Search

Jung Rae Cho, Fabiana Rollini, Francesco Franchi, Elisabetta Ferrante, Dominick J Angiolillo University of Florida College of Medicine – Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL, USA Abstract: Platelet activation with subsequent aggregation is a complex process leading to thrombus formation, which remains a key component for atherothrombotic manifestations, in particular myocardial infarction. Therefore, antiplatelet therapies are pivotal for the treatment of these patients. Current oral antiplatelet therapies used for secondary prevention of ischemic recurrences include aspirin and adenosine diphosphate P2Y12 platelet-receptor antagonists. However, despite these therapies, patients who have experienced a myocardial infarction remain at risk for ischemic recurrences. Therefore, more aggressive secondary prevention measures have been an area of research, including identifying additional targets modulating platelet-activation and -aggregation processes. Among these, thrombin-mediated platelet activation via protease-activated receptors (PARs) has been subject to extensive clinical investigation. Several PAR-1 receptor antagonists have been developed. However, vorapaxar is the only one that has completed large-scale clinical investigation. The present manuscript will provide an overview on the role of thrombin-mediated signaling, the impact of PAR-1 blockade with vorapaxar on ischemic and bleeding outcomes, and the potential role for vorapaxar in clinical practice. Keywords: platelet aggregation, antiplatelet agent, protease-activated receptor 1, vorapaxar

This prospective ex vivo and in vitro pharmacodynamic (PD)/pharmacokinetic investigation was conducted in patients with diabetes mellitus with (n = 31) and without chronic kidney disease (n = 30). PD assessments included platelet reactivity index, maximum platelet aggregation, and P2Y 12 reaction units. Ex vivo pharmacokinetic assessments included plasma levels of clopidogrel and its active metabolite. In vitro PD assessments were conducted on baseline samples incubated with escalating concentrations of clopidogrel and its active metabolite. Among patients with diabetes mellitus treated with clopidogrel, impaired renal function was associated with increased maximum platelet aggregation. This finding could be attributed partially to upregulation of the P2Y 12 activity without differences in drug absorption or metabolism. (Impact of Chronic Kidney Disease on Clopidogrel Effects in Diabetes Mellitus; NCT03774394)., Competing Interests: This study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from the University of Florida and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. The Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation had no role in the study design conception, conduct of the study, or decision to publish these results. Work by Drs Cavallari, Angiolillo, and Franchi is supported by the National Institutes of Health National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (1R01HL149752). Dr Franchi has received payment as an individual for consulting fee or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer and Sanofi; and institutional payments for grants from PLx Pharma and The Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Galli has received consulting fees or honoraria from Terumo, outside the present work. Dr Cavallari has received research support from Accriva Diagnostics. Dr Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Faraday, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Vectura; h and his institution has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Faraday, Gilead, Idorsia, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co. Merck, Novartis, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Jakubowski was an employee of Eli Lilly and Company at the time of the studies. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: A drug-drug interaction (DDI) may occur when transitioning from intravenous P2Y 12 inhibition with cangrelor to oral P2Y 12 inhibition with prasugrel. However, this has never been tested in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)., Objectives: This study sought to rule out a DDI when cangrelor and prasugrel are concomitantly administered in PCI patients., Methods: SWAP-6 (Switching Antiplatelet-6) was a prospective, randomized, 3-arm, open-label pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) study. Patients (N = 77) were randomized to 1) prasugrel only at the start of PCI, 2) cangrelor plus prasugrel concomitantly at the start of PCI, or 3) cangrelor at the start of PCI plus prasugrel at the end of infusion. Cangrelor infusion was maintained for 2 hours. PK/PD assessments were performed at baseline and 6 time points postrandomization. The primary endpoint was noninferiority in VerifyNow (Werfen) P2Y 12 reaction units measured at 4 hours after randomization between cangrelor plus prasugrel concomitantly administered vs prasugrel only. PK assessments included plasma levels of the active metabolite of prasugrel., Results: Compared with prasugrel, cangrelor further enhances P2Y 12 inhibitory effects. At 4 hours postrandomization, P2Y 12 reaction unit levels were significantly lower with prasugrel only compared to cangrelor and prasugrel concomitantly administered (least squares means difference = 130; 95% CI: 85-176), failing to meet the prespecified noninferiority margin. Findings were corroborated by multiple PD assays. The active metabolite of prasugrel levels were not affected by concomitant administration of cangrelor and were low at the end of cangrelor infusion., Conclusions: In patients undergoing PCI, concomitant administration of prasugrel with cangrelor leads to a marked increase in platelet reactivity after stopping cangrelor infusion, supporting the presence of a DDI. (Switching Antiplatelet Therapy-6 [SWAP-6]; NCT04668144)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures This study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. The Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation had no role in the study design conception, conduct of the study, or decision to publish these results. Dr Franchi has received payment as an individual for consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Sanofi; and has received institutional payments for grants from PLx Pharma and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Vectura; and his institution has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Celo-Nova, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Idorsia, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co, Merck, Novartis, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Antiplatelet therapy is the mainstay of pharmacologic treatment to prevent thrombotic or ischemic events in patients with coronary artery disease treated with percutaneous coronary intervention and those treated medically for an acute coronary syndrome. The use of antiplatelet therapy comes at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding complications. Defining the optimal intensity of platelet inhibition according to the clinical presentation of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and individual patient factors is a clinical challenge. Modulation of antiplatelet therapy is a medical action that is frequently performed to balance the risk of thrombotic or ischemic events and the risk of bleeding. This aim may be achieved by reducing (ie, de-escalation) or increasing (ie, escalation) the intensity of platelet inhibition by changing the type, dose, or number of antiplatelet drugs. Because de-escalation or escalation can be achieved in different ways, with a number of emerging approaches, confusion arises with terminologies that are often used interchangeably. To address this issue, this Academic Research Consortium collaboration provides an overview and definitions of different strategies of antiplatelet therapy modulation for patients with coronary artery disease, including but not limited to those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and consensus statements on standardized definitions., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Capodanno reports speaker or consulting fees from Amgen, Arena, Daiichi Sankyo, Sanofi, and Terumo; and institutional fees from Medtronic. Dr Mehran reports institutional research payments from Abbott, Abiomed, Alleviant Medical, Amgen, AM-Pharma, Arena, AstraZeneca, Atricure, Bayer, Biosensors, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, CardiaWave, CeloNova, Chiesi, Concept Medical, CSL Behring, Cytosorbents, Daiichi Sankyo, Element Science, Faraday, Filterlex Medical, Humacyte, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals, Janssen, Mediasphere, Medtelligence, Medtronic, Novartis, OrbusNeich, Penumbra, PhaseBio, Philips, Pi-Cardia, PLx Pharma, Protembis, RenalPro, RM Global, Shockwave, Vivasure, and Zoll; personal fees from Cine-Med Research, Ionis Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Vectura, and WebMD; equity <1% in Applied Therapeutics, Elixir Medical, Stel, and ControlRad (spouse); and roles with the American Medical Association (Scientific Advisory Board, JAMA Cardiology Associate editor), American College of Cardiology (board of trustees member, member clinical trials research program), and Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (Women in Innovations committee member; faculty Cardiac Research Foundation; no fee). Dr Baber discloses honoraria from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Boston Scientific, and Abbott Vascular. Dr Bhatt discloses the following relationships: advisory board: Angiowave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Regado Biosciences, and Stasys; board of directors: Angiowave (stock options), Boston VA Research Institute, Bristol Myers Squibb (stock), DRS.LINQ (stock options), High Enroll (stock), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care, and TobeSoft; chair: inaugural chair, American Heart Association Quality Oversight Committee; consultant: Broadview Ventures and Hims; data monitoring committees: Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for PORTICO [Portico Re-sheathable Transcatheter Aortic Valve System US IDE Trial], funded by St Jude Medical, now Abbott), Boston Scientific (chair, PEITHO [Pulmonary Embolism Thrombolysis Study]), Cleveland Clinic (including for ExCEED [Centera THV System in Intermediate Risk Patients Who Have Symptomatic, Severe, Calcific, Aortic Stenosis], funded by Edwards), Contego Medical (chair, PERFORMANCE 2 [Protection Against Emboli During Carotid Artery Stenting Using the Neuroguard IEP System]), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for ENVISAGE [Edoxaban Compared to Standard Care After Heart Valve Replacement Using a Catheter in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation], funded by Daiichi Sankyo; for ABILITY-DM [Randomized Comparison of Abluminus DES+ Sirolimus-Eluting Stents Versus Everolimus-Eluting Stents in Coronary Artery Disease Patients with Diabetes Mellitus], funded by Concept Medical), Novartis, Population Health Research Institute, and Rutgers University (for the National Institutes of Health–funded MINT [Myocardial Ischemia and Transfusion]); honoraria: American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; chair, American College of Cardiology Accreditation Oversight Committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (work related to Sanofi/Bristol Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI [Evaluation of Dual Therapy With Dabigatran vs Triple Therapy With Warfarin in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation That Undergo a PCI With Stenting] clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II [Study to Investigate CSL112 in Subjects With Acute Coronary Syndrome] executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for PRONOUNCE [A Trial Comparing Cardiovascular Safety of Degarelix Versus Leuprolide in Patients With Advanced Prostate Cancer and Cardiovascular Disease], funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (editor-in-chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (guest editor; associate editor), K2P (co-chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME (course director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS [Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies] operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and US national coleader, funded by Bayer), Slack Publications (chief medical editor, Cardiology Today’s Intervention), Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care (secretary/treasurer), WebMD (continuing medical education steering committees), and Wiley (steering committee); other: Clinical Cardiology (deputy editor), National Cardiovascular Data Registry–ACTION Registry Steering Committee (chair), and VA CART (Cardiovascular Assessment, Reporting, and Tracking) Research and Publications Committee (chair); patent: sotagliflozin (named on a patent for sotagliflozin assigned to Brigham and Women’s Hospital, assigned to Lexicon; neither the author nor Brigham and Women’s Hospital receives any income from this patent); research funding: Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CinCor, Cleerly, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, and 89Bio; royalties: Elsevier (editor, Braunwald’s Heart Disease); site coinvestigator: Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, and Vascular Solutions; trustee: American College of Cardiology; and unfunded research: FlowCo and Takeda. Dr Capranzano reports speaker fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Amgen, and Bayer. Dr Collet reports grants for the institution, honoraria, or research fees from BMS Pfizer, Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and AstraZeneca. Dr Cuisset reports consulting and lecture fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Edwards, Europa Organisation, Medtronic, Terumo, and Sanofi, and shares from CERC, a health care company. Dr L. De Luca has received consulting fees or honoraria from Amgen, Aspen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Menarini, Pfizer/Bristol Myers Squibb, Sanofi, Servier, and The Medicines Company, outside the present work. Dr Farb has received payment as an individual for consulting fee or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Sanofi and institutional payments for grants from PLx Pharma and The Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Gibson reports grant support paid to the institution and consulting fees from Johnson & Johnson, Bristol Myers Squibb, CeleCor, Daiichi Sankyo, and Merck. Dr Hahn reports an institutional research grant from the National Evidence-based Healthcare Collaborating Agency, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Korea, and from Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Boston Scientific, Daiichi Sankyo, Donga-ST, Hanmi Pharmaceutical, and Medtronic Inc. Dr James repots grants to the institution from Amgen, Novartis, Janssen, and AstraZeneca. Dr Lemos reports institutional research funding, unpaid advisory board membership, unpaid membership of the steering/executive/data safety and monitoring group of trials, and unpaid interventional proctorship by Abbott, Corindus, Scitech, Boston Scientific, and Flouit but has not received personal payments by pharmaceutical companies or device manufacturers; being part of Argonauts, an innovation facilitator; and partial support by a grant from The National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Brazil (grant 306677/2019-9). Dr Lopes reports research support from Bristol Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, and Pfizer and consulting fees from Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Medtronic, Merck, Pfizer, and Portola. Dr Morice reports being chief executive officer and a shareholder of CERC and a minor shareholder of Electroducer. Dr O’Donoghue reports grants through the hospital from Amgen, Novartis, Janssen, Merck, and AstraZeneca, and honoraria from Amgen, Novartis, AstraZeneca, and Janssen. Dr Serruys reports consultancy fees from SMT, Philips, Novartis, Merillife, and Xeltis. Dr Smits reports institutional research grants from Abbott Vascular and SMT and speaker or consulting honoraria from Abbott Vascular, Microport, and Terumo. Dr Steg reports research grants from Amarin, Bayer, Sanofi, and Servier; he is a speaker or consultant for Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol Myers-Squibb, Janssen, Kowa, Idorsia, Lexicon, Merck, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sanofi, and Servier; he is senior associate editor of Circulation. Dr Storey reports institutional research grants/support and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Cytosorbents, GlyCardial Diagnostics, and Thromboserin and personal fees from Alnylam, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb/Pfizer, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Hengrui, Idorsia, Intas Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, PhaseBio, and Sanofi Aventis. Dr Valgimigli reports grants and personal fees from Terumo and personal fees from AstraZeneca, Alvimedica/CID, Abbott Vascular, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer, CoreFLOW, Idorsia Pharmaceuticals Ltd, Universität Basel, Dept Klinische Forschung, Vifor, Bristol Myers Squib SA, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medscape, Medtronic, Vesalio, Novartis, Chiesi, ECRI, and PhaseBio. Dr Vranckx received personal fees from Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer AG, CSL Behring, Novartis, and Pfizer-Bristol Meyers Squibb alliance. Dr Windecker reports research, travel, or educational grants to the institution from Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biotronik, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardinal Health, CardioValve, Corflow Therapeutics, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Edwards Lifesciences, Guerbet, InfraRedx, Janssen-Cilag, Johnson & Johnson, Medicure, Medtronic, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Miracor Medical, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Organon, OrPha Suisse, Pfizer, Polares, Regeneron, Sanofi-Aventis, Servier, Sinomed, Terumo, Vifor, and V-Wave; serves as an advisory board member or member of the steering/executive group of trials funded by Abbott, Abiomed, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boston Scientific, Biotronik, Bristol Myers Squibb, Edwards Lifesciences, Janssen, MedAlliance, Medtronic, Novartis, Polares, Recardio, SINOMED, Terumo, V-Wave, and Xeltis, with payments to the institution but no personal payments; and is a member of the steering/executive committee group of several investigator-initiated trials that receive funding by industry without effect on his personal remuneration. Dr Yeh reports research grants or consulting fees from Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, and Medtronic; and consulting fees from Cathworks, Elixir Medical, Shockwave, and Zoll. Dr Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Vectura, outside the present work; and his institution has received research grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co, Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions, and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Background: The impact of intense low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) reduction using a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor on profiles of platelet reactivity has yet to be explored., Aims: Our aim was to investigate the effects of the PCSK9 inhibitor, evolocumab, on platelet reactivity in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD) on clopidogrel treatment., Methods: This was a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled pharmacodynamic study in patients with ASCVD on clopidogrel treatment and with LDL-C levels ≥70 mg/dL despite a maximally tolerated statin dose. Patients were stratified according to levels of platelet reactivity using VerifyNow P2Y 12 reactivity units (PRU) into high platelet reactivity (HPR; PRU >208) or normal platelet reactivity (NPR; PRU >85 and ≤208). Each cohort was randomised to receive evolocumab 420 mg or placebo. The primary endpoint was the difference in PRU at 30 days., Results: A total of 84 patients (HPR, n=37 [19 evolocumab vs 18 placebo]; NPR, n=47 [22 evolocumab vs 25 placebo]) were included. Evolocumab significantly reduced LDL-C compared to placebo at 14 (p<0.001) and 30 (p=0.001) days. At 14 days, PRU levels were significantly lower with evolocumab compared to placebo in the HPR (218.2±29.7 vs 246.6±35.2; p=0.017), but not in the NPR cohort (141.2±42.8 vs 148.2±41.7; p=0.578). At 30 days, there were no significant differences in PRU in the HPR (219.3±38.3 vs 240.9±51.8; p=0.161) or NPR (141.5±54.3 vs 158.6±40.8; p=0.229) cohorts., Conclusions: Compared to placebo, evolocumab in adjunct to statin therapy did not significantly reduce platelet reactivity at 30 days in ASCVD patients on clopidogrel treatment despite intense LDL-C reduction. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03096288.

Background: There are no studies specifically designed to rule out a drug-drug interaction (DDI) when cangrelor is used among patients who have been pretreated with ticagrelor., Objectives: This study sought to rule out a DDI among cangrelor-treated patients who have been pretreated with ticagrelor., Methods: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover, pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) study, patients with coronary artery disease (N = 20) were pretreated with a 180-mg ticagrelor loading dose and after 1 hour randomized to placebo or cangrelor (bolus and infusion for 2 hours). Patients crossed over after 1 to 4 weeks of washout. PK analysis included ticagrelor plasma levels and its active metabolite. PD assessments included VerifyNow P2Y 12 reaction units (PRU), light transmittance aggregometry, vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein, and Total Thrombus-Formation Analysis System. PK/PD assessments were performed at 7 time points., Results: Compared with placebo, adding cangrelor to patients pretreated with ticagrelor resulted in a significant reduction in PRU at 30 minutes and 1 hour after starting infusion. At 2 hours after stopping cangrelor/placebo infusion, PRU were low and similar in both groups (16.9 vs 12.6; mean difference: 4.3; 95% CI: -28.6 to 37.3), meeting the noninferiority primary endpoint (predefined noninferiority margin 45 PRU). Consistent findings were shown with all PD assays. PK tracked PD findings with no differences between groups in plasma levels of ticagrelor and its metabolite., Conclusions: Compared with placebo, the use of cangrelor in patients pretreated with ticagrelor results in enhanced platelet inhibition with no differences in PK/PD profiles after discontinuation of drug infusion indicating the absence of a DDI. (PD and PK Profiles of Switching Between Cangrelor and Ticagrelor Following Ticagrelor Pre-treatment [SWAP-5]; NCT04634162)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The present study was funded by an investigator-initiated grant from The Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. The Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation had no role in the study design conception, conduct of the study, or decision to publish these results. Dr Franchi has received consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, and Sanofi; and has received institutional payments for grants from PLx Pharma and The Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. Dr Angiolillo has received consulting fees or honoraria from Abbott, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, Novartis, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, and Sanofi; and has received research grants to the institution from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Eli Lilly, Gilead, Idorsia, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co, Merck, Novartis, and The Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Precision medicine is a medical model that proposes the customization of medical treatments to the individual patient, as opposed to a one-drug-fits-all model. Such a "personalized medicine" approach has been widely adopted in several medical fields, such as cancer medicine, but the implementation of precision medicine in cardiovascular medicine has not been similarly straightforward. Because pharmacogenomics plays an important role in the safety and efficacy of cardiovascular drug therapy, there has been a great interest in the use of tools aiming at personalizing antiplatelet therapy. Moreover, antiplatelet therapy is essential for the treatment of cardiovascular patients to reduce the risk of thrombotic complications, particularly those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, but it is inevitably associated with increased bleeding risk. In this review, the authors discuss the rationale, summarize the evidence and discuss the current and future directions for the personalization of antiplatelet treatment regimens in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

Aims: Guidelines recommend the use of potent P2Y12 inhibitors over clopidogrel for the reduction of ischaemic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, this comes at the expense of increased bleeding. A guided selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy has the potential to overcome this limitation. We aimed at evaluating the comparative safety and efficacy of guided vs. routine selection of potent P2Y12 inhibiting therapy in patients with ACS., Methods and Results: We performed a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different oral P2Y12 inhibitors currently recommended for the treatment of patients with ACS (clopidogrel, prasugrel, and ticagrelor). RCTs including a guided approach (i.e. platelet function or genetic testing) vs. standard selection of P2Y12 inhibitors among patients with ACS were also included. Incidence rate ratios (IRR) and associated 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated. P-scores were used to estimate hierarchies of efficacy and safety. The primary efficacy endpoint was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and the primary safety endpoint was all bleeding. A total of 61 898 patients from 15 RCTs were included. Clopidogrel was used as reference treatment. A guided approach was the only strategy associated with reduced MACE (IRR: 0.80, 95% CI: 0.65-0.98) without any significant trade-off in all bleeding (IRR: 1.22, 95% CI: 0.96-1.55). A guided approach and prasugrel were associated with reduced myocardial infarction. A guided approach, prasugrel, and ticagrelor were associated with reduced stent thrombosis. Ticagrelor was also associated with reduced total and cardiovascular mortality. Prasugrel was associated with increased major bleeding. Prasugrel and ticagrelor were associated with increased minor bleeding. The incidence of stroke did not differ between treatments., Conclusion: In patients with an ACS, compared with routine selection of potent P2Y12 inhibiting therapy (prasugrel or ticagrelor), a guided selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy is associated with the most favourable balance between safety and efficacy. These findings support a broader adoption of guided approach for the selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy in patients with ACS., Study Registration Number: This study is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021258603)., Key Question: A guided selection of P2Y12 inhibiting therapy using platelet function or genetic testing improves outcomes among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Nevertheless, the comparative safety and efficacy of a guided versus routine selection of potent P2Y12-inhibiting therapy in acute coronary syndrome has not been explored., Key Finding: In a comprehensive network meta-analysis including the totality of available evidence and using clopidogrel as treatment reference, a guided approach was the only strategy associated with reduced major adverse cardiovascular events without any significant trade-off in bleeding. Prasugrel and ticagrelor increased bleeding and only ticagrelor reduced mortality., Take Home Message: A guided selection of P2Y12-inhibiting therapy represents the strategy associated with the most favourable balance between safety and efficacy. These findings support a broader adoption of guided P2Y12 inhibiting therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2021. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Introduction: Current dietary guidelines recommend limiting sugar intake for the prevention of diabetes mellitus (DM). Reduction in sugar intake may require sugar substitutes. Among these, D-allulose is a non-calorie rare monosaccharide with 70% sweetness of sucrose, which has shown anti-DM effects in Asian populations. However, there is limited data on the effects of D-allulose in other populations, including Westerners., Research Design and Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study conducted in 30 subjects without DM. Study participants were given a standard oral (50 g) sucrose load and randomized to placebo or escalating doses of D-allulose (2.5, 5.0, 7.5, 10.0 g). Subjects crossed-over to the alternate study treatment after 7-14 days of wash out. Plasma glucose and insulin levels were measured at five time points: before and at 30, 60, 90 and 120 min after ingestion., Results: D-allulose was associated with a dose-dependent reduction of plasma glucose at 30 min compared with placebo. In particular, glucose was significantly lower with the 7.5 g (mean difference: 11; 95% CI 3 to 19; p=0.005) and 10 g (mean difference: 12; 95% CI 4 to 20; p=0.002) doses. Although glucose was not reduced at the other time points, there was a dose-dependent reduction in glucose excursion compared with placebo, which was significant with the 10 g dose (p=0.023). Accordingly, at 30 min D-allulose was associated with a trend towards lower insulin levels compared with placebo, which was significant with the 10 g dose (mean difference: 14; 95% CI 4 to 25; p=0.006). D-allulose did not reduce insulin at any other time point, but there was a significant dose-dependent reduction in insulin excursion compared with placebo (p=0.028), which was significant with the 10 g dose (p=0.002)., Conclusions: This is the largest study assessing the effects of D-allulose in Westerners demonstrating an early dose-dependent reduction in plasma glucose and insulin levels as well as decreased postprandial glucose and insulin excursion in subjects without DM. These pilot observations set the basis for large-scale investigations to support the anti-DM effects of D-allulose., Trial Registration Number: NCT02714413., Competing Interests: Competing interests: FF has received payment as an individual for consulting fee or honorarium from AstraZeneca, Bayer and Sanofi. DJA has received payment as an individual for: (a) consulting fee or honorarium from Abbott, Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Haemonetics, Janssen, Merck, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi and The Medicines Company; (b) participation in review activities from CeloNova and St. Jude Medical. Institutional payments for grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Gilead, Idorsia, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co. Ltd., Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, Renal Guard Solutions and the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation. YT, TI and NH are employees of Matsutani Chemical Industry Co. Ltd., which is a manufacturer of D-allulose. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background Vorapaxar as an adjunct to dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) reduces thrombotic events in patients with prior myocardial infarction at the expense of increased bleeding. Withdrawal of aspirin has emerged as a bleeding reduction strategy. The pharmacodynamic effects of vorapaxar with potent P2Y 12 inhibitors as well as the impact of dropping aspirin is unexplored and represented the aim of the VORA-PRATIC (Vorapaxar Therapy in Patients With Prior Myocardial Infarction Treated With Newer Generation P2Y 12 Receptor Inhibitors Prasugrel and Ticagrelor) study. Methods and Results Post-myocardial infarction patients (n=130) on standard DAPT (aspirin+prasugrel or ticagrelor) were randomized to 1 of 3 arms: (1) triple therapy: aspirin+prasugrel/ticagrelor+vorapaxar; (2) dual therapy (drop aspirin): prasugrel/ticagrelor+vorapaxar; (3) DAPT: aspirin+prasugrel/ticagrelor. Pharmacodynamic assessments were performed at 3 time points (baseline and 7 and 30 days). Vorapaxar reduced CAT (collagen-ADP-TRAP)-induced platelet aggregation, a marker of platelet-mediated global thrombogenicity (triple therapy versus DAPT at 30 days: mean difference=-27; 95% CI,-35 to -19; P <0.001; primary end point). This effect was attenuated but still significant in the absence of aspirin (dual therapy versus DAPT at 30 days: mean difference=-15; 95% CI,-23 to -7; P <0.001; between-group comparisons, P <0.05). Vorapaxar abolished TRAP-induced aggregation ( P <0.001), without affecting thrombin generation and clot strength. There were no differences in markers of P2Y 12 reactivity. Markers sensitive to aspirin-induced effects increased ( P <0.001) in the dual-therapy arm. Conclusions In post-myocardial infarction patients treated with potent P2Y 12 inhibitors, vorapaxar reduces platelet-driven global thrombogenicity, an effect that persisted, albeit attenuated, in the absence of aspirin and without affecting markers of P2Y 12 reactivity or clot kinetics. The clinical implications of these PD observations warrant future investigation. Registration URL: https://www.clini​caltr​ials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02545933.

The feasibility of rapid genetic testing in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and the comparison of the pharmacodynamic effects of prasugrel versus ticagrelor among carriers of cytochrome P450 2C19 loss-of-function alleles treated with PCI has been poorly explored. Rapid genetic testing using the Spartan assay was shown to be feasible and provides results in a timely fashion in a real-world setting of patients undergoing coronary angiography (n = 781). Among patients (n = 223, 28.5%), carriers of at least 1 loss-of-function allele treated with PCI (n = 65), prasugrel, and ticagrelor achieve similar levels of platelet inhibition. (A Pharmacodynamic Study Comparing Prasugrel Versus Ticagrelor in Patients Undergoing PCI With CYP2C19 Loss-of-function [NCT02065479])., (© 2020 The Authors.)

Vorapaxar reduces thrombotic cardiovascular events at the expense of increased bleeding. However, the differential pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of vorapaxar according to diabetes mellitus (DM) status are unknown. Moreover, although withdrawal of aspirin has emerged as a bleeding reduction strategy, the PD effects of stopping aspirin in patients treated with vorapaxar also are unknown. In this prospective PD investigation, vorapaxar was associated with reduced platelet-mediated thrombogenicity without affecting clot kinetics irrespective of DM status. However, platelet-mediated thrombogenicity increased after aspirin withdrawal, particularly among patients with DM. (Optimizing anti-Platelet Therapy In diabetes MellitUS-5 Study [OPTIMUS-5]; NCT02548650)., (© 2019 The Authors.)

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess if intravenous methylnaltrexone can counteract the effects of morphine on the pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) profiles of ticagrelor., Background: Morphine delays the onset of action of oral P2Y 12 receptor inhibitors, including ticagrelor, by inhibiting gastric emptying and leading to delayed drug absorption. Methylnaltrexone is a peripheral opioid receptor antagonist that has the potential to prevent opioid-induced peripherally mediated side effects (e.g., gastric emptying inhibition) without affecting analgesia., Methods: In this prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study, aspirin-treated patients with stable coronary artery disease (n = 30) were randomized to receive methylnaltrexone (0.3 mg/kg intravenous) or matching placebo. After methylnaltrexone or placebo administration, all patients received morphine (5 mg intravenous). This was followed 15 min later by a 180-mg loading dose of ticagrelor. Patients crossed over to the alternative study treatment after 7 ± 2 days of washout. PK and PD assessments were performed at 12 time points (6 pre- and 6 post-crossover). PK analysis included measurement of plasma levels of ticagrelor and its major active metabolite (AR-C124910XX). PD assessments included VerifyNow P2Y 12 , light transmittance aggregometry, and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein., Results: Only marginal changes in plasma levels of ticagrelor (and its major active metabolite) were observed with ticagrelor: maximum plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration versus time curve from time 0 to the last measurable concentration were 38% and 30% higher, respectively, in patients receiving methylnaltrexone compared with those receiving placebo, but no differences in time to maximum plasma concentration were observed. There were no differences in P2Y 12 reaction units by VerifyNow P2Y 12 between groups at each time point, including 2 h (the primary endpoint; p = 0.261). Similarly, there were no differences in PD markers assessed by light transmittance aggregometry and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein., Conclusions: In patients with coronary artery disease receiving morphine, intravenous administration of the peripheral opioid receptor antagonist methylnaltrexone leads to only marginal changes in plasma levels of ticagrelor and its major metabolite, without affecting levels of platelet reactivity. (Effect of Methylnaltrexone on the PK/PD Profiles of Ticagrelor in Patients Treated With Morphine; NCT02403830)., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The platelet inhibitory effects induced by oral P2Y 12 receptor antagonists are delayed in patients with ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (P-PCI). In turn, this leads to a gap in platelet inhibition, exposing patients to an increased risk of early thrombotic complications and underscoring the need to define strategies associated with more effective platelet inhibition in the peri-primary percutaneous coronary intervention period. Cangrelor is an intravenous P2Y 12 inhibitor with prompt and potent antiplatelet effects. However, to date, there are limited data on the effects of cangrelor used in combination with ticagrelor in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention. Moreover, questions have emerged on the potential for drug-drug interactions during the transition from cangrelor to oral P2Y 12 inhibitors., Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pharmacodynamic study conducted in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (n=50) who were randomized to treatment with either cangrelor or matching placebo (bolus followed by 2-hour infusion). All patients received ticagrelor 180-mg loading dose administered as crushed tablets at the time of cangrelor/placebo bolus administration. Pharmacodynamic analyses were performed at 8 time points. Pharmacodynamic effects were measured as P2Y 12 reaction units by VerifyNow and platelet reactivity index by vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein., Results: Compared with placebo, cangrelor was associated with reduced P2Y 12 reaction units as early as 5 minutes after bolus, which persisted during the entire duration of drug infusion, including at 30 minutes (63 [32-93] versus 214 [183-245]; mean difference, 152 [95% CI, 108-195]; P<0·001; primary end point). Parallel findings were shown with platelet reactivity index. Accordingly, high on-treatment platelet reactivity rates were reduced with cangrelor. After discontinuation of cangrelor/placebo infusion, there were no differences in levels of platelet reactivity between groups, ruling out a drug-drug interaction when cangrelor and ticagrelor are concomitantly administered., Conclusions: In patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention, cangrelor is an effective strategy to bridge the gap in platelet inhibition associated with the use of oral P2Y 12 inhibition induced by ticagrelor. Ticagrelor can be administered as a crushed formulation concomitantly with cangrelor without any apparent drug-drug interaction. The clinical implications of these pharmacodynamic findings warrant investigation in an adequately powered clinical trial., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT03247738.

Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a metabolic disorder associated with accelerated atherogenesis and an increased risk of atherothrombotic complications. Multiple mechanisms contribute to the pro-thrombotic status which characterizes DM patients underscoring the importance of antiplatelet therapies used for secondary prevention in these patients. For many years, dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and the P2Y 12 inhibitor clopidogrel has represented the mainstay of treatment following an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Although DAPT reduces the incidence of atherothrombotic recurrences, these rates remain high in DM patients underscoring the need for more efficacious therapies. Oral platelet P2Y 12 receptor inhibitors with enhanced potency, such as prasugrel and ticagrelor, as well as antiplatelet therapies such as vorapaxar inhibiting the thrombin-mediated platelet signaling pathway, constitute treatment opportunities for patients with DM and have shown to be associated with a greater reduction in ischemic recurrences, albeit at the cost of more bleeding. This article reviews currently available antiplatelet agents and delivers an update on the advances and drawbacks of these agents used for secondary prevention in DM patients experiencing an ACS or undergoing PCI., Competing Interests: Conflicts of Interest: DJ Angiolillo reports receiving payments as an individual for: (I) Consulting fee or honorarium from Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and The Medicines Company; (II) Participation in review activities from CeloNova and St. Jude Medical. Institutional payments for grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, and Renal Guard Solutions; in addition, Dr. Angiolillo is recipient of a funding from the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation and the NIH/NCATS Clinical and Translational Science Award to the University of Florida UL1 TR000064 and NIH/NHGRI U01 HG007269, outside the submitted work. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Background: Switching between different classes of P2Y 12 inhibitors, including de-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel, commonly occurs in clinical practice. However, the pharmacodynamic profiles of this strategy have been poorly explored., Methods: This was a prospective, randomized, open-label study conducted in patients on maintenance dosing (MD) of aspirin (81 mg/d) and clopidogrel (75 mg/d). After a 7-day run-in with ticagrelor (180 mg loading dose [LD] followed by 90 mg twice daily MD), patients (n=80) were randomized into 1 of 4 groups: group A, clopidogrel 600 mg LD 24 hours after the last MD of ticagrelor (C-600 mg-24h); group B, clopidogrel 600 mg LD 12 hours after the last MD of ticagrelor (C-600 mg-12h); group C, clopidogrel 75 mg/d MD 24 hours after the last MD of ticagrelor (C-75 mg-24h); and group D, ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily MD (T-90 mg twice daily). MD of the randomized treatment was maintained for 10±3 days. Pharmacodynamic assessments were performed at baseline, after run-in, and at 2, 24, 48, and 72 hours and 10 days with P2Y 12 reaction units by VerifyNow; platelet reactivity index was assessed by vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein; and maximal platelet aggregation was determined by light transmittance aggregometry., Results: T-90 mg twice daily led to lower platelet reactivity than any clopidogrel regimen using all assays at all time points. P2Y 12 reaction unit levels were similar between the C-600 mg-24h (group A) and the C-75 mg-24h (group C) ( P =0.29), including at 48 hours (primary end point; least mean difference, -6.9; 95% confidence interval, -38.1 to 24.3; P =0.66). P2Y 12 reaction unit levels were lower with C-600 mg-12h (group B) than with C-75 mg-24h (group C; P =0.024). Maximal platelet aggregation over time was lower with both C-600 mg-24h (group A; P =0.041) and C-600 mg-12h (group B; P =0.028) compared with C-75 mg-24h (group C). Platelet reactivity index profiles paralleled those observed with P2Y 12 reaction units. There were no pharmacodynamic differences for all tests between C-600 mg-24h (group A) and C-600 mg-12h (group B). In group C (C-75 mg-24h), platelet reactivity increased compared with baseline as early as 24 hours, reaching statistical significance at 48 and 72 hours and up to 10 days. These pharmacodynamic findings were delayed and blunted in magnitude with the administration of an LD, regardless of the timing of administration., Conclusions: De-escalation from ticagrelor to clopidogrel therapy is associated with an increase in platelet reactivity. The use of an LD before the initiation of an MD regimen of clopidogrel mitigates these observations, although this is not affected by the timing of its administration after ticagrelor discontinuation., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT02287909., (© 2018 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: The CYP2C19 nonfunctional genotype reduces clopidogrel effectiveness after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Following clinical implementation of CYP2C19 genotyping at University Florida (UF) Health Shands Hospital in 2012, where genotype results are available approximately 3 days after PCI, testing was expanded to UF Health Jacksonville in 2016 utilizing a rapid genotyping approach. We describe metrics with this latter implementation., Methods: Patients at UF Health Jacksonville undergoing left heart catheterization with intent to undergo PCI were targeted for genotyping using the Spartan RX™ system. Testing metrics and provider acceptance of testing and response to genotype results were examined, as was antiplatelet therapy over the 6 months following genotyping., Results: In the first year, 931 patients, including 392/505 (78%) total patients undergoing PCI, were genotyped. The median genotype test turnaround time was 96 min. Genotype results were available for 388 (99%) PCI patients prior to discharge. Of 336 genotyped PCI patients alive at discharge and not enrolled in an antiplatelet therapy trial, 1/6 (17%) poor metabolizers (PMs, with two nonfunctional alleles), 38/93 (41%) intermediate metabolizers (IMs, with one nonfunctional allele), and 119/237 (50%) patients without a nonfunctional allele were prescribed clopidogrel (p = 0.110). Clopidogrel use was higher among non-ACS versus ACS patients (78.6% vs. 42.2%, p < 0.001). Six months later, among patients with follow-up data, clopidogrel was prescribed in 0/4 (0%) PMs, 33/65 (51%) IMs, and 115/182 (63%) patients without a nonfunctional allele (p = 0.008 across groups; p = 0.020 for PMs versus those without a nonfunctional allele)., Conclusion: These data demonstrate that rapid genotyping is clinically feasible at a high volume cardiac catheterization facility and allows informed chronic antiplatelet prescribing, with lower clopidogrel use in PMs at 6 months. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02724319; registered March 31, 2016; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02724319?term=angiolillo&rank=7.

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and a P2Y 12 receptor antagonist represents the current standard of care to prevent atherothrombotic recurrences in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). However, despite the use of DAPT, the recurrence rate of cardiovascular ischemic events still remains high. This persistent risk may be in part attributed to the sustained activation of the coagulation cascade leading to generation of thrombin, which may continue to play a key role in thrombus formation. The use of vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) as a strategy to reduce atherothrombotic recurrences after an ACS has been previously tested, leading to overall unfavorable outcomes due to the high risk of bleeding complications. The recent introduction of non-VKA oral anticoagulants (NOACs), characterized by a better safety profile and ease of use compared with VKA, has led to a reappraisal of the use of oral anticoagulant therapy for secondary prevention in ACS patients. The present article provides an overview of the rationale and prognostic role of oral anticoagulant therapy in ACS patients as well as recent updated clinical data, in particular with NOACs, in the field and future perspectives on this topic., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement: Dr. Angiolillo reports receiving payments as an individual for: (a) consulting fee or honorarium from Amgen, Aralez, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chiesi, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Merck, PLx Pharma, Pfizer, Sanofi, and The Medicines Company; (b) participation in review activities from CeloNova and St. Jude Medical. Institutional payments for grants from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Biosensors, CeloNova, CSL Behring, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Eli-Lilly, Gilead, Janssen, Matsutani Chemical Industry Co., Merck, Novartis, Osprey Medical, and Renal Guard Solutions; in addition, Dr. Angiolillo is recipient of a funding from the Scott R. MacKenzie Foundation and the NIH/NCATS Clinical and Translational Science Award to the University of Florida UL1 TR000064 and NIH/NHGRI U01 HG007269, outside the submitted work.

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y 12 inhibitor is the treatment of choice for the prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndromes and for those undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. The availability of different oral P2Y 12 inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor) has enabled physicians to contemplate switching among therapies because of specific clinical scenarios. The recent introduction of an intravenous P2Y 12 inhibitor (cangrelor) further adds to the multitude of modalities and settings in which switching therapies may occur. In clinical practice, it is not uncommon to switch P2Y 12 inhibitor, and switching may be attributed to a variety of factors. However, concerns about the safety of switching between these agents have emerged. Practice guidelines have not fully elaborated on how to switch therapies, leaving clinicians with limited guidance on when and how to switch therapies when needed. This prompted the development of this expert consensus document by key leaders from North America and Europe with expertise in basic, translational, and clinical sciences in the field of antiplatelet therapy. This expert consensus provides an overview of the pharmacology of P2Y 12 inhibitors, different modalities and definitions of switching, and available literature and recommendations for switching between P2Y 12 inhibitors., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

The University of Florida (UF) Health Personalized Medicine Program launched in 2012 with CYP2C19 genotyping for clopidogrel response at UF Health Shands Hospital. We have since expanded CYP2C19 genotyping to UF Health Jacksonville and established the infrastructure at UF Health to support clinical implementation for five additional gene-drug pairs: TPMT-thiopurines, IFNL3 (IL28B)-PEG IFN-α-based regimens, CYP2D6-opioids, CYP2D6/CYP2C19-antidepressants and CYP2C19-proton pump inhibitors. We are contributing to the evidence based on outcomes with genotype-guided therapy through pragmatic studies of our clinical implementations. In addition, we have developed a broad array of educational programs for providers, trainees and students that incorporate personal genotype evaluation to enhance participant learning.

Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) is associated with enhanced platelet reactivity and impaired response to oral antiplatelet therapy, including clopidogrel. This post hoc analysis investigated the pharmacodynamic effects of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel loading dose (LD) in troponin-negative acute coronary syndrome patients with or without DM undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in the Ad Hoc PCI study., Methods and Results: Patients randomized (1:1) to receive ticagrelor 180 mg LD or clopidogrel 600 mg LD were assessed by diabetic status. Platelet reactivity (P2Y 12 reaction units [PRU] on VerifyNow ® assay) was measured pre-LD, at 0.5, 2, and 8 hours post-LD, and at the end of the percutaneous coronary intervention. The primary endpoint was PRU levels 2 hours post-LD; secondary endpoints included rates of high on-treatment platelet reactivity (PRU≥208). Of 100 randomized patients, 51 received ticagrelor (DM, n=20; non-DM, n=31) and 49 clopidogrel (DM, n=16; non-DM, n=33). At 2 hours post-LD, mean (SD) PRU levels in DM patients were 130.1 (111.7) with ticagrelor versus 287.6 (71.9) with clopidogrel (mean [95%CI] difference -157.5 [-225.3, -89.8]; P <0.001); in non-DM patients, they were 75.3 (75.7) versus 243.0 (72.4) (mean difference -167.7 [-207.1, -128.3]; P <0.001). High on-treatment platelet reactivity rates at 2 hours post-LD were also significantly ( P <0.001) reduced with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in DM and non-DM patients. Between-treatment differences for PRU and high on-treatment platelet reactivity were not significant at earlier time points but were at 8 hours post-LD ( P <0.001)., Conclusions: Compared with clopidogrel, ticagrelor achieved faster, enhanced platelet inhibition and reduced high on-treatment platelet reactivity rates, in DM and non-DM patients., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01603082., (© 2017 The Authors and AstraZeneca. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.)