Dataset Information

Pharmacodynamic effect of cilostazol plus standard clopidogrel versus double-dose clopidogrel in patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

ABSTRACT: To determine the effect of adding cilostazol (100 mg b.i.d.) to standard-dose clopidogrel (75 mg/d) (TRIPLE) compared with double-dose clopidogrel (150 mg/d) (DOUBLE) and the influence of the cytochrome P450 (CYP2C19*2/*3, CYP3A5*3)and ATP-binding cassette subfamily B1(ABCB1 C3435T) genetic polymorphisms in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients.T2DM patients were treated with TRIPLE (n = 41) or DOUBLE (n = 39) after percutaneous coronary intervention. Conventional aggregometry and VerifyNow were performed at baseline and at 30 days. The primary end point was absolute change in 20-?M ADP-induced maximal platelet aggregation (?MPA(20)) between baseline and switching values.TRIPLE versus DOUBLE showed greater ?MPA(20) (22.9 ± 11.6 vs.12.7 ± 15.5%; difference, 10.2% [95% CI 4.2-16.3]; P < 0.001). Carriage of one (? coefficient, -5.4%; P = 0.162) and two CYP2C19 loss-of-function allele(s) (-8.3%; P = 0.007) were associated with lower ?MPA(20) in DOUBLE-treated patients, but not in TRIPLE-treated patients.Among T2DM patients, adding cilostazol achieves greater platelet inhibition compared with clopidogrel (150 mg/d), which is not influenced by genetic polymorphisms.

SUBMITTER: Jeong YH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3476883 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pharmacodynamic effect of cilostazol plus standard clopidogrel versus double-dose clopidogrel in patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Jeong Young-Hoon YH Tantry Udaya S US Park Yongwhi Y Kwon Tae Jung TJ Park Jeong Rang JR Hwang Seok-Jae SJ Bliden Kevin P KP Koh Eun-Ha EH Kwak Choong Hwan CH Hwang Jin-Yong JY Kim Sunjoo S Gurbel Paul A PA

Diabetes care 20120726 11

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the effect of adding cilostazol (100 mg b.i.d.) to standard-dose clopidogrel (75 mg/d) (TRIPLE) compared with double-dose clopidogrel (150 mg/d) (DOUBLE) and the influence of the cytochrome P450 (CYP2C19*2/*3, CYP3A5*3)and ATP-binding cassette subfamily B1(ABCB1 C3435T) genetic polymorphisms in type 2 diabetes (T2DM) patients.<h4>Research design and methods</h4>T2DM patients were treated with TRIPLE (n = 41) or DOUBLE (n = 39) after percutaneous coronary interventi ...[more]

PMID: 22837373

Similar Datasets

Project description:Prior Studies have suggested better outcomes in smokers compared with nonsmokers receiving clopidogrel ("smoker's paradox"). The impact of a more intensive clopidogrel regimen on ischemic and bleeding risks in smokers with acute coronary syndromes requiring percutaneous coronary interventions remains unclear.We analyzed 17 263 acute coronary syndrome patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention from the CURRENT-OASIS 7 (Clopidogrel and Aspirin Optimal Dose Usage to Reduce Recurrent Events-Seventh Organization to Assess Strategies in Ischemic Symptoms) trial, which compared double-dose (600 mg day 1;150 mg days 2-7; then 75 mg daily) versus standard-dose (300 mg day 1; then 75 mg daily) clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome patients. The primary outcome was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 days. Interactions between treatment allocation and smoking status (current smokers versus nonsmokers) were evaluated. Overall, 6394 patients (37.0%) were current smokers. For the comparison of double- versus standard-dose clopidogrel, there were significant interactions in smokers and nonsmokers for the primary outcome (P=0.031) and major bleeding (P=0.002). Double- versus standard-dose clopidogrel reduced the primary outcome among smokers by 34% (hazard ratio [HR] 0.66, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.50-0.87, P=0.003), whereas in nonsmokers, there was no apparent benefit (HR 0.96, 95% CI, 0.80-1.14, P=0.61). For major bleeding, there was no difference between the groups in smokers (HR 0.77, 95% CI, 0.48-1.24, P=0.28), whereas in nonsmokers, the double-dose clopidogrel regimen increased bleeding (HR 1.89, 95% CI, 1.37-2.60, P<0.0001). Double-dose clopidogrel reduced the incidence of definite stent thrombosis in smokers (HR 0.41, 95% CI, 0.24-0.71) and nonsmokers (HR 0.63, 95% CI, 0.42-0.93; P for interaction=0.19).In smokers, a double-dose clopidogrel regimen reduced major cardiovascular events and stent thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention, with no increase in major bleeding. This suggests that clopidogrel dosing in patients with acute coronary syndromes should be personalized, taking into consideration both ischemic and bleeding risk.URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00335452.

Project description:BackgroundPotent P2Y12 inhibitors such as ticagrelor and prasugrel are superior to clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Whether this benefit extends to a patient population with chronic coronary syndromes (CCS) is unclear.AimsWe sought to compare the safety and efficacy of prasugrel and ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients undergoing PCI for CCS.MethodsConsecutive patients undergoing PCI for CCS at a tertiary centre between 2014 and 2019 who were discharged on prasugrel or ticagrelor were compared with those on clopidogrel. The primary endpoint was the composite of death and myocardial infarction (MI), with secondary outcomes including rates of bleeding, stroke, and target vessel revascularisation at 1 year.ResultsOverall, 11,508 patients were included in the study (ticagrelor/prasugrel n=2,860 [24.9%], clopidogrel n=8,648 [75.1%]) with an increasing frequency of potent P2Y12 inhibitor use over the study period (ptrend<0.001). Clopidogrel was used more frequently in patients with multimorbid risk factors, whereas anatomical or procedural complexity was associated with ticagrelor/prasugrel use (left main PCI, bifurcation PCI, number of lesions, rotational atherectomy). No difference in the incidence of death or MI was noted across the groups (ticagrelor/prasugrel vs clopidogrel: 2.7% vs 3.1%, adjusted hazard ratio [adjHR] 0.86, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.62-1.17; p=0.33) or secondary outcomes including bleeding (adjHR 0.75, 95% CI: 0.46-1.21; p=0.23) on propensity score stratification analysis. Additionally, no difference in the primary outcome was observed across subgroups, including those undergoing complex PCI.ConclusionsTicagrelor and prasugrel are increasingly used in patients with CCS undergoing PCI with similar 1-year efficacy and safety when compared to clopidogrel. Whether use of these agents can be beneficial in patients undergoing PCI for CCS with a high thrombotic and low bleeding risk warrants further study.

Project description:ImportanceGuidelines currently recommend ticagrelor over clopidogrel for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) based on randomized clinical trial data in which ticagrelor reduced major adverse coronary events (MACE) vs clopidogrel but increased bleeding and dyspnea.ObjectiveTo compare the risk of MACE with ticagrelor vs clopidogrel in patients with ACS treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), to compare major bleeding and dyspnea, and to evaluate the association between P2Y12 inhibitor adherence and MACE.Design, setting, and participantsPopulation-based cohort study using data of patients discharged alive after PCI for ACS from the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease registry from April 1, 2012, to March 31, 2016, with follow-up to 1 year. Analysis began April 2018.ExposuresOutpatient prescription for ticagrelor or clopidogrel within 31 days after PCI. Adherence was defined as a medication refill adherence value of 80% or higher.Main outcomes and measuresMajor adverse coronary events, a composite of all-cause death, hospitalization for ACS, unplanned coronary revascularization, or stent thrombosis within 365 days after index PCI. Secondary outcomes included hospitalization for major bleeding and emergency department visit for dyspnea.ResultsOf 11 185 individuals who underwent PCI, the median (interquartile range) age was 61 (54-71) years, and 2760 (24.7%) were women. Ticagrelor users (4076 [36.4%]) were generally younger and had fewer cardiac and noncardiac comorbidities than clopidogrel users. Ticagrelor was not associated with lower risk of MACE (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.97; 95% CI, 0.85-1.10); however, it was associated with an increased risk of major bleeding (aHR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.29-1.78) and dyspnea (aHR, 1.98; 95% CI, 1.47-2.65). A total of 3328 ticagrelor users (81.6%) were adherent during the study vs 5256 of clopidogrel users (73.9%) (P < .001; χ2 = 86.4). In the full cohort, adherence was associated with a lower MACE risk (aHR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69-0.90 for adherence of ≥80% vs <80%). Differences in other secondary outcomes were not statistically significant. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were consistent with primary analyses.Conclusions and relevanceIn this population-based cohort study of patients with ACS who underwent PCI, outpatient use of ticagrelor was not associated with a statistically significant reduction in MACE vs clopidogrel; however, it was associated with more major bleeding and dyspnea.

Project description:AIM:The primary objective of the present study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between clopidogrel and cilostazol in relation to the CYP2C19 and CYP3A5 genotypes. METHODS:In a randomized, three-way crossover study, 27 healthy subjects were administered clopidogrel (300 mg), cilostazol (100 mg) or clopidogrel + cilostazol orally. Plasma concentrations of clopidogrel, cilostazol and their active metabolites (clopidogrel thiol metabolite, 3,4-dehydrocilostazol and 4?-trans-hydroxycilostazol), and adenosine diphosphate-induced platelet aggregation were measured for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assessment. RESULTS:The area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of the active thiol metabolite of clopidogrel was highest in the CYP2C19 extensive metabolizers (EM) and lowest in the poor metabolizers (PM). Cilostazol decreased the thiol metabolite AUC by 29% in the CYP3A5*1/*3 genotype [geometric mean ratio (GMR) 0.71; 90% confidence interval (CI) 0.58, 0.86; P = 0.020] but not in the CYP3A5*3/*3 genotype (GMR 0.93; 90% CI 0.80, 1.10; P = 0.446). Known effects of the CYP2C19 and CYP3A5 genotypes on the exposure of cilostazol and its metabolites were observed but there was no significant difference in the AUC of cilostazol and 3,4-dehydrocilostazol between cilostazol and clopidogrel + cilostazol. The inhibition of platelet aggregation from 4 h to 24 h (IPA4-24 ) following the administration of clopidogrel alone was highest in the CYP2C19 EM genotype and lowest in the CYP2C19 PM genotype (59.05 ± 18.95 vs. 36.74 ± 13.26, P = 0.023). However, the IPA of the CYP2C19 PM following co-administration of clopidogrel and cilostazol was comparable with that of the CYP2C19 EM and intermediate metabolizers (IM) only in CYP3A5*3/*3 subjects. CONCLUSIONS:The additive antiplatelet effect of cilostazol plus clopidogrel is maximized in subjects with both the CYP2C19 PM and CYP3A5*3/*3 genotypes because of a lack of change of clopidogrel thiol metabolite exposure in CYP3A5*3/*3 as well as the highest cilostazol IPA in CYP2C19 PM and CYP3A5*3/*3 subjects.

Project description:ImportanceCurrent guidelines recommend ticagrelor as the preferred P2Y12 platelet inhibitor for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), primarily based on a single large randomized clinical trial. The benefits and risks associated with ticagrelor vs clopidogrel in routine practice merits attention.ObjectiveTo determine the association of ticagrelor vs clopidogrel with ischemic and hemorrhagic events in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ACS in clinical practice.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort study of patients with ACS who underwent PCI and received ticagrelor or clopidogrel was conducted using 2 United States electronic health record-based databases and 1 nationwide South Korean database from November 2011 to March 2019. Patients were matched using a large-scale propensity score algorithm, and the date of final follow-up was March 2019.ExposuresTicagrelor vs clopidogrel.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary end point was net adverse clinical events (NACE) at 12 months, composed of ischemic events (recurrent myocardial infarction, revascularization, or ischemic stroke) and hemorrhagic events (hemorrhagic stroke or gastrointestinal bleeding). Secondary outcomes included NACE or mortality, all-cause mortality, ischemic events, hemorrhagic events, individual components of the primary outcome, and dyspnea at 12 months. The database-level hazard ratios (HRs) were pooled to calculate summary HRs by random-effects meta-analysis.ResultsAfter propensity score matching among 31 290 propensity-matched pairs (median age group, 60-64 years; 29.3% women), 95.5% of patients took aspirin together with ticagrelor or clopidogrel. The 1-year risk of NACE was not significantly different between ticagrelor and clopidogrel (15.1% [3484/23 116 person-years] vs 14.6% [3290/22 587 person-years]; summary HR, 1.05 [95% CI, 1.00-1.10]; P = .06). There was also no significant difference in the risk of all-cause mortality (2.0% for ticagrelor vs 2.1% for clopidogrel; summary HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.81-1.16]; P = .74) or ischemic events (13.5% for ticagrelor vs 13.4% for clopidogrel; summary HR, 1.03 [95% CI, 0.98-1.08]; P = .32). The risks of hemorrhagic events (2.1% for ticagrelor vs 1.6% for clopidogrel; summary HR, 1.35 [95% CI, 1.13-1.61]; P = .001) and dyspnea (27.3% for ticagrelor vs 22.6% for clopidogrel; summary HR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.17-1.26]; P < .001) were significantly higher in the ticagrelor group.Conclusions and relevanceAmong patients with ACS who underwent PCI in routine clinical practice, ticagrelor, compared with clopidogrel, was not associated with significant difference in the risk of NACE at 12 months. Because the possibility of unmeasured confounders cannot be excluded, further research is needed to determine whether ticagrelor is more effective than clopidogrel in this setting.

Dataset Information

Pharmacodynamic effect of cilostazol plus standard clopidogrel versus double-dose clopidogrel in patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Publications

Pharmacodynamic effect of cilostazol plus standard clopidogrel versus double-dose clopidogrel in patients with type 2 diabetes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets