Interstitial pneumonia induced by ticlopidine

Clopidogrel-Induced Interstitial Lung Disease: A Case Report

In patients, with cerebral infarction resulting from intracranial arterial stenosis, the combined administration of clopidogrel and aspirin may be needed for to prevent subsequent ischemic attacks. Clopidogrel has an inevitable adverse effect profile, and the most common complications are related to hemorrhagic propensity. A 79-year-old female patient had used aspirin (100 mg/day) for cerebral infarction and then a dual antiplatelet regimen of aspirin and clopidogrel (75 mg/day) because of severe stenosis in both anterior cerebral arteries. Two weeks later, the patient presented with dyspnea started 3 days ago, which had worsened in the last 24 hours. Chest computed tomography on admission showed symmetric peribronchial ground-glass opacity with reticulation in both lungs. Microorganism tests, including serology and bronchoalveolar lavage for infection, were all negative. Clopidogrel was withdrawn because of suspected clopidogrel-induced interstitial lung disease, and steroid treatment was initiated. Clinical signs and chest radiographs improved after steroid treatment, and she was discharged on day 21 of admission. This case report shows that clopidogrel can induce interstitial lung disease as a rare complication and underscores the importance of recognizing this adverse effect in clinical practice.

A joint allergist/cardiologist classification for thienopyridines hypersensitivity reactions based on their symptomatic patterns and its impact on the management strategies

The role and importance of thienopyridines such as ticlopidine, clopidogrel, and prasugrel is well-established for several indications, ranging from prevention of acute coronary syndromes to percutaneous coronary interventions, where the dual antiplatelet therapy represents the gold standard to avoid denovo coronary stenosis. However, there is a significant cohort of patients with coronary artery disease who may manifest hypersensitivity reactions to thienopyridines. The examination of the various case reports from medical literature leads to identify mainly four clinical patterns of hypersensitivity to thienopyridines which involves more frequently cutaneous, hematologic, and articular tissues, therefore the kind and predominance of clinical symptoms may determine a different clinical approach to overcome or neutralize thienopyridines hypersensitivity.

Randomized Comparison of Cilostazol vs Ticlopidine for Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Stenting

BACKGROUND

Cilostazol and ticlopidine are commonly prescribed for prevention of thrombosis after coronary stenting, but few studies have compared them.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the present study 642 patients who underwent stenting were randomized to treatment either with cilostazol + aspirin (C group, 321 patients) or ticlopidine + aspirin (T group, 321 patients). Quantitative coronary angiography (QCA) was performed immediately after stenting and at the 6-month follow-up. Treatment was continued until follow-up angiography. Baseline patient characteristics did not differ significantly. With the exception of a higher rate of stenting in a venous graft in the C group, there were no differences in angiographic characteristics or stent type. Baseline QCA analysis of the reference diameter, minimal lumen diameter (MLD) showed no significant differences. Follow-up QCA analysis of the MLD showed no significant differences. There were also no differences in restenosis or target lesion revascularization rates, or in the incidence of adverse reactions. However, the rate of subacute thrombosis (SAT) was significantly higher in the C group than in the T group (2% vs 0.3%, p=0.02).

CONCLUSION

In the present study there was a similar restenosis rate with cilostazol or ticlopidine, but the rate of SAT was significantly higher with cilostazol. There was no significant difference in adverse reactions.

Effects of Antiplatelet Agents on Subacute Thrombosis and Restenosis After Successful Coronary Stenting-A Randomized Comparison of Ticlopidine and Cilostazol-

BACKGROUND

A prospective randomized study compared the preventive effects of ticlopidine plus aspirin therapy versus cilostazol plus aspirin therapy on subacute thrombosis (SAT) and restenosis after coronary stenting.

METHODS AND RESULTS

After successful stenting of 327 coronary lesions in 282 consecutive patients, the patients were randomized to receive ticlopidine (200 mg/day) or cilostazol (200 mg/day). Aspirin (81 mg/day) was administered concomitantly in both groups. SAT occurred in 1 patient in the ticlopidine group (0.7%) and in 8 patients in the cilostazol group (5.6%, p=0.037). Based on follow-up angiography, restenosis occurred in 30 patients (23.3%) in the ticlopidine group and 35 patients (26.9%) in the cilostazol group (NS). The late loss was significantly smaller in the cilostazol group than the ticlopidine group (1.08+/-0.95 mm vs 0.78+/-0.93 mm, respectively, p=0.037). No significant differences between the 2 groups were observed with respect to the rates of total death, non-fatal cardiovascular events, or bleeding complications.

CONCLUSION

The ticlopidine group showed significantly less SAT after stenting compared with the cilostazol group. After 6 months of treatment, the inhibition of neointimal proliferation was greater in the cilostazol group than in the ticlopidine group, but the prevention of restenosis was not confirmed.