Search

Objectives: Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin + a P2Y12 inhibitor is recommended for at least 12 months for patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS), with shorter durations considered for patients with increased bleeding risk. However, there are no decision support tools available to predict an individual patient's bleeding risk during DAPT treatment in the post-ACS setting., Methods: To develop a longitudinal bleeding risk prediction model, we analy sed 9240 patients with unstable angina/non-ST segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) from the Targeted Platelet Inhibition to Clarify the Optimal Strategy to Medically Manage Acute Coronary Syndromes (TRILOGY ACS) trial, who were managed without revasculari sation and treated with DAPT for a median of 14.8 months., Results: We identified 10 significant baseline predictors of non-coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)-related Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Arteries (GUSTO) severe/life-threatening/moderate bleeding: age, sex, weight, NSTEMI (vs unstable angina), angiography performed before randomi sation, prior peptic ulcer disease, creatinine, systolic blood pressure, haemoglobin and treatment with beta-blocker. The five significant baseline predictors of Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major or minor bleeding included age, sex, angiography performed before randomi sation, creatinine and haemoglobin. The models showed good predictive accuracy with Therneau's C- indices: 0.78 (SE = 0.024) for the GUSTO model and 0.67 (SE = 0.023) for the TIMI model. Internal validation with bootstrapping gave similar C -indices of 0.77 and 0.65, respectively. External validation demonstrated an attenuated C -index for the GUSTO model (0.69) but not the TIMI model (0.68)., Conclusions: Longitudinal bleeding risks during treatment with DAPT in patients with ACS can be reliably predicted using selected baseline characteristics. The TRILOGY ACS bleeding models can inform risk -benefit considerations regarding the duration of DAPT following ACS., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00699998., Competing Interests: Competing interests: JA: consulting fees: Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi-Aventis and Eli Lilly. Lecture fees: AstraZeneca, Novartis, Merck, Sharp & Dohme and Sanofi-Aventis. Research funding: AstraZeneca. BN and MN: none. DLB: advisory board: Cardax, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, Medscape Cardiology, Regado Biosciences. Board of directors: Boston VA Research Institute, Society of Cardiovascular Patient Care. Chair: American Heart Association Get With The Guidelines Steering Committee. Data monitoring committees: Duke Clinical Research Institute, Harvard Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Population Health Research Institute. Honoraria: American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org), Belvoir Publications (Editor in Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees), Harvard Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committee), HMP Communications (Editor in Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Associate Editor), Population Health Research Institute (clinical trial steering committee), Slack Publications (Chief Medical Editor, Cardiology Today’s Intervention), WebMD (CME steering committees). Other: Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor). Research funding: Amarin, AstraZeneca, Biotronik, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eisai, Ethicon, Forest Laboratories, Ischemix, Medtronic, Pfizer, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, St. Jude Medical, The Medicines Company. Trustee: American College of Cardiology. Unfunded research: FlowCo, PLx Pharma, Takeda. SGG: consulting fees: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Merck and Sanofi-Aventis. Research grants: AstraZeneca, Bayer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Daiichi Sankyo, Eli Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Merck and Sanofi-Aventis. All other disclosures (unrelated to this manuscript) are listed at: http://www.vigour.ualberta.ca/About/ConflictofInterest.aspx. PT: research grants: Merck, Sanofi-Aventis, CSL and Regeneron. Consulting payments: Merck and CSL. KWM: grant funding: Medtronic and St. Jude. Consulting payments: American College of Cardiology, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Cubist, Eli Lilly, Elsevier, Forest, GlaxoSmithKline, Johnson and Johnson, Medtronic, Merck, Omthera, Portola, Spring Publishing, The Medicines Company and WebMD. JHC: consulting payments: Eli Lilly, Merck Sharp and Dohme, AstraZeneca and Merck. HDW: grant support from Sanofi-Aventis, Eli Lilly, The Medicines Company, NIH, Pfizer, Roche, Johnson & Johnson, Schering-Plough, Merck Sharp & Dohme, AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Daiichi Sankyo Pharma Development and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Advisory boards: Merck Sharpe & Dohme, Roche and Regado Biosciences. KAAF: research grants: Lilly, Bayer, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca. Speakers bureau: Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca and Sanofi-Aventis. Consulting/other: Lilly, Bayer, Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, Sanofi-Aventis, Boehringer Ingelheim and Eli Lilly. DP: research grants: Eli Lilly and the Medtronic Foundation. Honoraria: Eli Lilly. KJW: employee and minor stockholder of Eli Lilly and Company. PWA: consulting fees: Eli Lilly, Hoffmann-La Roche, Merck, Axio Research and Orexigen. Grant support: Boehringer Ingelheim, Hoffmann-La Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Scios, Ortho Biotech, Johnson & Johnson, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Amylin Pharmaceuticals and Merck. Payment for developing educational presentations: AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly and Company. EMO: grant support and travel expenses: Daiichi Sankyo and Eli Lilly. Consulting fees: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead Sciences, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Liposcience, Merck, Pozen, Hoffmann-La Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, The Medicines Company and Web MD. Grant support: Gilead Sciences. Lecture fees: Gilead Sciences, Boehringer Ingelheim and The Medicines Company. MTR: research funding: Eli Lilly, Sanofi-Aventis, Daiichi Sankyo, Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association and the Familial Hypercholesterolemia Foundation. Consulting payments or honoraria: AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Merck, Amgen, Pri-Med and Elsevier Publishers. All conflicts of interest are listed at https://www.dcri.org/about-us/conflict-of-interest., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

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., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Evaluation of antithrombotic treatments for acute coronary syndromes (ACS) requires balancing ischemic and bleeding risks to assess net benefit. We sought to compare the relative effects of ischemic and bleeding events on mortality., Methods: In the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial, we compared spontaneous ischemic events (myocardial infarction or stroke) with spontaneous major bleeding events (PLATO major, Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction [TIMI] major, Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries [GUSTO] severe) with respect to risk of mortality using time-dependent Cox proportional hazards models. The comparison was performed using ratio of hazard ratios for mortality increase after ischemic vs bleeding events., Results: A total of 822 patients (4.4%) had ≥1 spontaneous ischemic event; 485 patients (2.6%), ≥1 spontaneous PLATO major bleed, 282 (1.5%), ≥1 spontaneous TIMI major bleed; and 207 (1.1%), ≥1 spontaneous severe GUSTO bleed. In patients who had both events, bleeding occurred first in most patients. Regardless of classification, major bleeding events were associated with increased short- and long-term mortality that were not significantly different from the increase associated with spontaneous ischemic events: ratio of hazard ratios (95% CIs) for short- and long-term mortality after spontaneous ischemic vs bleeding events: 1.46 (0.98-2.19) and 0.92 (0.52-1.62) (PLATO major); 1.26 (0.80-1.96) and 1.19 (0.58-2.24) (TIMI major), 0.72 (0.47-1.10) and 0.83 (0.38-1.79) (GUSTO severe) (all P>0.05) CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ACS on dual antiplatelet therapy, spontaneous major bleeding events seem "prognostically equivalent" to spontaneous ischemic complications. This result allows quantitative comparisons between both actual and predicted bleeding and ischemic risks. Our findings help to better define net clinical benefit of antithrombotic treatments and more accurately estimate mortality after ischemic and bleeding events in patients with ACS., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The relationship between "on-treatment" low platelet reactivity and longitudinal risks of major bleeding dual antiplatelet therapy following acute coronary syndromes remains uncertain, especially for patients who do not undergo percutaneous coronary intervention., Methods and Results: We analyzed 2428 medically managed acute coronary syndromes patients from the Targeted Platelet Inhibition to Clarify the Optimal Strategy to Medically Manage Acute Coronary Syndromes (TRILOGY ACS) trial who had serial platelet reactivity measurements (P2Y 12 reaction units; PRUs) and were randomized to aspirin+prasugrel versus aspirin+clopidogrel for up to 30 months. Contal's method was used to determine whether a cut point for steady-state PRU values could distinguish high versus low bleeding risk using 2-level composites: Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) severe/life-threatening or moderate bleeding unrelated to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and non-CABG Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction (TIMI) major or minor bleeding. Exploratory analyses used 3-level composites that incorporated mild and minimal GUSTO and TIMI events. Continuous measures of PRUs (per 10-unit decrease) were not independently associated with the 2-level GUSTO (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% CI, 0.96-1.06) or TIMI composites (1.02; 0.98-1.07). Furthermore, no PRU cut point could significantly distinguish bleeding risk using the 2-level composites. However, the PRU cut point of 75 differentiated bleeding risk with the 3-level composites of GUSTO (26.5% vs 12.6%; adjusted HR, 2.28; 95% CI, 1.77-2.94; P<0.001) and TIMI bleeding events (25.9% vs 12.2%; adjusted HR, 2.30; 95% CI, 1.78-2.97; P<0.001)., Conclusions: Among medically managed non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes patients receiving prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, PRU values were not significantly associated with the long-term risk of major bleeding events, suggesting that low on-treatment platelet reactivity does not independently predict serious bleeding risk., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00699998., (© 2016 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley Blackwell.)

Aims: We aimed to study the relationship of chronic kidney disease stages with long-term ischemic and bleeding outcomes in medically managed acute coronary syndrome patients and the influence of more potent antiplatelet therapies on platelet reactivity by chronic kidney disease stage., Methods and Results: We estimated creatinine clearance for 8953 medically managed acute coronary syndrome patients enrolled in the Targeted Platelet Inhibition to Clarify the Optimal Strategy to Medically Manage Acute Coronary Syndromes trial. Patients were classified by chronic kidney disease stage: normal renal function/mild (creatinine clearance >60 mL/min); moderate (creatinine clearance 30-60 mL/min); severe (creatinine clearance <30 mL/min). Kaplan-Meier event rates through 30 months were evaluated for ischemic (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke; primary end point) and bleeding (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries and Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction bleeding) outcomes by chronic kidney disease stage and treatment allocation (prasugrel vs. clopidogrel) within each stage. Adjusted hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) for moderate and for severe chronic kidney disease vs. normal/mild chronic kidney disease were estimated. Platelet reactivity at 30 days was assessed in a subset of patients (n = 1947). The majority of patients were in the normal/mild chronic kidney disease group (67%), followed by moderate chronic kidney disease (29%) and severe chronic kidney disease (4%). The incidence of ischemic and bleeding outcomes increased sharply across chronic kidney disease stages and no significant treatment interactions were observed. The adjusted risk of the primary end point increased across chronic kidney disease stages (moderate vs. normal/mild: hazard ratio 1.26; 95% confidence interval 1.09-1.46; severe vs. normal/mild: hazard ratio 1.60; 95% confidence interval 1.25-2.04). Platelet reactivity was lower in patients treated with prasugrel compared with clopidogrel, across all three chronic kidney disease stages., Conclusions: Among medically managed acute coronary syndrome patients, the long-term risks of ischemic and bleeding outcomes increased markedly with worse chronic kidney disease stages. Despite lower platelet reactivity of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel, no treatment interactions for ischemic and bleeding outcomes were observed., (© The European Society of Cardiology 2015.)

