Download PDF
Thromb Haemost 2013; 110(01): 5-10
DOI: 10.1160/TH13-02-0142
Current Controversies
Schattauer GmbH

Viewpoint: Mismatch between the European and American guidelines on oral antiplatelet P2Y12 inhibitors after acute coronary syndromes

Victor L. Serebruany
1   HeartDrug Research Laboratories, Johns Hopkins University, Osler Medical Building, Towson, Maryland, USA
,
James J. DiNicolantonio
2   Wegmans Pharmacy, Ithaca, New York, USA
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Received: 18 February 2013

Accepted after major revision: 08 April 2013

Publication Date:
30 November 2017 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Summary

Recent European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines declare superiority of prasugrel and ticagrelor over clopidogrel in non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and STEMI patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). The recommendations for NSTEMI and especially STEMI are based on a subgroup analyses yielded from a single trial with either prasugrel (TRITON), or ticagrelor (PLATO). In contrast, the United States (US) Guidelines present a more balanced, conservative, and evidence-based outlook suggesting no proven extra benefit of one P2Y12 antagonist over the other(s). It was the purpose of this study to scrutinise the evidence leading to the current ESC ACS Guidelines on oral antiplatelet agents and compare them with US recommendations. Matching the evidence from TRITON and PLATO primary publications with the data reported in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) official reviews in light of their impact on current regional ACS Guidelines on antiplatelet P2Y12 inhibitors. The available body of evidence on the efficacy and safety of the new oral P2Y12 inhibitors challenge the ESC Guidelines, and supports the US recommendations. Some of the pivotal data with regard to the newer P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel and ticagrelor) on event definition, adjudication, questionable efficacy, and serious safety concerns were ignored by the European Task Force Members, while the other “beneficial” findings were exaggerated to a disproportional extent. We conclude that current ESC Guidelines, with regard to their recommendation of superiority of prasugrel or ticagrelor over clopidogrel, in contrast to the US, are overoptimistic, and not evidence based. Low clinical utilisation of prasugrel and especially ticagrelor worldwide in general, and Europe in particular suggests mismatch of prescription habits with issued ESC recommendations.

Keywords

Prasugrel - ticagrelor - clopidogrel - clinical trials - guidelines

Refers to:

Differences between ACC/AHA and ESC Guidelines on antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromesThromb Haemost 2013; 110(07): 11-13
DOI: 10.1160/TH13-06-0453

 

