Download PDF
Thromb Haemost 2014; 112(02): 311-322
DOI: 10.1160/TH13-09-0747
Platelets and Blood Cells
Schattauer GmbH

Transferring from clopidogrel loading dose to prasugrel loading dose in acute coronary syndrome patients

High on-treatment platelet reactivity analysis of the TRIPLET trial
Jean G. Diodati
1   Division of Cardiology, Hopital du Sacre-Coeur de Montreal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada
,
Jorge F. Saucedo
2   Division of Cardiology, NorthShore University Health System, Evanston, Illinois, USA
,
Tracy E. Cardillo
3   Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
,
Joseph A. Jakubowski
3   Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
,
Carsten Henneges
4   Eli Lilly and Company, Bad Homburg, Germany
,
Mark B. Effron
3   Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
,
Fred R. Lipkin
5   Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Parsippany, New Jersey, USA
,
Joseph R. Walker
5   Daiichi Sankyo, Inc., Parsippany, New Jersey, USA
,
Suman Duvvuru
3   Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA
,
Scott S. Sundseth
6   Cabernet Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Durham, North Carolina, USA
,
Harold N. Fisher
7   Eli Lilly and Company, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
,
Dominick J. Angiolillo
8   Division of Cardiology, University of Florida College of Medicine-Jacksonville, Jacksonville, Florida, USA
› Author Affiliations Financial support: This analysis was sponsored by Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. and Eli Lilly and Company.
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 09 September 2013

Accepted after major revision: 27 February 2014

Publication Date:
04 December 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

High on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) has been identified as an independent risk factor for ischaemic events. The randomised, doubleblind, TRIPLET trial included a pre-defined comparison of HPR in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) following a placebo/600-mg clopidogrel loading dose (LD) immediately before a subsequent prasugrel 60-mg or 30-mg LD. Platelet reactivity was assessed using the VerifyNow® P2Y12 assay (P2Y12 Reaction Units, PRU) within 24 hours (h) following the placebo/clopidogrel LD (immediately prior to prasugrel LD), and at 2, 6, 24, 72 h following prasugrel LDs. The impact of CYP2C19 predicted metaboliser phenotype (extensive metaboliser [EM] and reduced metabolisers [RM]) on HPR status was also assessed. HPR (PRU ≥240) following the clopidogrel LD (prior to the prasugrel LD) was 58.5% in the combined clopidogrel LD groups. No significant difference was noted when stratified by time between the clopidogrel and prasugrel LDs (≤6 hs vs >6 h). At 6 h following the 2nd loading dose in the combined prasugrel LD groups, HPR was 7.1%, with 0% HPR by 72 h. There was no significant effect of CYP2C19 genotype on pharmacodynamic (PD) response following either prasugrel LD treatments at any time point, regardless of whether it was preceded by a clopidogrel 600-mg LD. In conclusion, in this study, patients with ACS intended for PCI showed a high prevalence of HPR after clopidogrel 600-mg LD regardless of metaboliser status. When prasugrel LD was added, HPR decreased substantially by 6 h, and was not seen by 72 h.

Keywords

Clopidogrel - prasugrel - acute coronary syndrome - platelet function - high on-treatment platelet reactivity
 