Background: The Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) scale has been proposed to standardize bleeding endpoint definitions and reporting in cardiovascular trials. Validation in large cohorts of patients is needed., Objectives: This study sought to investigate the relationship between BARC-classified bleeding and mortality and compared its prognostic value against 2 validated bleeding scales: TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) and GUSTO (Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Arteries)., Methods: We analyzed bleeding in 12,944 patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation, with or without early invasive strategy. The main outcome measure was all-cause death., Results: During follow-up (median: 502 days), noncoronary artery bypass graft (CABG) bleeding occurred in 1,998 (15.4%) patients according to BARC (grades 2, 3, or 5), 484 (3.7%) patients according to TIMI minor/major, and 514 (4.0%) patients according to GUSTO moderate/severe criteria. CABG-related bleeding (BARC 4) occurred in 155 (1.2%) patients. Patients with BARC (2, 3, or 4) bleeding had a significant increase in risk of death versus patients without bleeding (BARC 0 or 1); the hazard was highest in the 30 days after bleeding (hazard ratio: 7.35; 95% confidence interval: 5.59 to 9.68; p < 0.0001) and remained significant up to 1 year. The hazard of mortality increased progressively with non-CABG BARC grades. BARC 4 bleeds were significantly associated with mortality within 30 days (hazard ratio: 10.05; 95% confidence interval: 5.41 to 18.69; p < 0.0001), but not thereafter. Inclusion of BARC (2, 3, or 4) bleeding in the 1-year mortality model with baseline characteristics improved it to an extent comparable to TIMI minor/major and GUSTO moderate/severe bleeding., Conclusions: In patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation, bleeding assessed with the BARC scale was significantly associated with risk of subsequent death up to 1 year after the event and risk of mortality increased gradually with higher BARC grades. Our results support adoption of the BARC bleeding scale in ACS clinical trials. (Trial to Assess the Effects of Vorapaxar [SCH 530348; MK-5348] in Preventing Heart Attack and Stroke in Participants With Acute Coronary Syndrome [TRACER] [Study P04736]; NCT00527943)., (Copyright © 2016 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Protease-activated receptor 1 antagonism with vorapaxar represents a novel strategy for platelet inhibition. In TRACER, vorapaxar was compared with placebo plus standard of care among 12,944 patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. We anticipated that most patients would have received clopidogrel as part of standard care. We investigated the modification of vorapaxar's effect associated with clopidogrel use over time., Methods: The marginal structural model method was used to estimate causal modification of vorapaxar effect by use of clopidogrel over time. The primary outcomes were the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke and Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries moderate or severe bleeding. The event accrual period excluded the time during which clopidogrel was clinically warranted., Results: Among 12,887 patients who received study medication, 11,117 (86.3%) received clopidogrel before randomization, of whom 38.5% stopped later in the trial (median time to stoppage 200 days with placebo; interquartile range [IQR] 14-367) (186 days with vorapaxar; IQR 17-366). In total, 1,770 (13.7%) patients were not on clopidogrel at randomization, of whom 47.8% started afterward (median time to start 2 days; IQR 2-4). During the period of event accrual, vorapaxar was associated with a 26% reduction in the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke when used with clopidogrel (hazard ratio [HR] 0.74; 95% CI 0.60-0.91) and a 24% reduction when used without clopidogrel (HR 0.76; 95% CI 0.56-1.02) (interaction; P = .89). The hazard of Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries bleeding with vorapaxar was not significantly different without clopidogrel (HR 1.33; 95% CI 0.81-2.20) or with clopidogrel (HR 1.09; 95% CI 0.76-1.56) (interaction; P = .53)., Conclusions: We observed no interaction between vorapaxar and clopidogrel after non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes on efficacy or safety outcomes, supporting a complementary role of protease-activated receptor 1 and P2Y12 antagonism., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: We sought to determine the feasibility of conducting percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in high-risk acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients utilising the REG1 system consisting of pegnivacogin, an aptameric factor IXa inhibitor, and its controlling agent anivamersen., Methods and Results: In RADAR, ACS patients were randomised to pegnivacogin 1 mg/kg with 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% anivamersen reversal or unfractionated heparin. Of the 640 patients randomised, 388 (61%) underwent PCI. Major modified ACUITY 30-day bleeding rates were 18% (25% reversal), 12% (50% reversal), 9% (75% reversal), and 7% (100% reversal), compared with 11% with heparin. The corresponding total bleeding rates were 68%, 39%, 35%, 34%, and 38% (heparin). Ischaemic events were less frequent in those receiving pegnivacogin versus heparin (4.4% vs. 7.3%, p=0.3). Thirty-day urgent TVR (1.1% vs. 0.9%, p=1.0), myocardial infarction (4.0% vs. 6.4%, p=0.3), and angiographic complication (11.2% and 10.8%, p=0.9) rates were similar with pegnivacogin and heparin. There were no incidences of clot formation on guidewires or catheters., Conclusions: High-level factor IXa inhibition in ACS patients undergoing PCI, with at least 50% reversal, has a favourable bleeding profile and appears effective at suppressing ischaemic events and thrombotic complications. Larger phase trials in PCI are warranted., Clinical Trials Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00932100.

Background: Patients with prior coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) who present with an acute coronary syndrome have a high risk for recurrent events. Whether intensive antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor might be beneficial compared with clopidogrel is unknown. In this substudy of the PLATO trial, we studied the effects of randomized treatment dependent on history of CABG., Methods: Patients participating in PLATO were classified according to whether they had undergone prior CABG. The trial's primary and secondary end points were compared using Cox proportional hazards regression., Results: Of the 18,613 study patients, 1,133 (6.1%) had prior CABG. Prior-CABG patients had more high-risk characteristics at study entry and a 2-fold increase in clinical events during follow-up, but less major bleeding. The primary end point (composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, and stroke) was reduced to a similar extent by ticagrelor among patients with (19.6% vs 21.4%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.91 [0.67, 1.24]) and without (9.2% vs 11.0%; adjusted HR, 0.86 [0.77, 0.96]; P(interaction) = .73) prior CABG. Major bleeding was similar with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel among patients with (8.1% vs 8.7%; adjusted HR, 0.89 [0.55, 1.47]) and without (11.8% vs 11.4%; HR, 1.08 [0.98, 1.20]; P(interaction) = .46) prior CABG., Conclusions: Prior-CABG patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome are a high-risk cohort for death and recurrent cardiovascular events but have a lower risk for major bleeding. Similar to the results in no-prior-CABG patients, ticagrelor was associated with a reduction in ischemic events without an increase in major bleeding., (© 2013.)

Background: Vorapaxar is a new oral protease-activated-receptor 1 (PAR-1) antagonist that inhibits thrombin-induced platelet activation., Methods: In this multinational, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared vorapaxar with placebo in 12,944 patients who had acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, or urgent coronary revascularization., Results: Follow-up in the trial was terminated early after a safety review. After a median follow-up of 502 days (interquartile range, 349 to 667), the primary end point occurred in 1031 of 6473 patients receiving vorapaxar versus 1102 of 6471 patients receiving placebo (Kaplan-Meier 2-year rate, 18.5% vs. 19.9%; hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.85 to 1.01; P=0.07). A composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 822 patients in the vorapaxar group versus 910 in the placebo group (14.7% and 16.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98; P=0.02). Rates of moderate and severe bleeding were 7.2% in the vorapaxar group and 5.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.58; P<0.001). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 1.1% and 0.2%, respectively (hazard ratio, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.78 to 6.45; P<0.001). Rates of nonhemorrhagic adverse events were similar in the two groups., Conclusions: In patients with acute coronary syndromes, the addition of vorapaxar to standard therapy did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point but significantly increased the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRACER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00527943.).

AIMS More intense platelet-directed therapy for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) may increase bleeding risk. The aim of the current analysis was to determine the rate, clinical impact, and predictors of major and fatal bleeding complications in the PLATO study. METHODS AND RESULTS PLATO was a randomized, double-blind, active control international, phase 3 clinical trial in patients with acute ST elevation and non-ST-segment elevation ACS. A total of 18 624 patients were randomized to either ticagrelor, a non-thienopyridine, reversibly binding platelet P2Y(12) receptor antagonist, or clopidogrel in addition to aspirin. Patients randomized to ticagrelor and clopidogrel had similar rates of PLATO major bleeding (11.6 vs. 11.2%; P = 0.43), TIMI major bleeding (7.9 vs. 7.7%, P = 0.56) and GUSTO severe bleeding (2.9 vs. 3.1%, P = 0.22). Procedure-related bleeding rates were also similar. Non-CABG major bleeding (4.5 vs. 3.8%, P = 0.02) and non-procedure-related major bleeding (3.1 vs. 2.3%, P = 0.05) were more common in ticagrelor-treated patients, primarily after 30 days on treatment. Fatal bleeding and transfusion rates did not differ between groups. There were no significant interactions for major bleeding or combined minor plus major bleeding between treatment groups and age ≥75 years, weight <60 kg, region, chronic kidney disease, creatinine clearance <60 mL/min, aspirin dose >325 mg on the day of randomization, pre-randomization clopidogrel administration, or clopidogrel loading dose. CONCLUSION Ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel was associated with similar total major bleeding but increased non-CABG and non-procedure-related major bleeding, primarily after 30 days on study drug treatment. Fatal bleeding was low and did not differ between groups.

The article discusses a study on the effectiveness of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes intended for non-invasive management. The study utilizes the prospective randomised PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial in determining the comparison. It revealed that the benefits of ticagrelor over clopidogrel were consistent with those from the overall PLATO results.

Background: REG1 is a novel anticoagulation system consisting of pegnivacogin, an RNA aptamer inhibitor of coagulation factor IXa, and anivamersen, a complementary sequence reversal oligonucleotide. We tested the hypothesis that near complete inhibition of factor IXa with pegnivacogin during percutaneous coronary intervention, followed by partial reversal with anivamersen, would reduce ischaemic events compared with bivalirudin, without increasing bleeding.Methods: We did a randomised, open-label, active-controlled, multicentre, superiority trial to compare REG1 with bivalirudin at 225 hospitals in North America and Europe. We planned to randomly allocate 13,200 patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in a 1:1 ratio to either REG1 (pegnivacogin 1 mg/kg bolus [>99% factor IXa inhibition] followed by 80% reversal with anivamersen after percutaneous coronary intervention) or bivalirudin. Exclusion criteria included ST segment elevation myocardial infarction within 48 h. The primary efficacy endpoint was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and unplanned target lesion revascularisation by day 3 after randomisation. The principal safety endpoint was major bleeding. Analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT01848106. The trial was terminated early after enrolment of 3232 patients due to severe allergic reactions.Findings: 1616 patients were allocated REG1 and 1616 were assigned bivalirudin, of whom 1605 and 1601 patients, respectively, received the assigned treatment. Severe allergic reactions were reported in ten (1%) of 1605 patients receiving REG1 versus one (<1%) of 1601 patients treated with bivalirudin. The composite primary endpoint did not differ between groups, with 108 (7%) of 1616 patients assigned REG1 and 103 (6%) of 1616 allocated bivalirudin reporting a primary endpoint event (odds ratio [OR] 1·05, 95% CI 0·80-1·39; p=0·72). Major bleeding was similar between treatment groups (seven [<1%] of 1605 receiving REG1 vs two [<1%] of 1601 treated with bivalirudin; OR 3·49, 95% CI 0·73-16·82; p=0·10), but major or minor bleeding was increased with REG1 (104 [6%] vs 65 [4%]; 1·64, 1·19-2·25; p=0·002).Interpretation: The reversible factor IXa inhibitor REG1, as currently formulated, is associated with severe allergic reactions. Although statistical power was limited because of early termination, there was no evidence that REG1 reduced ischaemic events or bleeding compared with bivalirudin.Funding: Regado Biosciences Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]