  • References

  • 1 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 presentingwithout persistent ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2011; 32: 2999-3054.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Steg PG, James SK, Atar D. et al. ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG). ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force on the management of ST-segment elevation acute myocardial infarction of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2012; 33: 2569-2619.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Wijns W, Kolh P, Danchin N. et al. Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 2010; 31: 2501-2555.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 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
  • 5 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. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013; 61: e78-e140.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Wiviott SD, McCabe BraunwaldE. et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2001-2015.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A. et al. the PLATO Investigators. Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 1045-1057.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Yusuf S, Zhao F, Mehta SR. et al. Effects of clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 494-502.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Steinhubl SR, Berger PB, Mann 3rd JT. et al. Early and sustained dual oral antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Med Assoc 2002; 288: 2411-2420.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 COMMIT Collaborative Group. Addition of clopidogrel to aspirin in 45852 patients with acute myocardial infarction: randomized placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366: 1607-1621.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Mehta SR, Tanguay JF, Eikelboom JW. et al. Double-dose versus standard-dose clopidogrel and high-dose versus low-dose aspirin in individuals undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes (CURRENT-OASIS 7): a randomised factorial trial. Lancet 2010; 376: 1233-1243.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Prasugrel Secondary Review. Available for download at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/09/brief ing/2009-4412b1-00-FDA.htm Accessed March 3, 2013.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA ticagrelor review of complete response. Available for download at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drug satfda_docs/nda/2011/022433Orig1s000TOC.cfm Accessed March 3, 2013.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Serebruany VL. Excess rates of nonfatal myocardial infarctions in the TRITON trial: Preventing clinical events or chasing ensimatic ghosts?. Am J Cardiol 2008; 101: 1364-1366.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Serebruany VL. Prasugrel and cancer risks: Potential causes and implications. Am J Med 2009; 122: 407-408.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Serebruany VL. Paradoxical excess mortality in the PLATO trial should be independently verified. Thromb Haemost 2011; 105: 752-759.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Serebruany VL, Atar D. Viewpoint: Central adjudication of myocardial infarction in outcome-driven clinical trials - Common patterns in TRITON, RECORD, and PLATO?. Thromb Haemost 2012; 108: 412-414.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Verheugt FW. Outcomes of positive randomised controlled clinical trials: Double-blind or double vision?. Thromb Haemost 2012; 108: 410-411.
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 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
  • 20 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
  • 21 Collet JP, Cuisset T, Rangé G. et al. ARCTIC Investigators. Bedside monitoring to adjust antiplatelet therapy for coronary stenting. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 2100-2109.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Montalescot G, Bolognese L, Dudek D. et al. A comparison of prasugrel at the time of percutaneous coronary intervention or as pretreatment at the time of diagnosis in patients with non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: design and rationale for the ACCOAST study. Am Heart J 2011; 161: 650-656.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Montalescot G, Wiviott SD, Braunwald E. et al. Prasugrel compared with clopidogrel in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (TRITON TIMI38): double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2009; 373: 723-731.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Steg PG, James S, Harrington RA. et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes intended for reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial subgroup analysis. Circulation 2010; 122: 2131-2141.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Lancet 1988; 02: 349-360.
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Peters RJ, Joyner C, Bassand JP. et al. OASIS-6 investigators. The role of fondaparinux as an adjunct to thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction: a subgroup analysis of the OASIS-6 trial. Eur Heart J 2008; 29: 324-331.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Storey RF, Becker RC, Harrington RA. et al. Characterization of dyspnoea in PLATO study patients treated with ticagrelor or clopidogrel and its association with clinical outcomes. Eur Heart J 2011; 32: 2945-2953.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 James SK, Roe MT, Cannon CP. et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes intended for noninvasive management: substudy from prospective randomised PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Br Med J 2011; 342: d3527.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 James S, Budaj A, Aylward P. et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in acute coronary syndromes in relation to renal function: results from the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Circulation 2010; 122: 1056-1067.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 James S, Angiolillo DJ, Cornel JH. et al. Ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes and diabetes: a substudy from the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Eur Heart J 2010; 31: 3006-3016.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Goodman SG, Clare R, Pieper KS. et al. Association of Proton Pump Inhibitor Use on Cardiovascular Outcomes with Clopidogrel and Ticagrelor: Insights from PLATO. Circulation 2012; 125: 978-986.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Cornel JH, Becker RC, Goodman SG. et al. Prior smoking status, clinical outcomes, and the comparison of ticagrelor with clopidogrel in acute coronary syndromes-Insights from the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Am Heart J 2012; 164: 334-342.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Cannon C, Harrington R, James S. et al. the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) investigators. Ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in acute coronary syndromes patients with a planned invasive strategy (PLATO): a randomized double-blind study. Lancet 2010; 375: 283-293.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Held C, Asenblad N, Bassand JP. et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery results from the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 57: 672-684.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Varenhorst C, Alström U, Scirica BM. et al. Factors contributing to the lower mortality with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 60: 1623-1630.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Armstrong PW, Siha H, Fu Y. et al. ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes in the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial: insights from the ECG substudy. Circulation 2012; 125: 514-521.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Akerblom Å, Wallentin L, Siegbahn A. et al. Cystatin C and estimated glomerular filtration rate as predictors for adverse outcome in patients with ST-elevation and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: results from the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes study. Clin Chem 2012; 58: 190-199.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Storey RF, Becker RC, Harrington RA. et al. Pulmonary function in patients with acute coronary syndrome treated with ticagrelor or clopidogrel (from the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes [PLATO] pulmonary function substudy). Am J Cardiol 2011; 108: 1542-1546.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Eli Lilly and Company Quarterly Results. Available at http://investor.lilly.com/ results.cfm Accessed October 28, 2012.
    PubMed
  • 40 AstraZeneca PLC Media/Press Releases. Available at http://www.astrazeneca.com/Media/Press-releases/Article/20121025--astrazeneca-plc-third-quarter-results-2012 Accessed October 28, 2012.
    PubMed
  • 41 Roe MT, Armstrong PW, Fox KA. et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel for acute coronary syndromes without revascularization. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 1297-1309.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar