

In total, 125 citrated blood samples were collected from cardiac patients referred for a P2Y12 antiplatelet response test. In the Anysis assay, the test result was the migration distance (MD) until the blood flow stops, which is comparable to both P2Y12 reaction units and percent inhibition obtained using VerifyNow.

RESULTS

The MDs without and with P2Y12 were 182±30 and 264±12 mm, respectively (p <  0.0001). Compared to VerifyNow-P2Y12, the sensitivity and specificity of Anysis-200 were 96.8%and 88.7%, respectively. Cohen's kappa coefficient between the two devices was 0.761, indicating a high agreement. However, there was an apparent difference in the low-response rate to P2Y12, which was 36.5%for VerifyNow and 5.9%for Anysis.

CONCLUSIONS

The performance of the newly developed platelet function assay, Anysis-P2Y12 was equivalent to that of VerifyNow-P2Y12 in terms of sensitivity and specificity. The Anysis-P2Y12 assay may help screen patients with abnormal P2Y12 non-responsiveness.

Comparison of VerifyNow, thromboelastography, and PL-12 in patients with minor ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack

High on-treatment platelet reactivity (HOPR) is associated with stroke recurrence. It is important to find a reliable method to assess HOPR. We aimed to compare the correlations between VerifyNow™ system, thromboelastography (TEG), and Aggrestar platelet function analyzer (PL-12) on platelet activity in patients with minor ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) after dual antiplatelet therapy for 7 days. About 276 patients were included. Spearman’s correlation coefficient and the kappa coefficient were adopted to evaluate associations among the three test methods. An obvious correlation between VerifyNow and TEG on HOPR-ADP (r=0.64, p<0.001) was found. The correlations of HOPR-ADP between PL-12 and the other two platelet function analyzers were moderate (PL-12 versus VerifyNow, r=0.47, p<0.001; PL-12 versus TEG, r=0.25, p<0.001). The correlations of HOPR-AA were limited among these three platelet function analyzers (VerifyNow versus TEG, r=0.09, p=0.14; VerifyNow versus PL-12, r=0.15, p=0.01; PL-12 versus TEG, r=0.10, p=0.09). Correlations among different platelet function analyzers were varied. VerifyNow and TEG were more correlative than PL-12 on HOPR-ADP. The consistence of HOPR-AA was limited among VerifyNow, TEG and PL-12. The proportion of stroke recurrence and composite events in patients with HOPR-ADP assessing by PL-12 was higher than VerifyNow and TEG.

Predictors of Clopidogrel Hyper-Responsiveness in Neuro-Interventional Procedures

BACKGROUND

Hyper-responsiveness to clopidogrel abnormally inhibits platelet aggregation and increases hemorrhagic complications. The present study investigated clinical factors related to clopidogrel hyper-responsiveness in neuro-interventional procedures.

METHODS

Two hundred twenty-four patients receiving clopidogrel for coil embolization to treat unruptured cerebral aneurysm or carotid artery stenting to treat carotid artery stenosis at the internal carotid artery origin were retrospectively reviewed for their P2Y12 reactivity unit (PRU) values and clinical characteristics. Hyper-responsiveness to clopidogrel was defined as a PRU of <95.

RESULTS

The mean PRU was 218.2 ± 77.8. Hyper-responsiveness to clopidogrel was observed in 12 patients (5.4%). Hyper-responsiveness was observed in younger patients, patients with a lower concentration of hemoglobin A1c, and patients with a higher low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentration compared with non-hyper-responsive patients (P = 0.01, P < 0.01, P < 0.01, respectively). On analysis of concomitant drugs, the patients in the hyper-responsive group were less frequently administered calcium channel blockers (CCBs) compared with the non-hyper-responsive group (P = 0.01). No significant differences in the usage of proton pump inhibitors or statins were observed. A LDL-C concentration of >120 mg/dL and no usage of CCBs were significant independent predictors of hyper-responsiveness to clopidogrel with a multivariate analysis (OR; 6.16, 95% CI, 1.57-26.64, P = 0.01, OR; 0.09, 95% CI, 0.01-0.82, P = 0.03, respectively).

CONCLUSION

The present study shows that a higher LDL-C concentration and no usage of CCBs are independent predictors of clopidogrel hyper-responsiveness. These results are useful to predict perioperative hemorrhagic complications. Considering dose reduction of clopidogrel or alternative drugs in high risk cases is necessary to prevent perioperative hemorrhagic complications.

Performance comparison of platelet function analyzers in cardiology patients: VerifyNow and Anysis-200 aspirin assays

BACKGROUND: Analysis of responsiveness to antiplatelet therapy is crucial in the management of patients with cardiovascular diseases. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate a new platelet function analysis system (Anysis-200) and to compare it with VerifyNow (Accumetrics, San Diego, CA, USA) in cardiology patients. METHODS: Overall, 125 citrated blood samples were collected from 85 cardiology patients referred for platelet function testing. In Anysis-200, platelet function was measured as blood migration distance (MD) until clogging of flow passage, which is comparable to aspirin resistance units obtained using VerifyNow. The two devices were simultaneously used and compared. RESULTS: The MDs before and after taking aspirin were 175±51 and 247±27 mm, respectively (p < 0.0001). Compared with VerifyNow (reference), the sensitivity and specificity of Anysis-200 was 91.5% and 75.5%, respectively (area under the curve, 0.829). Further, the true positive rate in patients newly taking aspirin was 85% for VerifyNow and 92.5% for Anysis-200, respectively. The Cohen’s kappa coefficient between the two devices was 0.682, indicating a relatively high agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Anysis-200, a novel system for assessing platelet aggregation, has accuracy and precision equivalent to that of, and significant agreement with, VerifyNow. Anysis-200 may be useful in screening patients with abnormal platelet reactivity and aspirin nonresponsiveness.

Amyloid precursor protein 770 is specifically expressed and released from platelets

Platelets not only play an essential role in hemostasis after vascular injury but are also involved in the development of coronary artery disease (CAD) and cerebrovascular lesions. Patients with CAD and cerebral ischemia are recommended to undergo antiplatelet therapy, but they have an increased incidence of major bleeding complications. Both assessment of the platelet activation status and response to antiplatelet therapy in each patient are highly desired. β-Amyloid precursor protein (APP) 770 is expressed in vascular endothelial cells, and its extracellular region, a soluble form of APP770 (sAPP770, also called nexin-2), is proteolytically cleaved for shedding. Abundant sAPP770 is also released from activated platelets. In this study, we used peripheral blood samples from patients with CAD and control subjects and evaluated sAPP770 as a specific biomarker for platelet activation. First, the plasma levels of sAPP770 correlated well with those of the soluble form CD40 ligand (CD40L), an established biomarker for platelet activation. Additionally, flow cytometry analysis using peripheral blood cells showed that CD40L expression is up-regulated in activated T cells, whereas APP770 expression is negligible in all blood cell types except platelets. Following stimulation with collagen or ADP, aggregating platelets immediately released sAPP770. Finally, patients with dual antiplatelet therapy showed significantly lower levels of plasma sAPP770 than those with no therapy. Taken together, our data show that plasma sAPP770 could be a promising biomarker for platelet activation.

A Double-Edged Sword-Cardiovascular Concerns of Potential Anti-COVID-19 Drugs

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a pandemic infection caused by Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). COVID-19 significantly affects multiple systems including the cardiovascular system. Most importantly, in addition to the direct injury from the virus per se, the subsequent cytokine storm, an overproduction of immune cells and their activating compounds, causes devastating damage. To date, emerging anti-SARS-CoV-2 treatments are warranted to control epidemics. Several candidate drugs have been screened and are currently under investigation. These primarily include antiviral regimens and immunomodulatory regimens. However, beyond the anti-SARS-CoV-2 effects, these drugs may also have risks to the cardiovascular system, especially altering cardiac conduction. Herein, we review the cardiovascular risks of potential anti-COVID-19 drugs.

