Dataset Information

Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes and chronic kidney disease.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Pivotal clinical trials found that ticagrelor reduced ischaemic complications to a greater extent than clopidogrel, and also that the benefit gradually increased with the reduction in creatinine clearance. However, the underlying mechanisms remains poorly explored. METHODS:This was a single-centre, prospective, randomized clinical trial involving 60 hospitalized Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP) P2Y12 receptor inhibitor-naïve patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) (estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 ml min-1 1.73 m-2 ) and non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE-ACS). Eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose, then followed by 90 mg twice daily) or clopidogrel (600 mg loading dose, then followed by 75 mg once daily). The primary endpoint was the P2Y12 reactive unit (PRU) value assessed by VerifyNow at 30 days. The plasma concentrations of ticagrelor and clopidogrel and their active metabolites were measured in the first 10 patients in each group at baseline, and at 1 h, 2 h, 4 h, 8 h, 12 h and 24 h after the loading dose. RESULTS:Baseline characteristics were well matched between the two groups. Our results indicated a markedly lower PRU in patients treated with ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel at 30 days (32.6 ± 11.29 vs. 203.7 ± 17.92; P < 0.001) as well as at 2 h, 8 h and 24 h after the loading dose (P < 0.001). Ticagrelor and its active metabolite AR-C124910XX showed a similar time to reach maximum concentration (Cmax ) of 8 h, with the maximum concentration (Cmax ) of 355 (242.50-522.00) ng ml-1 and 63.20 (50.80-85.15) ng ml-1 , respectively. Both clopidogrel and its active metabolite approached the Cmax at 2 h, with a similar Cmax of 8.67 (6.64-27.75) ng ml-1 vs. 8.53 (6.94-15.93) ng ml-1 . CONCLUSION:Ticagrelor showed much more potent platelet inhibition in comparison with clopidogrel in patients with CKD and NSTE-ACS.

SUBMITTER: Wang H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5736840 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes and chronic kidney disease.

Wang Heyang H Qi Jing J Li Yi Y Tang Yunbiao Y Li Chao C Li Jing J Han Yaling Y

British journal of clinical pharmacology 20171103 1

<h4>Background</h4>Pivotal clinical trials found that ticagrelor reduced ischaemic complications to a greater extent than clopidogrel, and also that the benefit gradually increased with the reduction in creatinine clearance. However, the underlying mechanisms remains poorly explored.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a single-centre, prospective, randomized clinical trial involving 60 hospitalized Adenosine Diphosphate (ADP) P2Y12 receptor inhibitor-naïve patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) (estima ...[more]

PMID: 28921624

Similar Datasets

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:• Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rivaroxaban have been characterized in healthy subjects and in patients with total venous thromboembolism, deep vein thrombosis or atrial fibrillation.• This article is the first description of the population pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of rivaroxaban in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). It is the largest population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study on rivaroxaban conducted to date (n= 2290). The PK and PK-PD relationship of rivaroxaban in patients with ACS were similar to those in other patient populations. In addition, model-based simulations showed that the influence of renal function and age on the exposure to rivaroxaban in the ACS population were similar to the findings from Phase 1 special population studies. These findings suggest that rivaroxaban has highly predictable PK-PD and may provide a consistent anticoagulant effect across the studied patient populations, which allows an accurate prediction of the dose to control anticoagulation optimally.The aim of this analysis was to use a population approach to facilitate the understanding of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rivaroxaban in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and to evaluate the influence of patient covariates on the exposure of rivaroxaban in patients with ACS. METHODS A population pharmacokinetic model was developed using pharmacokinetic samples from 2290 patients in Anti-Xa Therapy to Lower Cardiovascular Events in Addition to Standard Therapy in Subjects with Acute Coronary Syndrome Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction 46. The relationship between pharmacokinetics and the primary pharmacodynamic end point, prothrombin time, was evaluated.The pharmacokinetics of rivaroxaban in patients with ACS was adequately described by an oral one-compartment model. The estimated absorption rate, apparent clearance and volume of distribution were 1.24 h(-1) (interindividual variability, 139%), 6.48 l h(-1) (31%) and 57.9 l (10%), respectively. Simulations indicate that the influences of renal function, age and bodyweight on exposure in ACS patients are consistent with the findings in previous Phase 1 studies. Rivaroxaban plasma concentrations exhibit a close-to-linear relationship with prothrombin time in the ACS population, with little interindividual variability. The estimated pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters for the ACS patients were comparable to those for venous thromboembolism prevention, deep vein thrombosis and atrial fibrillation patients.The similarity in pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of rivaroxaban among different patient populations and the low interindividual variability in the exposure-prothrombin time relationship indicate that the anticoagulant effect of rivaroxaban is highly predictable and consistent across all the patient populations studied.

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: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

Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes and chronic kidney disease.

Publications

Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes and chronic kidney disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets