Skip to main content

Ticagrelor Tops Prasugrel in Pharmacodynamic Study


July 9, 2012 (Patras, Greece) — The first direct pharmacodynamic comparison of two new antiplatelet agents, prasugrel (Effient, Lilly/Daiichi-Sanyo) and ticagrelor (Brilinta/Brilique, AstraZeneca), has found that ticagrelor produces greater platelet inhibition than prasugrel but that both agents would be effective alternatives if a patient is resistant to clopidogrel [1].
"We found that ticagrelor is stronger than prasugrel; it provides lower platelet reactivity. However, both agents overcome clopidogrel resistance quite well," lead author Dr Dimitrios Alexopoulos (Patras University Hospital, Patras, Greece) told heartwire . He and his colleagues report their findings in the July 17, 2012 issue of theJournal of the American College of Cardiology.
The results of the small crossover study, which lasted only 30 days, also show that patients can be switched from prasugrel to ticagrelor, and vice versa, which has not previously been investigated, says Alexopoulos.
In certain situations, we may choose the stronger agent [ticagrelor], but we can achieve very low levels of platelet reactivity with both.
He says the findings will not really change his practice. "In certain situations, we may choose the stronger agent [ticagrelor]--for example, in those patients with renal failure or those with ST-elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] with a high thrombus burden. But we can achieve very low levels of platelet reactivity with both, and we did not see any bleeding events. It's difficult from a pharmacodynamic study to draw any clear clinical implications."
He adds that he will still opt for a particular new agent "based mostly on what we know from the big [pivotal] trials, TRITON TIMI 38 and PLATO. Each agent has specific contraindications--you cannot use prasugrel in patients with low weight or in older patients." On the other hand, he continues, doctors are cautioned against the use of ticagrelor in those with bradycardia or severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [COPD].
New Platelet Reactivity Thresholds for Ischemia and Bleeding Required
In the study, 44 patients with ACS who had high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) while on clopidogrel 24 hours after PCI were randomized to either 90 mg of ticagrelor twice daily or prasugrel 10 mg once daily for 15 days with a crossover directly to the alternative treatment for another 15 days. HTPR was defined as platelet reactivity units (PRU) of >235 as assessed by the VerifyNow P2Y12-function assay (Accumetrics).
The primary end point of platelet reactivity at the end of the two treatment periods was lower for ticagrelor, at 32.9 PRU, compared with prasugrel, at 101.3 PRU (p<0.001). No patient exhibited a major bleeding event in either treatment group; ticagrelor was more frequently accompanied by mild side effects such as allergic reactions, dyspepsia, and new-onset/worsening dyspnea.
The fact that both new agents can achieve very low levels of platelet reactivity "means we should probably search for new, lower thresholds for both ischemia and bleeding," says Alexopoulos.
Currently, the ischemic threshold is considered to be 208 PRU, and "almost all our patients achieved values below this threshold, but still the patients did get some ischemic events," he noted.
Meanwhile, bleeding thresholds in clopidogrel-treated patients are considered to be <190 PRU preintervention and <85 at one month postintervention to predict bleeding outcomes. "But we got very low values, around 30 to 40, and nobody had bleeding. I think that new thresholds need to be identified for these agents."
Alexopoulos and colleagues add that "further studies are needed to elucidate whether the pharmacodynamic difference observed translates into differences in clinical efficacy or safety." To heartwire , however, Alexopoulos acknowledged "a real clinical comparison of the two agents"--a head-to-head clinical trial--would probably not be funded by either manufacturer and therefore is unlikely to happen unless an alternative sponsor can be found.
Alexopoulos has received speaker fees from Sanofi, Pharmaserve/Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, and Boehringer Ingelheim. All other authors have no disclosures.

Comments

  1. Anonymous21 April 2013 at 19:35

    Many individuals are starting to utilize Home Blood Pressure Monitors machines. This is in part due to the increasing insurance premiums and high health care costs. Blood pressure complications, such as hypertension has the ability to damage the body in a silent manner for many years before an individual even realizes what is happening

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Missing Data Lead FDA Panel to Vote Against Rivaroxaban for ACS May 23, 2012 (Updated May 24, 2012) (Silver Spring, Maryland) — The missing data issues plaguing the ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51 trial of the factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the FDA Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting, the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus clopidogrel, or ticlopidine. Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the ATLAS ACS TIMI 46 phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the risk of bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage, but the studies were hindered by early patient withdrawals and missing data. We Don't Know What We're Missing Based on the ATLAS ACS 2 results, FDA reviewer Dr Karen Hicks recommended approval of rivaroxaban for the requested indications except all-cause mortality. However, another FDA reviewer, Dr Thomas Marciniak, was adamant that the trial results are not interpretable because about 12% of the patients had incomplete follow-up, far higher than the 1% to 1.5% differences in the end-point rates between rivaroxaban and placebo. A total of 1294 subjects discontinued the trial prematurely, and the company was only able to contact 183, of which 177 were confirmed to be alive. Because of the patient dropouts, the company adopted a "modified intention-to-treat analysis," whereby patients were observed for 30 days after randomization or the global end date for the trial, instead of observing all the patients until the end of the trial as the FDA originally suggested. Marciniak criticized the sponsor's efforts to follow the patients and said that three patient deaths not counted in the modified intention-to-treat analysis may just be the "tip of the iceberg." Because the percentage of patients whose ultimate vital status remains unknown is much greater than the reported differences in mortality rates, the claimed mortality benefits are not reliable. The majority of the panel sided with Marciniak. For example, Dr Sanjay Kaul (University of California, Los Angeles) voted "no" because "there was enough uncertainty in the quality and robustness of the data that dissuaded me from voting yes. . . . The 'missingness' of the data doesn't invalidate it, but it certainly makes it hard to infer [the conclusion]." Dr Steven Nissen (Cleveland Clinic, OH) said that the decision to use the modified intention-to-treat analysis had a "profound impact" on the interpretability of the data. "It's saying we don't care what happens after 30 days, [and] that colored the trial in ways we couldn't recover from." Given the risk of major bleeding, "I want to see better evidence that this strategy of adding an Xa inhibitor or a direct thrombin inhibitor or something else to a good antiplatelet agent is robustly better for the patient," Nissen said. He recommends that the companies run a new trial of the 2.5 twice-daily dose of rivaroxaban using a strict intention-to-treat approach, but, he said, "I don't expect the death benefit to be too robust." Several panelists said they were concerned that the patients who dropped out of the trial were disproportionately likely to have a bleeding event, which led them to quit the trial, or a "protopathic" event, as statistician Dr Scott Emerson (University of Washington, Seattle) put it. "We're worried that an impending event is what is changing their behavior. We see that all the time in clinical trials--that regularly measured end points do not pick up [all of] the events," he said. He said that since the company was only able to contact 183 of the over 1200 patients who dropped out, it is possible that the dropouts skew the outcomes comparison of the trial. "Differential event rates after dropout are the number-one thing we're afraid of, so you have to explore it" in a statistical sensitivity analysis of the potential impact of these unknown outcomes. "It would not surprise me if, at the end of the day, these data did not hold up under a proper sensitivity analysis," he said. "What I want to know is, among the people who had events, how differential was the follow-up, but I can tell you by just looking at it, there was a very slightly different amount of follow-up of the people in the treatment arm. But I don't know whether everyone in the treatment arm was cured and they were trekking in the Himalayas and everyone in the placebo arm went home to die. I don't know that that's not the case." Dr Maury Krantz (University of Colorado, Denver) voted in favor of approval but said he does not know how rivaroxaban would perform in general clinical practice, especially when used with aspirin and clopidogrel. "I felt very much torn by this. This isn't a simple paradigm shift. It means going to triple therapy, which is really a three-headed monster in many ways. I think that what you're going to see in practice, if this is not done carefully with the proper labeling and secondary studies, is really dramatic magnification of bleeding and perhaps minimization of the efficacy benefit."

May 23, 2012   (Updated May 24, 2012)  (Silver Spring, Maryland)  —  The missing data issues plaguing the  ATLAS ACS 2 TIMI 51   trial of the factor Xa inhibitor  rivaroxaban  (Xarelto, Bayer Healthcare/Janssen Pharmaceuticals) have prevented the drug from earning the endorsement of the  FDA  Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee. At its May 23 meeting , the panel voted six to four (with one abstention) against recommending that the FDA approve rivaroxaban for reducing the risk of thrombotic cardiovascular events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or unstable angina in combination with aspirin, aspirin plus  clopidogrel , or  ticlopidine . Janssen's application is based on the results of the ATLAS ACS 2 phase 3 and the  ATLAS ACS TIMI 46   phase 2 trial. The placebo-controlled ATLAS ACS 2 showed rivaroxaban reduced the risk of both all-cause and cardiovascular mortality while increasing the ri...
Post a Comment
Read more

Antidepressants Linked to Higher Diabetes Risk in Kids

Pediatric patients who use antidepressants may have an elevated risk for type 2 diabetes, the authors of a new study report. In a retrospective cohort study of more than 119,000 youths 5 to 20 years of age, the risk for incident type 2 diabetes was nearly twice as high among current users of certain types of antidepressants as among former users, Mehmet Burcu, PhD, and colleagues report in an article  published online October 16 in  JAMA Pediatrics . The risk intensified with increasing duration of use, greater cumulative doses, and higher daily doses of these antidepressants. The findings point to a growing need for closer monitoring of these products, including greater balancing of risks and benefits, in the pediatric population, the authors caution. They undertook the study because, despite growing evidence of an association between antidepressant use and an increased risk for type 2 diabetes in adults, similar research in pediatric patients was scarce. "To our know...
Post a Comment
Read more

Sitting at Work Raises All-Cause and CV Mortality Risk

May 21, 2012 (Lyon, France) — Sitting at work raises the risk of dying from cardiovascular (CV) and metabolic diseases, as well as the risk of dying from all causes, regardless of any exercise in which the individual may engage. That was the finding of a study reported here at the 19th European Congress on Obesity (ECO) by Anne Grunseit, PhD, from the Prevention Research Collaboration in the School of Public Health at the University of Sydney, Australia, and Norwegian colleagues. Research is increasingly focusing on sedentary behavior with low energy expenditure, including sitting and lying down, as behavioral risk factors for obesity and chronic disease. Sitting occurs during travel, while watching television, using computers, and reading. But with people often spending at least 9 hours a day at work, with fewer than 20% of jobs requiring physical exertion, and with many people spending at least 4 hours a day sitting at work, the sedentary time at work is high, and many people ar...
Post a Comment
Read more