A genotype-guided strategy for oral P2Y₁₂ Inhibitors in primary PCI

BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) benefit from genotype-guided selection of oral P2Y12 inhibitors. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, open-label, assessor-blinded trial in which patients undergoing primary PCI with stent implantation were assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either a P2Y12 inhibitor on the basis of early CYP2C19 genetic testing (genotype-guided group) or standard treatment with either ticagrelor or prasugrel (standard-treatment group) for 12 months. In the genotype-guided group, carriers of CYP2C19*2 or CYP2C19*3 loss-of-function alleles received ticagrelor or prasugrel, and noncarriers received clopidogrel. The two primary outcomes were net adverse clinical events - defined as death from any cause, myocardial infarction, definite stent thrombosis, stroke, or major bleeding defined according to Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) criteria - at 12 months (primary combined outcome; tested for noninferiority, with a noninferiority margin of 2 percentage points for the absolute difference) and PLATO major or minor bleeding at 12 months (primary bleeding outcome). RESULTS: For the primary analysis, 2488 patients were included: 1242 in the genotype-guided group and 1246 in the standard-treatment group. The primary combined outcome occurred in 63 patients (5.1%) in the genotype-guided group and in 73 patients (5.9%) in the standard-treatment group (absolute difference, -0.7 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.0 to 0.7; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The primary bleeding outcome occurred in 122 patients (9.8%) in the genotype-guided group and in 156 patients (12.5%) in the standard-treatment group (hazard ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61 to 0.98; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing primary PCI, a CYP2C19 genotype-guided strategy for selection of oral P2Y12 inhibitor therapy was noninferior to standard treatment with ticagrelor or prasugrel at 12 months with respect to thrombotic events and resulted in a lower incidence of bleeding. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; POPular Genetics ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01761786; Netherlands Trial Register number, NL2872.)

Association of Chromosome 9p21 with Subsequent Coronary Heart Disease events:A GENIUS-CHD study of individual participant data

BACKGROUND:Genetic variation at chromosome 9p21 is a recognized risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD). However, its effect on disease progression and subsequent events is unclear, raising questions about its value for stratification of residual risk. METHODS:A variant at chromosome 9p21 (rs1333049) was tested for association with subsequent events during follow-up in 103,357 Europeans with established CHD at baseline from the GENIUS-CHD Consortium (73.1% male, mean age 62.9 years). The primary outcome, subsequent CHD death or myocardial infarction (CHD death/MI), occurred in 13,040 of the 93,115 participants with available outcome data. Effect estimates were compared to case/control risk obtained from CARDIoGRAMPlusC4D including 47,222 CHD cases and 122,264 controls free of CHD. RESULTS:Meta-analyses revealed no significant association between chromosome 9p21 and the primary outcome of CHD death/MI among those with established CHD at baseline (GENIUS-CHD OR 1.02; 95% CI 0.99-1.05). This contrasted with a strong association in CARDIoGRAMPlusC4D OR 1.20; 95% CI 1.18-1.22; p for interaction Conclusions: In contrast to studies comparing individuals with CHD to disease free controls, we found no clear association between genetic variation at chromosome 9p21 and risk of subsequent acute CHD events when all individuals had CHD at baseline. However, the association with subsequent revascularization may support the postulated mechanism of chromosome 9p21 for promoting atheroma development

The impact of renal function on platelet reactivity and clinical outcome in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting

Patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Previous studies have suggested that patients with CKD have less therapeutic benefit of antiplatelet therapy. However, the relation between renal function and platelet reactivity is still under debate. On-treatment platelet reactivity was determined in parallel by ADP- and AA-induced light transmittance aggregometry (LTA) and the VerifyNow (R) System (P2Y12 and Aspirin) in 988 patients on dual antiplatelet therapy, undergoing elective coronary stenting. Patients were divided into two groups according to the presence or absence of moderate/severe CKD (GFR<60 ml/min/1.73 m(2)). Furthermore, the incidence of all-cause death, non-fatal acute myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis and stroke at one-year was evaluated. Patients with CKD (n=180) had significantly higher platelet reactivity, regardless of the platelet function test used. Patients with CKD more frequently had high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity (HCPR) and high on-aspirin platelet reactivity (HAPR) regardless of the platelet function test used. After adjustment for potential confounders, this was no longer significant. The event-rate was the highest in patients with both high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) and CKD compared to those with neither high on-treatment platelet reactivity nor CKD. In conclusion, the magnitude of platelet reactivity as well as the incidence of HPR was higher in patients with CKD. However, since the incidence of HPR was similar after adjustment, a higher rate of co-morbidities in patients with CKD might be the major cause for this observation rather than CKD itself. CKD-patients with HCPR were at the highest risk of long-term cardiovascular events

Personalizing antiplatelet therapies: What have we learned from recent trials?

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y12 receptor antagonist is currently the standard of care for the prevention of ischemic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome or undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Several studies have shown that not all patients benefit from the treatment to the same degree and demonstrated that high on-treatment platelet reactivity may be associated with an increased risk of thrombotic events, while low on-treatment platelet reactivity may be linked to a higher risk of bleeding. Personalized antiplatelet treatment strategies based on platelet function monitoring and genetic testing constitute a promising tool for the prevention of both stent thrombosis and bleeding events, but conclusive evidence that such approaches can improve clinical outcomes is lacking. This review presents the most recent studies on tailored antiplatelet therapy in the management of coronary heart disease, with a focus on the prognosis value of platelet function testing

Clopidogrel or ticagrelor in acute coronary syndrome patients treated with newer-generation drug-eluting stents: CHANGE DAPT

Aims: Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) guidelines have been changed, favouring more potent antiplatelet drugs. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a ticagrelor- instead of a clopidogrel-based primary dual antiplatelet (DAPT) regimen in ACS patients treated with newer-generation drug-eluting stents (DES). Methods and results: CHANGE DAPT (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03197298) assessed 2, 062 consecutive real-world ACS patients, treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the primary composite endpoint being net adverse clinical and cerebral events (NACCE: all-cause death, any myocardial infarction, stroke or major bleeding). In the clopidogrel (CP; December 2012-April 2014) and ticagrelor periods (TP; May 2014-August 2015), 1, 009 and 1, 053 patients were treated, respectively. TP patients were somewhat older, underwent fewer transfemoral procedures, and received fewer glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors. In the TP, the one-year NACCE rate was higher (5.1% vs. 7.8%; HR 1.53 [95% CI: 1.08-2.17]; p=0.02). Assessment of non-inferiority (pre-specified margin: 2.7%) was inconclusive (risk difference: 2.64 [95% CI: 0.52-4.77]; pnon-inferiority=0.48). TP patients had more major bleeding (1.2% vs. 2.7%; p=0.02) while there was no benefit in ischaemic endpoints. Propensity score-adjusted multivariate analysis confirmed higher NACCE (adj. HR 1.75 [95% CI: 1.20-2.55]; p=0.003) and major bleeding risks during TP (adj. HR 2.75 [95% CI: 1.34-5.61]; p=0.01). Conclusions: In this observational study, the guideline-recommended ticagrelor-based primary DAPT regimen was associated with an increased event risk in consecutive ACS patients treated with newer-generation DES