Search

Background: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), aspirin plus a P2Y12 inhibitor, is the standard antithrombotic treatment following acute coronary syndromes. The factor Xa inhibitor rivaroxaban reduced mortality and ischaemic events when added to DAPT, but caused increased bleeding. The safety of a dual pathway antithrombotic therapy approach combining low-dose rivaroxaban (in place of aspirin) with a P2Y12 inhibitor has not been assesssed in acute coronary syndromes. We aimed to assess rivaroxaban 2·5 mg twice daily versus aspirin 100 mg daily, in addition to clopidogrel or ticagrelor (chosen at investigator discretion before randomisation), for patients with acute coronary syndromes started within 10 days after presentation and continued for 6-12 months.Methods: In this double-blind, multicentre, randomised trial (GEMINI-ACS-1) done at 371 clinical centres in 21 countries, eligible patients were older than 18 years with unstable angina, non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) or ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), with positive cardiac biomarkers and either ischaemic electrocardiographic changes or an atherosclerotic culprit lesion identified during angiography. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) within 10 days after admission for the index acute coronary syndromes event to either aspirin or rivaroxaban based on a computer-generated randomisation schedule. Randomisation was balanced by using randomly permuted blocks with size of four and was stratified based on the background P2Y12 inhibitor (clopidogrel or ticagrelor) intended to be used at the time of randomisation. Investigators and patients were masked to treatment assignment. Patients received a minimum of 180 days of double-blind treatment with rivaroxaban 2·5 mg twice daily or aspirin 100 mg daily. The choice of clopidogrel or ticagrelor during trial conduct was not randomised and was based on investigator preference. The primary endpoint was thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) clinically significant bleeding not related to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG; major, minor, or requiring medical attention) up to day 390. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02293395.Findings: Between April 22, 2015, and Oct 14, 2016, 3037 patients with acute coronary syndromes were randomly assigned; 1518 to receive aspirin and 1519 to receive rivaroxaban. 1704 patients (56%) were in the ticagrelor and 1333 (44%) in the clopidogrel strata. Median duration of treatment was 291 days (IQR 239-354). TIMI non-CABG clinically significant bleeding was similar with rivaroxaban versus aspirin therapy (total 154 patients [5%]; 80 participants [5%] of 1519 vs 74 participants [5%] of 1518; HR 1·09 [95% CI 0·80-1·50]; p=0·5840).Interpretation: A dual pathway antithrombotic therapy approach combining low-dose rivaroxaban with a P2Y12 inhibitor for the treatment of patients with acute coronary syndromes had similar risk of clinically significant bleeding as aspirin and a P2Y12 inhibitor. A larger, adequately powered trial would be required to definitively assess the efficacy and safety of this approach.Funding: Janssen Research & Development and Bayer AG. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Treatment with prasugrel and aspirin improves outcomes compared with clopidogrel and aspirin for patients with acute coronary syndrome who have had angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention; however, no clear benefit has been shown for patients managed first with drugs only. We assessed outcomes from the TRILOGY ACS trial based on whether or not patients had coronary angiography before treatment was chosen.Methods: TRILOGY ACS (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00699998) was a randomised controlled trial, done at more than 800 sites worldwide. Patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome who were selected for management without [corrected] revascularisation were randomly assigned to clopidogrel or prasugrel.The primary endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 months. In the present analysis we assessed differences in the primary endpoint by angiography status and whether the effects of treatment on the primary endpoint differed between patients who had angiography before enrolment and those who had not.Findings: 7243 patients younger than 75 years were included in the TRILOGY ACS primary analysis. 3085 (43%) had angiography at baseline, 4158 (57%) had not. Fewer patients who had angiography reached the primary endpoint at 30 months compared with those who did not have angiography, according to Kaplan-Meier analysis (281/3085 [12·8%] vs 480/4158 [16·5%], adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0·63, 95% CI 0·53-0·75; p<0·0001). The proportion of patients who reached the primary endpoint was lower in the prasugrel group than in the clopidogrel group for those who had angiography (122/1524 [10·7%] vs 159/1561 [14·9%], HR 0·77, 95% CI 0·61-0·98; p=0·032) but did not differ between groups in patients who did not have angiography (242/2096 [16·3%] vs 238/2062 [16·7%], HR 1·01, 0·84-1·20; p=0·94; pinteraction=0·08). Overall, TIMI major bleeding and GUSTO severe bleeding were rare. Bleeding outcomes tended to be higher with prasugrel but did not differ significantly between treatment groups in either angiography cohort.Interpretation: Among patients who had angiography who took prasugrel there were fewer cardiovascular deaths, myocardial infarctions, or strokes than in those who took clopidogrel. This result needs to be corroborated, but it is consistent with previous trials of more versus less intensive antiplatelet treatment. When angiography is done for acute coronary syndrome and anatomic coronary disease confirmed, the benefits and risks of intensive antiplatelet treatment exist whether the patient is treated with drugs or percutaneous coronary intervention.Funding: Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Treatment with prasugrel and aspirin improves outcomes compared with Clopidogrel and aspirin for patients with acute coronary syndrome who have had angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention; however, no clear benefit has been shown for patients managed first with drugs only. We assessed outcomes from the TRILOGY ACS trial based on whether or not patients had coronary angiography before treatment was chosen. Methods TRILOGY ACS (ClinicalTrials.gov number NCT00699998) was a randomised controlled trial, done at more than 800 sites worldwide. Patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome who were selected for management with revascularisation were randomly assigned to Clopidogrel or prasugrel. The primary endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke at 30 months. In the present analysis we assessed differences in the primary endpoint by angiography status and whether the effects of treatment on the primary endpoint differed between patients who had angiography before enrolment and those who had not. Findings 7243 patients younger than 75 years were included in the TRILOGY ACS primary analysis. 3085 (43%) had angiography at baseline, 4158 (57%) had not. Fewer patients who had angiography reached the primary endpoint at 30 months compared with those who did not have angiography, according to Kaplan-Meier analysis (281/3085 [12-8%] vs 480/4158 [16-5%], adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0-63, 95% CI 0-53-0-75; p<0-0001). The proportion of patients who reached the primary endpoint was lower in the prasugrel group than in the Clopidogrel group for those who had angiography (122/1524 [10-7%] vs 159/1561 [14-9%], HR 0-77, 95% CI 0-61-0-98; p=0-032) but did not differ between groups in patients who did not have angiography (242/2096 [16-3%] vs 238/2062 [16-7%], HR 1-01, 0-84-1-20; p=0-94; pinteraction = 0-08). Overall, TIMI major bleeding and GUSTO severe bleeding were rare. Bleeding outcomes tended to be higher with prasugrel but did not differ significantly between treatment groups in either angiography cohort. Interpretation Among patients who had angiography who took prasugrel there were fewer cardiovascular deaths, myocardial infarctions, or strokes than in those who took Clopidogrel. This result needs to be corroborated, but it is consistent with previous trials of more versus less intensive antiplatelet treatment. When angiography is done for acute coronary syndrome and anatomic coronary disease confirmed, the benefits and risks of intensive antiplatelet treatment exist whether the patient is treated with drugs or percutaneous coronary intervention. Funding Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]