The Influence of Prostaglandin E1 and Use of Inhibitor Percentage on the Correlation between the Multiplate and VerifyNow in Patients on Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

Platelet function tests (PFT), such as the Multiple Electrode Analyzer (Multiplate) and VerifyNow, show little concordance in patients using antiplatelet drugs. A major difference between these tests is the use of prostaglandin E1 (PGE1) to inhibit P2Y1-platelet-receptor activation in VerifyNow and is proposed to be of influence in the discrepancy between these tests. We aimed to investigate whether the presence of PGE1 could provide an explanation for the moderate correlation and concordance between Multiplate and VerifyNow by adding PGE1 to the Multiplate ADP assay, also known as the ADP-high sensitivity (ADP-HS) assay. We also aimed to investigate whether the difference in baseline platelet function as measured by the VerifyNow and Multiplate could (partly) explain the moderate correlation between the tests, by plotting ADP assay results against baseline function as measured by the corresponding device, which is expressed as the 'inhibitor percentage.' Fifty-one patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) received dual antiplatelet therapy and were considered to have a high risk of ischemic or bleeding complications were included. The addition of 20 µl PGE1 in the Multiplate resulted in a significant reduction in Arbitrary Aggregation Units, but did not improve correlation with the VerifyNow. The correlation between VerifyNow and Multiplate inhibitor percentage was moderate. Based on these results, we concluded that neither PGE1 nor the calculation of the inhibitor percentage greatly influenced the correlation between PFTs.

Relationship between 'on-treatment platelet reactivity', shear stress, and micro-embolic signals in asymptomatic and symptomatic carotid stenosis

BACKGROUND

Assessment of 'high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR)' could enhance understanding of the pathophysiology of first or recurrent vascular events in carotid stenosis patients on antiplatelet therapy.

METHODS

This prospective, multi-centre study assessed antiplatelet-HTPR status and its relationship with micro-emboli signals (MES) in asymptomatic vs. symptomatic ≥ 50-99% carotid stenosis. Platelet function/reactivity was assessed under 'moderately high shear stress' with the PFA-100^® and 'low shear stress' with VerifyNow^® and Multiplate^® analysers. Bilateral 1-h transcranial Doppler ultrasound of the middle cerebral arteries classified patients as MES + ve or MES - ve.

RESULTS

Data from 34 asymptomatic patients were compared with 43 symptomatic patients in the 'early phase' (≤ 4 weeks) and 37 patients in the 'late phase' (≥ 3 months) after TIA/ischaemic stroke. Median daily aspirin doses were higher in early symptomatic (225 mg; P < 0.001), but not late symptomatic (75 mg; P = 0.62) vs. asymptomatic patients (75 mg). There was a lower prevalence of aspirin-HTPR in early (28.6%; P = 0.028), but not late symptomatic (38.9%; P = 0.22) compared with asymptomatic patients (56.7%) on the PFA-100^®, but not on the VerifyNow^® or Multiplate^® (P ≤ 0.53). Early symptomatic patients had a higher prevalence of aspirin-HTPR on the PFA-100^® (28.6%) vs. VerifyNow^® (9.5%; P = 0.049), but not Multiplate^® assays (11.9%, P = 0.10). There was no difference in aspirin-HTPR prevalence between any symptomatic vs. asymptomatic MES + ve or MES - ve subgroup.

DISCUSSION

Recently symptomatic moderate-severe carotid stenosis patients had a lower prevalence of aspirin-HTPR than their asymptomatic counterparts on the PFA-100^®, likely related to higher aspirin doses. The prevalence of antiplatelet-HTPR was positively influenced by higher shear stress levels, but not MES status.

Intravenous cangrelor as a peri-procedural bridge with applied uses in ischemic events

Cangrelor is a relatively new antiplatelet drug that has been approved for use as an adjunct therapy to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to decrease peri-procedural myocardial infarction (MI), coronary revascularization, and stent thrombosis. Cangrelor is an adenosine triphosphate analogue with a pharmacokinetic mechanism based on a reversible, dose-dependent inhibition adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-induced platelet aggregation. This drug has lately been in the spotlight as a possible bridge therapy for anti-platelet medication prior to cardiac and non-cardiac surgeries. Platelet function is usually restored within sixty minutes of cessation of therapy, thereby decreasing the risk of bleeding while providing adequate pre-procedural coverage to reduce ischemic events. This manuscript reviews the literature on cangrelor and summarizes its role as a peri-procedural bridge.

Morphine in acute coronary syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Morphine is frequently used in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) due to its analgesic effect, it being recommended in the main cardiology guidelines in Europe and the USA. However, controversy exists regarding its routine use due to potential safety concerns. We conducted a systematic review of randomised-controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies to synthesise the available evidence.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE and trial registries.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

We included RCTs and observational studies evaluating the impact of morphine in cardiovascular outcomes or platelet reactivity measures.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Data were screened, extracted and appraised by two independent reviewers. The data were pooled results using a random-effects model. Outcomes included in-hospital mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), platelet reactivity (using VerifyNow) and bleeding, reported as relative risk (RR) with 95% CI. We assessed the confidence in the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. We followed the Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.

RESULTS

Five RCTs and 12 observational studies were included, enrolling 69 993 participants. Pooled results showed an increased risk of in-hospital mortality (RR 1.45 [95% CI 1.10 to 1.91], low GRADE confidence), MACE (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.45) and an increased platelet reactivity at 1 and 2 hours (59.37 platelet reactivity units [PRU], 95% CI 36.04 to 82.71; 68.28 PRU, 95% CI 37.01 to 99.55, high GRADE confidence) associated with morphine. We found no significant difference in the risk of bleeding. We found no differences in subgroup analyses based on study design and ACS subtype.

CONCLUSIONS

Morphine was associated with an increased risk of in-hospital mortality and MACE but the high risk of bias leads to low result confidence. There is high confidence that morphine decreases the antiplatelet effect of P2Y12 inhibitors.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016036357.

Management of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing neuroendovascular procedures

Neuroendovascular techniques for treating cerebral aneurysms and other cerebrovascular pathology are increasingly becoming the standard of care. Intraluminal stents, aneurysm coils, and other flow diversion devices typically require concomitant antiplatelet therapy to reduce thromboembolic complications. The variability inherent with the pharmacodynamic response to common antiplatelet agents such as aspirin and clopidogrel complicates optimal selection of antiplatelet agents by clinicians. This review serves to discuss the literature related to antiplatelet use in neuroendovascular procedures and provides recommendations for clinicians on how to approach patients with variable response to antiplatelet agents, particularly clopidogrel.

Precision of VerifyNow P2Y12 Assessment of Clopidogrel Response in Patients Undergoing Cerebral Aneurysm Flow Diversion

Background

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAT), most commonly with aspirin and Clopidogrel, is the standard of care for intracranial stenting, including flow diversion. Clopidogrel response varies by individual.

Objective

To investigate the real-world precision of VerifyNow P2Y12 assessment (Accumetrics, San Diego, California) of Clopidogrel response.

Methods

Using a prospectively-collected, IRB-approved cerebral aneurysm database 643 patients were identified who were treated with the Pipeline embolization device from 2011 to 2017. Patients with multiple P2Y12 assays drawn within a 24-h window were identified. A single patient could contribute multiple, independent sets. Levels drawn before a 5-d course of DAT and patients who received alternative antiplatelet agents were excluded. Therapeutic range was defined as platelet reaction units (PRU) 60–200.

Results

A total of 1586 P2Y12 measurements were recorded; 293 (46%) patients had more than one assay. One hundred forty (22%) patients had multiple P2Y12 measurements within 24 h. These patients accounted for 230 independent 24-h sets. The average P2Y12 fluctuation across all sets was 35 points; the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles were 12, 26, and 48 points, respectively. Of the 230 24-h sets of P2Y12 assays, 76% remained within their original therapeutic category: 100 (43%) all therapeutic, 54 (23%) all hypo-responsive, and 21 (9%) all hyper-responsive. Twenty-four percent of patients fluctuated between therapeutic categories when multiple P2Y12 assessments were drawn within a 24-h period: 29 (13%) between hypo-response and therapeutic, 23 (10%) between hyper-response and therapeutic, and 3 (1%) between hypo-response and hyper-response.

CONCLUSION

Our experience suggests P2Y12 is an often-imprecise measure, and this should be considered when utilizing P2Y12 levels for clinical decisions.

The impact of renal function on platelet reactivity and clinical outcome in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Previous studies have suggested that patients with CKD have less therapeutic benefit of antiplatelet therapy. However, the relation between renal function and platelet reactivity is still under debate. On-treatment platelet reactivity was determined in parallel by ADP- and AA-induced light transmittance aggregometry (LTA) and the VerifyNow® System (P2Y12 and Aspirin) in 988 patients on dual antiplatelet therapy, undergoing elective coronary stenting. Patients were divided into two groups according to the presence or absence of moderate/severe CKD (GFR<60 ml/min/1.73 m2). Furthermore, the incidence of all-cause death, non-fatal acute myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and stroke at one-year was evaluated. Patients with CKD (n=180) had significantly higher platelet reactivity, regardless of the platelet function test used. Patients with CKD more frequently had high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity (HCPR) and high on-aspirin platelet reactivity (HAPR) regardless of the platelet function test used. After adjustment for potential confounders, this was no longer significant. The event-rate was the highest in patients with both high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) and CKD compared to those with neither high on-treatment platelet reactivity nor CKD. In conclusion, the magnitude of platelet reactivity as well as the incidence of HPR was higher in patients with CKD. However, since the incidence of HPR was similar after adjustment, a higher rate of co-morbidities in patients with CKD might be the major cause for this observation rather than CKD itself. CKD-patients with HCPR were at the highest risk of long-term cardiovascular events.

Clinical Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov: NCT00352014.

The effect of correcting VerifyNow P2Y12 assay results for hematocrit in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions

Essentials Platelet reactivity is correlated with thrombotic risk after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Hematocrit (HCT) is associated with platelet reactivity as measured with the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay. We tested a formula proposed to correct VerifyNow measurements for HCT in 978 PCI patients. Correcting platelet reactivity for HCT did not improve the prediction of thrombotic events after PCI.

SUMMARY

Background High on-treatment platelet reactivity is predictive for the occurrence of atherothrombotic events following percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). A low hematocrit (HCT) value is associated with higher platelet reactivity values, expressed in P2Y12 reaction units (PRU), as measured with the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay. However, it is suggested that this is only an in vitro phenomenon. Objective To determine whether adjusting PRU for HCT improves the predictive value for thrombotic events following PCI. Material and methods The VerifyNow P2Y12 assay was performed in clopidogrel-treated patients undergoing non-urgent PCI included in a prospective cohort study. PRU values were corrected for HCT with a formula proposed in recent literature. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were made to determine the optimal cut-off values to predict the occurrence of the primary endpoint, a composite of all-cause death and non-fatal myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and ischemic stroke, during 1 year of follow-up. The chi-squared test was performed to determine whether correcting PRU for HCT improved the prediction of the primary endpoint. Results A total of 978 patients were analyzed. A negative correlation between PRU and HCT was observed (R2 = 0.104). The optimal cut-off value for the corrected PRU was 215. ROC analyses showed that prediction of the primary endpoint did not differ for the corrected PRU (area under the curve, 0.61; sensitivity, 0.57; specificity, 0.64) and the uncorrected PRU (area under the curve, 0.61; sensitivity, 0.69; specificity, 0.53). Conclusion Correcting PRU for HCT does not improve the prediction of thrombotic events following PCI.

A randomized trial assessing the impact of three different glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists on glycoprotein IIb/IIIa platelet receptor inhibition and clinical endpoints in patients with acute coronary syndromes

AIMS

To compare three glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists (GPIs) in terms of platelet inhibition and major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), and assess the rate of bleeding and MACEs between GPIs and coadministered P2Y12 agents.

METHODS

Eighty-three acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with planned GPI use were randomized to receive high-dose bolus tirofiban, double-bolus eptifibatide, or abciximab followed by a 12-hour infusion. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa platelet receptor inhibition was measured at baseline and at 10 minutes, 1 hour, and 24 hours postbolus dose. Major adverse cardiac events and bleeding complications at 30 days were documented. The incidence of MACEs and bleeding in patients receiving ticagrelor or prasugrel were compared to those given clopidogrel.

RESULTS

There were no statistically significant differences in platelet inhibition between GPIs at 10 minutes (P=.085) and 1 hour (P=.337). At 24 hours, abciximab achieved statistically significantly higher median [interquartile range] platelet inhibition (75 [65-88]%) compared to tirofiban (28 [3-56]%; P<.0001) and eptifibatide (44 [31-63]%; P=.007). There were no differences in bleeding or MACEs depending on GPI or P2Y12 inhibitor administered.

CONCLUSIONS

Glycoprotein receptor inhibitors achieve similar levels of platelet inhibition at 10 minutes and 1 hour; however, abciximab maintains this benefit 24 hours after bolus dose. We did not witness an increased rate of bleeding in patients given new potent P2Y12 inhibitors and a GPI in the modern era.

Platelet function testing in cardiac surgery

Bleeding in cardiac surgery is known to cause increased morbidity and mortality. The rise in the use of anti-platelet medication has led to an increase in the number of patients presenting for cardiac surgery with platelet dysfunction, who are at a heightened risk of bleeding. However, the extent of platelet inhibition is well known to differ among individuals. In the past few years, a number of point-of-care platelet function testing devices, which may be able to assess platelet reactivity, have entered the market. This review will examine the devices most commonly studied and the evidence surrounding their use in cardiac surgery and their effect on blood loss.

Aspirin resistance in the acute stages of acute ischemic stroke is associated with the development of new ischemic lesions

BACKGROUND

Aspirin is a primary antiplatelet agent for the secondary prevention of ischemic stroke. However, if aspirin fails to inhibit platelet function, as is expected in acute ischemic stroke (AIS), it may increase the rate of early clinical events. Therefore, we sought to determine whether aspirin resistance in the acute stage was associated with early radiological events, including new ischemic lesions (NILs).

METHODS

This study was a single-center, prospective, observational study conducted between April 2012 and May 2013. Aspirin 300 mg was initially administered followed by maintenance doses of 100 mg daily. The acute aspirin reaction unit (aARU) was consistently measured after 3 hours of aspirin loading. An aARU value ≥550 IU was defined as biological aspirin resistance (BAR). NILs on follow-up diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) were defined as lesions separate from index lesions, which were not detected on the initial DWI.

RESULTS

A total of 367 patients were analyzed in this study. BAR in aARU was detected in 60 patients (16.3%). On follow-up DWI, 81 patients (22.1%) had NILs, which were frequently in the same territory as the index lesions (79%), pial infarcts (61.7%), and located within the cortex (59.3%). BAR was independently associated with NILs on follow-up DWI (adjusted OR 2.00, 95% CIs 1.01-3.96; p = 0.047).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, BAR in aARU could be associated with NILs on follow-up DWI in AIS. Therefore, a further prospective study with a longer follow-up period is necessary to evaluate the clinical implications of aARU in AIS.

Assays of different aspects of haemostasis - what do they measure?

Haemostasis is a complex process affected by many factors including both cellular and plasma components. It is a multistep process starting with platelet adhesion to damaged endothelium and ending in clot fibrinolysis. There are several methods available to study different aspects of haemostasis including adhesion, aggregation, coagulation and fibrinolysis. This review describes the different methods, what aspects of haemostasis they measure and their limitations. Methods discussed include methods to study adhesion (e.g. PFA-100, cone and platelet(let) analyzer and perfusion chambers) and aggregation (e.g. Multiplate, VerifyNow and Plateletworks). Furthermore the principles behind viscoelastic haemostatic assays are presented as well as methods that can analyse aspects of haemostasis in plasma or platelet-rich-plasma samples (thrombin generation, overall haemostasis potential and Thrombodynamics Analyzer).

A prospective evaluation of platelet function in patients on antiplatelet therapy with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage

BACKGROUND

Platelet transfusion is increasingly used in patients with traumatic intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) on aspirin therapy to minimize the progression of ICH. We hypothesized (null) that platelet transfusion in this cohort of patients does not improve platelet function.

METHODS

We performed a prospective interventional trail on patients with traumatic ICH on daily high-dose (325 mg) aspirin therapy. All patients received one pack of apheresis platelets. Blood samples were collected before and 1 hour after platelet transfusion. Platelet function was assessed using Verify Now Platelet Function Assay, and a cutoff of greater than 550 aspirin reaction units was used to define functioning platelets (FP).

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients were enrolled in the study. On presentation, 79% (22 of 28) of the patients had nonfunctioning platelets (NFPs), and transfusion of platelets did not improve platelet function as 81% (18 of 22) still had NFP. Of the 22 patients, 4 converted from NFP to FP after transfusion. There was no difference in the progression of ICH (37.5% vs. 30%, p = 0.7) or neurosurgical intervention (12.5% vs. 15%, p = 0.86) between patients with FP and NFP after platelet transfusion.

CONCLUSION

Administration of one pack of apheresis platelet did not improve platelet function. In our study, progression of ICH and the need for neurosurgical intervention were independent of platelet function. Further randomized clinical trials are required to assess both the dose dependence effect and role of platelet transfusion in patients on antiplatelet therapy with traumatic ICH.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic study, level III.

Testing platelet function

Platelet function tests have been traditionally used to aid in the diagnosis and management of patients with bleeding problems. Given the role of platelets in atherothrombosis, several dedicated platelet function instruments are now available that are simple to use and can be used as point-of-care assays. These can provide rapid assessment of platelet function within whole blood without the requirement of sample processing. Some tests can be used to monitor antiplatelet therapy and assess risk of bleeding and thrombosis, although current guidelines advise against this. This article discusses the potential utility of tests/instruments that are available.

Comparison of antiplatelet effect and safety of clopidogrel napadisilate with clopidogrel bisulfate in coronary artery disease patients: multi-center, randomized, double-blind, phase IV, non-inferiority clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Clopidogrel napadisilate has better clopidogrel stability than clopidogrel bisulfate. There are no data, however, on the antiplatelet efficacy and tolerability of clopidogrel napadisilate in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to demonstrate that the combination therapy of aspirin and clopidogrel napadisilate is not inferior to that of aspirin and clopidogrel bisulfate with respect to its effectiveness in inhibiting platelet aggregation, if it is given for 4 weeks to CAD patients who had been treated with a drug-eluting stent more than 12 months prior and had remained in a stable condition with a single antiplatelet agent, aspirin.

METHODS

This study was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel-group, phase IV clinical trial. A total of 162 patients were prospectively recruited from three centers. The subjects were randomized to either the test group that was treated with 75 mg of clopidogrel napadisilate once daily or to the control group that was treated with 75 mg of clopidogrel bisulfate once daily. The primary outcome was the percent inhibition of the platelet aggregation change after the medication, as assessed by a VerifyNow™ P2Y12 assay. The secondary outcome was the change in P2Y12 reaction units (PRUs) from the baseline to the end of 4 weeks of treatment. The prevalence of adverse events was assessed at each visit through a direct interview.

RESULTS

The mean increase in the percent inhibition after 4 weeks of treatment was 19.4 % in the clopidogrel napadisilate group and 19.5 % in the clopidogrel bisulfate group. The lower bound of the 95 % two-sided confidence interval for the difference in the change between the two groups (-5.46) was greater than the pre-defined non-inferiority margin of (-10.5). Therefore, clopidogrel napadisilate was deemed non-inferior to clopidogrel bisulfate with respect to its effectiveness in inhibiting platelet aggregation. The PRU decreased by 73.1 ± 30.7 in the clopidogrel napadisilate group, which decreased by -7.8 more than in the clopidogrel bisulfate group (65.3 ± 62.1); but the difference between the two groups was statistically insignificant (p = 0.435). There was no significant difference in the drug-related adverse events between the two groups (12.3 vs. 10.1 %; p = 0.804).

CONCLUSION

The platelet inhibitory efficacy of clopidogrel napadisilate is not inferior to that of clopidogrel bisulfate. There were also no statistically significant differences between the two treatment groups in the safety analyses. Therefore, clopidogrel napadisilate can be a suitable alternative to clopidogrel bisulfate in stable CAD patients who have undergone a drug-eluting stent placement.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT01830491.

The Utility of Platelet and Coagulation Testing of Antithrombotics: Fusing Science with Patient Care

[Table: see text] There is an increasing need for the standardization of platelet function and coagulation testing for the assessment of antithrombotic therapies. Investigators continue to strive to identify ideal laboratory testing and monitoring procedures for acquired and inherited platelet function defects as well as for evaluating patient status when treated with existing or emerging antithrombotics. These therapies are used primarily in the treatment of ischemic complications. In patients receiving antithrombotic therapy, the balance between hemostasis and thrombosis is a challenge as there is an ongoing risk for bleeding when patients are receiving antiplatelet agents or anticoagulants to lessen their risk for secondary thrombotic events. There are several diverse tests for monitoring anticoagulant therapy; however, as new agents are developed, more specific tests will be required to directly assess these agents in relationship to overall coagulation status. Research in the platelet biology field is ongoing to provide point-of-care methodologies for the assessment of platelet reactivity in terms of both bleeding and thrombosis risk. Currently there are no instruments that reliably assess the risk of bleeding. The challenges that routinely faced are the complexity of physiology, the need for standardization of platelet testing methodology, and the necessity for appropriate interpretation of the test results.