Ticagrelor Therapy Modifications after Acute Coronary Syndrome: An Ever-Evolving Issue

Treatment Modifications in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients Treated with Ticagrelor: Insights from the FORCE-ACS Registry

The use of an oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitor in adjunct to aspirin, known as dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), is the cornerstone of antithrombotic therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS).[1] Ticagrelor has emerged as one of the most commonly utilized oral P2Y₁₂ inhibitors in light of its established efficacy and favorable safety profile.[1] [2] However, the efficacy of ticagrelor-based DAPT is limited by treatment modifications that are common in clinical practice, with approximately 25% of patients discontinuing ticagrelor prematurely.[3] The reasons for these modifications can be diverse and include changes based on physician or patient decisions due to bleeding, drug-related side effects, need for oral anticoagulation, need for surgery, costs, and poor adherence.[4] [5] Dyspnea can occur in approximately 20% of patients taking ticagrelor, leading to treatment cessation in about one-third of cases.[3] Together, these factors explain the higher incidence of nonadherence to ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel.[3] Modifications in ticagrelor therapy after ACS may have relevant impact on ischemic and bleeding events, which depends on the reason, type, and timing of such modifications.[3] [4] The perspective from which this topic is approached is according to the traditional concept of DAPT, which considers ticagrelor as an adjunctive, temporary therapy on a background of chronic aspirin.[3] However, it is important to note that a strategy of ticagrelor monotherapy after 1 to 3 months of DAPT has recently been shown to be safe and effective after ACS.[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Overall, understanding the patterns and implications of ticagrelor modifications after ACS in contemporary practice is of considerable interest.

In a new study published in Thrombosis and Haemostasis, van der Sangen and colleagues[11] evaluated the incidence and clinical implications of treatment modifications in 4,278 patients with ACS who were discharged on ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily (combined with aspirin in 98% of cases) using data from the FORCE-ACS registry. The FORCE-ACS is a prospective registry of nine Dutch hospitals, including consecutive patients with ACS since 2015. The mean age of the study population was 63 years old, 26% were female, and around 20% of patients were at high bleeding risk.[11] Patients were treated according to guideline recommendations, with nearly all undergoing coronary angiography and 80.1% undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In FORCE-ACS,[11] the most common reason for ticagrelor modification (26.7% of patients) was physician-recommended discontinuation after completion of the intended treatment period, at a median time of 357 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 298–365). Another common reason for ticagrelor modification (20.1% of patients) was treatment alteration, defined as a switch from ticagrelor to another P2Y₁₂ inhibitor. This was most often a switch to clopidogrel within 6 months after ACS (median time, 73 days [IQR 38–149]), usually because of dyspnea (47.2%), new indication for oral anticoagulation (8.3%), bleeding (7.6%), or other side effects (15.8%). Less frequent reasons for ticagrelor modification were interruption (e.g., temporary cessation with planned resumption within 14 days), which occurred in 2.8% of patients, mostly due to surgery, and disruption (e.g., cessation due to bleeding or noncompliance), which occurred in 3.1% of cases, mostly due to bleeding or dyspnea. Both ticagrelor interruption and disruption generally occurred between 6 and 12 months after ACS.

In FORCE-ACS, modalities of ticagrelor modification affected outcomes differently.[11] At 12 months, the incidence of ischemic events (e.g., death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) was 6.6% in the overall population, with 20.1% of these events occurring in patients with ticagrelor modification. After adjustment for measured confounders, physician-recommended discontinuation and alteration were not associated with an increased risk of ischemic events compared with ticagrelor continuation.[11] These results are reassuring and suggest that treatment modulation based on the clinical considerations of the treating physician and de-escalation to clopidogrel early after ACS are safe, consistent with the evidence from observational studies[12] [13] and randomized trials.[14] [15] Conversely, ticagrelor interruption and disruption were associated with a more than 2-fold increased risk of ischemic events.[11] These situations appear less controllable, especially when poor patient compliance is the underlying cause. In these cases, the lack of oversight by the treating physician likely explains the observed increased risk of ischemic events.

The present analysis from the FORCE-ACS[11] and previous reports[3] address the important issue of ticagrelor therapy modifications in patients treated with DAPT after ACS, discussing current barriers and potential solutions. Noteworthy, treatment modification may become even more problematic in patients on ticagrelor monotherapy, for whom there are no standardized recommendations (e.g., in the case of surgery) and data are limited to randomized trials. In the GLOBAL LEADERS trial,[16] [17] which compared ticagrelor monotherapy from 1 month with standard of care after PCI, 18% of patients in the experimental arm and 15% of patients on ticagrelor in the control arm did not adhere to ticagrelor at 1 year. Dyspnea was the most common reason for nonadherence, but its occurrence did not affect the efficacy or safety of ticagrelor monotherapy compared with standard therapy.[18] The trial protocol provided specific guidance in case of ticagrelor discontinuation due to side effects, recommending prasugrel, if indicated, or clopidogrel, in case of elective PCI or contraindications to prasugrel.[16] In the case of surgery while on ticagrelor monotherapy, the protocol also recommended an algorithm of restarting aspirin (75–100 mg once daily), stopping ticagrelor at least 72 hours before surgery, and resuming ticagrelor monotherapy as soon as possible in the postoperative period.[16] In the TWILIGHT trial,[19] which compared ticagrelor plus placebo with ticagrelor plus aspirin from 3 months after PCI, nonadherence to ticagrelor at 1 year after randomization was similar in the experimental and control groups (12.9 and 14.1%, respectively). In a trial subanalysis,[20] dyspnea led to permanent discontinuation of ticagrelor in approximately 1 in 10 patients enrolled (9.1%) and was more common within 3 months (6.4%) than between 3 and 15 months after PCI (2.8%). Among randomized patients who discontinued ticagrelor due to dyspnea (in most cases switching to clopidogrel), ticagrelor monotherapy was not associated with a higher risk of ischemic events compared with ticagrelor plus aspirin (5.0 vs. 7.1%; p = 0.56).[20] Of note, in TWILIGHT, a standardized algorithm to manage ticagrelor-related dyspnea was provided, including patient counselling, concomitant caffeine intake, and a brief “drug-holiday” from ticagrelor switching to another P2Y₁₂ inhibitor.[19]

Data from randomized trials of ticagrelor monotherapy suggest that (1) side effects requiring ticagrelor discontinuation (e.g., dyspnea)[21] occur more often early after PCI, when aspirin is concomitantly administered, (2) patient counselling and standardized algorithms can be useful to minimize ticagrelor discontinuation and to provide guidance when it occurs, and (3) withdrawing aspirin and continuing ticagrelor alone after 1 to 3 months of DAPT is safe, despite a non-negligible proportion of patients may experience adverse events leading to subsequent ticagrelor discontinuation.[16] [17] [18] [19] [20] However, the safety and efficacy of ticagrelor treatment modifications when used as monotherapy in real-world practice, outside the more rigorous oversight that occurs in randomized trials, remains unknown.

In the evolving field of ticagrelor-based regimens after ACS, the FORCE-ACS registry not only provides important real-world evidence on patterns of ticagrelor therapy modifications in the context of standard DAPT, but also highlights the need for more evidence to clarify the clinical implications and optimal management of ticagrelor modifications when this agent is used as monotherapy ([Fig. 1]). Appropriate patient selection and education, regular follow-up visits, and careful implementation of bleeding avoidance strategies should be targeted as key aspects to reduce nonadherence and maximize the benefits of ticagrelor after ACS (with or without aspirin) in current clinical practice.

Fig. 1 Strategies to improve adherence to ticagrelor therapy after acute coronary syndrome. ACS, acute coronary syndrome.

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 23. Oktober 2024

Angenommen: 23. Oktober 2024

Accepted Manuscript online:
24. Oktober 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
18. November 2024

• References

• 1 Byrne RA, Rossello X, Coughlan JJ. et al; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2023 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2023; 44 (38) 3720-3826
• 2 Koch T, Lahu S, Coughlan JJ. et al. Association between platelet count and treatment effect of ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Thromb Haemost 2023; 123 (04) 464-477
• 3 Arora S, Shemisa K, Vaduganathan M. et al. Premature ticagrelor discontinuation in secondary prevention of atherosclerotic CVD: JACC review topic of the week. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 73 (19) 2454-2464
• 4 Capodanno D, Angiolillo DJ. Timing, selection, modulation, and duration of P2Y₁₂ inhibitors for patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing PCI. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2023; 16 (01) 1-18
• 5 Galli M, Gragnano F, Berteotti M. et al; Working Group of Thrombosis of the Italian Society of Cardiology. Antithrombotic therapy in high bleeding risk, part I: percutaneous cardiac interventions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2024; 17 (19) 2197-2215
• 6 Valgimigli M, Hong S-J, Gragnano F. et al; Single Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (Sidney-4) collaborator group. De-escalation to ticagrelor monotherapy versus 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with and without acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and individual patient-level meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet 2024; 404 (10456): 937-948
• 7 Valgimigli M, Gragnano F, Branca M. et al; Single Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (Sidney-3) Collaboration. Ticagrelor or clopidogrel monotherapy vs dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and patient-level meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol 2024; 9 (05) 437-448
• 8 Gragnano F, Cao D, Pirondini L. et al; PANTHER Collaboration. P2Y₁₂ inhibitor or aspirin monotherapy for secondary prevention of coronary events. J Am Coll Cardiol 2023; 82 (02) 89-105
• 9 Gragnano F, Mehran R, Branca M. et al; Single Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (Sidney-2) Collaboration. P2Y₁₂ inhibitor monotherapy or dual antiplatelet therapy after complex percutaneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2023; 81 (06) 537-552
• 10 Galli M, Laudani C, Occhipinti G. et al. P2Y12 inhibitor monotherapy after short DAPT in acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother 2024; 10 (07) 588-598
• 11 van der Sangen N, Azzahhafi J, Chan Pin Yin DRPP. et al. Treatment modifications in ticagrelor-treated patients: insights from the FORCE-ACS registry. Thromb Haemost 2024 (e-pub ahead of print).
• 12 Mehran R, Baber U, Steg PG. et al. Cessation of dual antiplatelet treatment and cardiac events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PARIS): 2 year results from a prospective observational study. Lancet 2013; 382 (9906): 1714-1722
• 13 Kim SH, Shin S, Choo EH. et al; TALOS-AMI investigators. Clinical impact of dyspnea after ticagrelor treatment and the effect of switching to clopidogrel in patients with myocardial infarction. Thromb Haemost 2024
• 14 Capodanno D, Mehran R, Krucoff MW. et al. Defining strategies of modulation of antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: a consensus document from the Academic Research Consortium. Circulation 2023; 147 (25) 1933-1944
• 15 Gorog DA, Jeyalan V, Markides RIL, Navarese EP, Jeong YH, Farag M. Comparison of de-escalation of DAPT intensity or duration in East Asian and Western patients with ACS undergoing PCI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Thromb Haemost 2023; 123 (08) 773-792
• 16 Vranckx P, Valgimigli M, Jüni P. et al; GLOBAL LEADERS Investigators. Ticagrelor plus aspirin for 1 month, followed by ticagrelor monotherapy for 23 months vs aspirin plus clopidogrel or ticagrelor for 12 months, followed by aspirin monotherapy for 12 months after implantation of a drug-eluting stent: a multicentre, open-label, randomised superiority trial. Lancet 2018; 392 (10151): 940-949
• 17 Gragnano F, Zwahlen M, Vranckx P. et al; GLOBAL LEADERS Investigators. Ticagrelor monotherapy or dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation: per-protocol analysis of the Global Leaders Trial. J Am Heart Assoc 2022; 11 (10) e024291
• 18 Tomaniak M, Chichareon P, Takahashi K. et al; GLOBAL LEADERS Study Investigators. Impact of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and dyspnoea on clinical outcomes in ticagrelor treated patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the randomized GLOBAL LEADERS trial. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother 2020; 6 (04) 222-230
• 19 Mehran R, Baber U, Sharma SK. et al. Ticagrelor with or without aspirin in high-risk patients after PCI. N Engl J Med 2019; 381 (21) 2032-2042
• 20 Angiolillo DJ, Cao D, Sartori S. et al. Dyspnea-related ticagrelor discontinuation after percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2023; 16 (20) 2514-2524
• 21 Geisler T. Editorial: “Clinical impact of dyspnea after ticagrelor treatment and the effect of switching to clopidogrel in patients with myocardial infarction”. Thromb Haemost 2024