Tailored P2Y12 inhibitor treatment in patients undergoing non-urgent PCI—the POPular Risk Score study

Purpose: The POPular Risk Score was developed for the selective intensification of P2Y12 inhibitor treatment with prasugrel instead of clopidogrel in patients undergoing non-urgent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation. This score is based on platelet reactivity (VerifyNow P2Y12 assay), CYP2C19 genotyping, and clinical risk factors. Our aim was to determine if the use of this score in clinical practice is associated with a reduction in thrombotic events without increasing bleeding events. Methods: In a single-center prospective cohort study, patients with a high risk score were treated with prasugrel and patients with a low risk score with clopidogrel. The risk score–guided cohort was compared with a historic cohort of clopidogrel-treated patients. The endpoint consisted of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or stent thrombosis during 1 year of follow-up. TIMI major and minor bleeding events were also analyzed. Results: The guided cohort contained 1127 patients, 26.9% of whom were switched to prasugrel according to the POPular Risk Score. The historic cohort contained 893 patients. The incidence of the combined thrombotic endpoint was significantly lower in the guided cohort as compared with the historic cohort (8.4% versus 3.7%, p < 0.001). This strategy was safe with respect to bleeding (4.0% versus 1.3%, p < 0.001, for TIMI major or minor bleeding). Results were comparable after multivariate and propensity score matched and weighted analysis. Conclusion: Selective intensification of P2Y12 inhibitor treatment after non-urgent PCI based on the POPular Risk Score is associated with a reduction in thrombotic events without an increase in bleeding events

Tailored P2Y12 inhibitor treatment in patients undergoing non-urgent PCI—the POPular Risk Score study

PURPOSE: The POPular Risk Score was developed for the selective intensification of P2Y 12 inhibitor treatment with prasugrel instead of clopidogrel in patients undergoing non-urgent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with stent implantation. This score is based on platelet reactivity (VerifyNow P2Y 12 assay), CYP2C19 genotyping, and clinical risk factors. Our aim was to determine if the use of this score in clinical practice is associated with a reduction in thrombotic events without increasing bleeding events. METHODS: In a single-center prospective cohort study, patients with a high risk score were treated with prasugrel and patients with a low risk score with clopidogrel. The risk score-guided cohort was compared with a historic cohort of clopidogrel-treated patients. The endpoint consisted of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or stent thrombosis during 1 year of follow-up. TIMI major and minor bleeding events were also analyzed. RESULTS: The guided cohort contained 1127 patients, 26.9% of whom were switched to prasugrel according to the POPular Risk Score. The historic cohort contained 893 patients. The incidence of the combined thrombotic endpoint was significantly lower in the guided cohort as compared with the historic cohort (8.4% versus 3.7%, p < 0.001). This strategy was safe with respect to bleeding (4.0% versus 1.3%, p < 0.001, for TIMI major or minor bleeding). Results were comparable after multivariate and propensity score matched and weighted analysis. CONCLUSION: Selective intensification of P2Y 12 inhibitor treatment after non-urgent PCI based on the POPular Risk Score is associated with a reduction in thrombotic events without an increase in bleeding events

Clopidogrel versus ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients aged 70 years or older with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (POPular AGE): the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend potent platelet inhibition with ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients after an acute coronary syndrome. However, data about optimal platelet inhibition in older patients are scarce. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of clopidogrel compared with ticagrelor or prasugrel in older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). METHODS: We did the open-label, randomised controlled POPular AGE trial in 12 sites (ten hospitals and two university hospitals) in the Netherlands. Patients aged 70 years or older with NSTE-ACS were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio using an internet-based randomisation procedure with block sizes of six to receive a loading dose of clopidogrel 300 mg or 600 mg, or ticagrelor 180 mg or prasugrel 60 mg, and then a maintenance dose for the duration of 12 months (clopidogrel 75 mg once daily, ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily, or prasugrel 10 mg once daily) on top of standard care. Patient and treating physicians were aware of the allocated treatment strategy, but the outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. Primary bleeding outcome consisted of PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO; major or minor bleeding [superiority hypothesis]). Co-primary net clinical benefit outcome consisted of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, PLATO major and minor bleeding (non-inferiority hypothesis, margin of 2%). Follow-up duration was 12 months. Analyses were done on intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NL3804), ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02317198), and EudraCT (2013-001403-37). FINDINGS: Between June 10, 2013, and Oct 17, 2018, 1002 patients were randomly assigned to clopidogrel (n=500) or ticagrelor or prasugrel (n=502). Because 475 (95%) patients received ticagrelor in the ticagrelor or prasugrel group, we will refer to this group as the ticagrelor group. Premature discontinuation of the study drug occurred in 238 (47%) of 502 ticagrelor group patients randomly assigned to ticagrelor, and in 112 (22%) of 500 patients randomly assigned to clopidogrel. Primary bleeding outcome was significantly lower in the clopidogrel group (88 [18%] of 500 patients) than in the ticagrelor group (118 [24%] of 502; hazard ratio 0·71, 95% CI 0·54 to 0·94; p=0·02 for superiority). Co-primary net clinical benefit outcome was non-inferior for the use of clopidogrel (139 [28%]) versus ticagrelor (161 [32%]; absolute risk difference -4%, 95% CI -10·0 to 1·4; p=0·03 for non-inferiority). The most important reasons for discontinuation were occurrence of bleeding (n=38), dyspnoea (n=40), and the need for treatment with oral anticoagulation (n=35). INTERPRETATION: In patients aged 70 years or older presenting with NSTE-ACS, clopidogrel is a favourable alternative to ticagrelor, because it leads to fewer bleeding events without an increase in the combined endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and bleeding. Clopidogrel could be an alternative P2Y12 inhibitor especially for elderly patients with a higher bleeding risk. FUNDING: ZonMw

Clopidogrel versus ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients aged 70 years or older with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (POPular AGE): the randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial

BACKGROUND: Current guidelines recommend potent platelet inhibition with ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients after an acute coronary syndrome. However, data about optimal platelet inhibition in older patients are scarce. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of clopidogrel compared with ticagrelor or prasugrel in older patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS). METHODS: We did the open-label, randomised controlled POPular AGE trial in 12 sites (ten hospitals and two university hospitals) in the Netherlands. Patients aged 70 years or older with NSTE-ACS were enrolled and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio using an internet-based randomisation procedure with block sizes of six to receive a loading dose of clopidogrel 300 mg or 600 mg, or ticagrelor 180 mg or prasugrel 60 mg, and then a maintenance dose for the duration of 12 months (clopidogrel 75 mg once daily, ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily, or prasugrel 10 mg once daily) on top of standard care. Patient and treating physicians were aware of the allocated treatment strategy, but the outcome assessors were masked to treatment allocation. Primary bleeding outcome consisted of PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO; major or minor bleeding [superiority hypothesis]). Co-primary net clinical benefit outcome consisted of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, PLATO major and minor bleeding (non-inferiority hypothesis, margin of 2%). Follow-up duration was 12 months. Analyses were done on intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register (NL3804), ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02317198), and EudraCT (2013-001403-37). FINDINGS: Between June 10, 2013, and Oct 17, 2018, 1002 patients were randomly assigned to clopidogrel (n=500) or ticagrelor or prasugrel (n=502). Because 475 (95%) patients received ticagrelor in the ticagrelor or prasugrel group, we will refer to this group as the ticagrelor group. Premature discontinuation of the study drug occurred in 238 (47%) of 502 ticagrelor group patients randomly assigned to ticagrelor, and in 112 (22%) of 500 patients randomly assigned to clopidogrel. Primary bleeding outcome was significantly lower in the clopidogrel group (88 [18%] of 500 patients) than in the ticagrelor group (118 [24%] of 502; hazard ratio 0·71, 95% CI 0·54 to 0·94; p=0·02 for superiority). Co-primary net clinical benefit outcome was non-inferior for the use of clopidogrel (139 [28%]) versus ticagrelor (161 [32%]; absolute risk difference -4%, 95% CI -10·0 to 1·4; p=0·03 for non-inferiority). The most important reasons for discontinuation were occurrence of bleeding (n=38), dyspnoea (n=40), and the need for treatment with oral anticoagulation (n=35). INTERPRETATION: In patients aged 70 years or older presenting with NSTE-ACS, clopidogrel is a favourable alternative to ticagrelor, because it leads to fewer bleeding events without an increase in the combined endpoint of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and bleeding. Clopidogrel could be an alternative P2Y12 inhibitor especially for elderly patients with a higher bleeding risk. FUNDING: ZonMw

Ticagrelor or prasugrel versus clopidogrel in elderly patients with an acute coronary syndrome : Optimization of antiplatelet treatment in patients 70years and older-rationale and design of the POPular AGE study

RATIONALE: Dual antiplatelet therapy with acetylsalicylic acid in combination with a more potent P2Y12- inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel) is recommended in patients with acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment elevation (NSTE-ACS) to prevent atherothrombotic complications. The evidence on which this recommendation is based shows that ticagrelor and prasugrel reduce atherothrombotic events at the expense of an increase in bleeding events when compared with clopidogrel. However, it remains unclear whether ticagrelor or prasugrel has a better net clinical benefit in elderly patients with NSTE-ACS when compared with clopidogrel. The POPular AGE trial is designed to address the optimal antiplatelet strategy in elderly NSTE-ACS patients. STUDY DESIGN: POPular AGE is a multicenter, open-label, randomized controlled trial that aims to include 1000 patients ≥70years of age with NSTE-ACS. Patients are randomly assigned to receive either clopidogrel or a more potent P2Y12 inhibitor (ticagrelor or prasugrel). The first primary end point is any bleeding event requiring medical intervention. The second primary end point is the net clinical benefit, a composite of all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, "PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes" major bleeding, or "PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes" minor bleeding. Patients will be followed for 1 year after randomization, and analyses will be performed on the basis of intention to treat. CONCLUSION: The POPular AGE is the first randomized controlled trial that will assess whether the treatment strategy with clopidogrel will result in fewer bleeding events without compromising the net clinical benefit in patients ≥70years of age with NSTE-ACS when compared with a treatment strategy with ticagrelor or prasugrel

CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients-Rationale and design of the Patient Outcome after primary PCI (POPular) Genetics study

RATIONALE: In patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) who undergo primary percutaneous coronary intervention (pPCI), the use of dual antiplatelet therapy is essential to prevent atherothrombotic complications. Therefore, patients are treated with acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel, prasugrel, or ticagrelor. Clopidogrel, however, shows a major interindividual variation in antiplatelet effect, which is correlated to an increase in atherothrombotic events in patients with high platelet reactivity. This interindividual variation is partly a result of CYP2C19 genetic variants. Ticagrelor and prasugrel reduce atherothrombotic events but increase bleeding rate and drug costs, as compared with clopidogrel. CYP2C19-based tailoring of antiplatelet therapy might be beneficial to STEMI patients. STUDY DESIGN: POPular Genetics (NCT01761786) is a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial involving 2,700 STEMI patients who undergo pPCI. Patients are randomized to CYP2C19 genotyping or routine ticagrelor or prasugrel treatment. In the genotyping group, *1/*1 (wild-type) patients receive clopidogrel, and patients carrying 1 or 2 *2 or *3 loss-of-function alleles receive ticagrelor or prasugrel. The primary net clinical benefit end point is the composite of death, (recurrent) myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, stroke, and Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) major bleeding at 1 year. Primary safety end point is the composite of (PLATO) major and minor bleeding. Cost-effectiveness and quality of life will be assessed by calculating quality-adjusted life-years, net costs per life-year, and per quality-adjusted life-year gained. CONCLUSION: The POPular Genetics study is the first large-scale trial comparing CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy to a nontailored strategy in terms of net clinical benefit, safety, and cost-effectiveness