  • References

  • 1 Jneid H, Anderson JL, Wright RS. et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA focused update of the guideline for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (updating the 2007 guideline and replacing the 2011 focused update): a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/ American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60: 645-681.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 O’Gara PT, Kushner FG, Ascheim DD. et al. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 2013; 127: e362-e425.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N, Di MC, Falk V, Folliguet T. et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularisation. Eur Heart J 2010; 31: 2501-2555.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hamm CW, Bassand JP, Agewall S. et al. ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2011; 32: 2999-3054.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Tanguay JF, Bell AD, Ackman ML. et al. Focused 2012 update of the Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines for the use of antiplatelet therapy. Can J Cardiol 2013; 29: 1334-1345.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Diodati JG, Saucedo JF, French JK. et al. Effect on Platelet Reactivity From a Prasugrel Loading Dose After a Clopidogrel Loading Dose Compared With a Prasugrel Loading Dose Alone: Transferring From Clopidogrel Loading Dose to Prasugrel Loading Dose in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients (TRIPLET): A Randomized Controlled Trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2013; 06: 567-574.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bonello L, Pansieri M, Mancini J. et al. High on-treatment platelet reactivity after prasugrel loading dose and cardiovascular events after percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58: 467-473.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bonello L, Tantry US, Marcucci R. et al. Consensus and future directions on the definition of high on-treatment platelet reactivity to adenosine diphosphate. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56: 919-933.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Aradi D, Komocsi A, Vorobcsuk A. et al. Prognostic significance of high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity after percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis. Am Heart J 2010; 160: 543-551.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Angiolillo DJ, Fernandez-Ortiz A, Bernardo E. et al. Variability in individual responsiveness to clopidogrel: clinical implications, management, and future perspectives. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49: 1505-1516.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Wiviott SD, Trenk D, Frelinger AL. et al. Prasugrel compared with high loading-and maintenance-dose clopidogrel in patients with planned percutaneous coronary intervention: the Prasugrel in Comparison to Clopidogrel for Inhibition of Platelet Activation and Aggregation-Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 44 trial. Circulation 2007; 116: 2923-2932.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Bonello L, Berbis J, Laine M. et al. Biological efficacy of a 600 mg loading dose of clopidogrel in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Thromb Haemost 2012; 108: 101-106.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Ferreiro JL, Angiolillo DJ. Clopidogrel response variability: current status and future directions. Thromb Haemost 2009; 102: 7-14.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Gurbel PA, Tantry US. Clopidogrel resistance?. Thromb Res 2007; 120: 311-321.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Mega JL, Close SL, Wiviott SD. et al. Cytochrome P450 genetic polymorphisms and the response to prasugrel: relationship to pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and clinical outcomes. Circulation 2009; 119: 2553-2560.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Mega JL, Close SL, Wiviott SD. et al. Cytochrome p-450 polymorphisms and response to clopidogrel. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 354-362.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Brandt JT, Payne CD, Wiviott SD. et al. A comparison of prasugrel and clopidogrel loading doses on platelet function: magnitude of platelet inhibition is related to active metabolite formation. Am Heart J 2007; 153: 66-76.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Varenhorst C, James S, Erlinge D. et al. Genetic variation of CYP2C19 affects both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses to clopidogrel but not prasugrel in aspirin-treated patients with coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 2009; 30: 1744-1752.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Cuisset T, Loosveld M, Morange PE. et al. CYP2C19*2 and *17 Alleles Have a Significant Impact on Platelet Response and Bleeding Risk in Patients Treated With Prasugrel After Acute Coronary Syndrome. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2012; 05: 1280-1287.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Saucedo JF, Angiolillo DJ, Deraad R. et al. Decrease in high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) prevalence on switching from clopidogrel to prasugrel: insights from the switching anti-platelet (SWAP) study. Thromb Haemost 2013; 109: 347-355.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Trenk D, Stone GW, Gawaz M. et al. A randomized trial of prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with high platelet reactivity on clopidogrel after elective percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of drug-eluting stents: results of the TRIGGER-PCI (Testing Platelet Reactivity In Patients Undergoing Elective Stent Placement on Clopidogrel to Guide Alternative Therapy With Prasugrel) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59: 2159-2164.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Price MJ, Angiolillo DJ, Teirstein PS. et al. Platelet reactivity and cardiovascular outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention: a time-dependent analysis of the Gauging Responsiveness with a VerifyNow P2Y12 assay: Impact on Thrombosis and Safety (GRAVITAS) trial. Circulation 2011; 124: 1132-1137.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Tantry US, Bonello L, Aradi D. et al. Consensus and Update on the Definition of On-Treatment Platelet Reactivity to ADP Associated with Ischaemia and Bleeding. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 62: 2261-2273.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Jakubowski JA, Li YG, Small DS. et al. A Comparison of VerifyNow P2Y12 Point-of-Care Device and Light Transmission Aggregometry to Monitor Platelet Function with Prasugrel and Clopidogrel: An Integrated Analysis. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 2010; 56: 29-37.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Karolinska Institute. Human Cytochrome P450 (CYP) Allele Nomenclature. 2013 Available at: http://www.cypalleles.ki.se/ Accessed April 2, 2013.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Mega JL, Close SL, Wiviott SD. et al. Cytochrome p-450 polymorphisms and response to clopidogrel. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 354-362.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Parodi G, Valenti R, Bellandi B. et al. Comparison of Prasugrel and Ticagrelor Loading Doses in ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Patients: RAPID (Rapid Activity of Platelet Inhibitor Drugs) Primary PCI Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 61: 1601-1606.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Park DW, Ahn JM, Song HG. et al. Differential prognostic impact of high on-treatment platelet reactivity among patients with acute coronary syndromes versus stable coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Heart J 2013; 165: 34-42.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Price MJ, Nayak KR, Barker CM. et al. Predictors of heightened platelet reactivity despite dual-antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 2009; 103: 1339-1343.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Price MJ, Berger PB, Teirstein PS. et al. Standard- vs high-dose clopidogrel based on platelet function testing after percutaneous coronary intervention: the GRAVITAS randomized trial. J Am Med Assoc 2011; 305: 1097-1105.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Stone GW, Witzenbichler B, Weisz G. et al. Platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES): a prospective multicentre registry study. Lancet 2013; 382: 614-623.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Rollini F, Tello-Montoliu A, Angiolillo DJ. Advances in platelet function testing assessing bleeding complications in patients with coronary artery disease. Platelets 2012; 23: 537-551.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Cayla G, Cuisset T, Silvain J. et al. Prasugrel monitoring and bleeding in real world patients. Am J Cardiol 2013; 111: 38-44.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Damman P, Varenhorst C, Koul S. et al. Treatment Patterns and Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Treated With Prasugrel or Clopidogrel (from the Swedish Coronary Angiography and Angioplasty Registry [SCAAR]). Am J Cardiol 2013; 113: 64-69.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Michelson AD, Frelinger III AL, Braunwald E. et al. Pharmacodynamic assessment of platelet inhibition by prasugrel vs. clopidogrel in the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial. Eur Heart J 2009; 30: 1753-1763.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Bernlochner I, Mayer K, Morath T. et al. Antiplatelet efficacy of prasugrel in patients with high on-clopidogrel treatment platelet reactivity and a history of coronary stenting. Thromb Haemost 2013; 109: 517-524.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Bonello L, Mancini J, Pansieri M. et al. Relationship between post-treatment platelet reactivity and ischaemic and bleeding events at 1-year follow-up in patients receiving prasugrel. J Thromb Haemost 2012; 10: 1999-2005.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Montalescot G, Sideris G, Cohen R. et al. Prasugrel compared with high-dose clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome. The randomised, double-blind ACA-PULCO study. Thromb Haemost 2010; 103: 213-223.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Angiolillo DJ, Schneider DJ, Bhatt DL. et al. Pharmacodynamic effects of cangrelor and clopidogrel: the platelet function substudy from the cangrelor versus standard therapy to achieve optimal management of platelet inhibition (CHAMPION) trials. J Thromb Thrombolysis 2012; 34: 44-55.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar