Search

Circulating lipoproteins may interact with platelets, increasing platelet sensitivity to aggregating agonists and their tendency towards activation and thrombus formation. In particular, patients with hypercholesterolemia exhibit a higher degree of platelet reactivity compared to normolipidemic. Moreover, accruing evidence report that lipid-lowering therapies can reduce thrombus formation, particularly in the absence of concomitant antiplatelet therapy. However, the underlying biological mechanism(s) explaining these clinical observations are not completely understood. Baseline platelet reactivity and high on-treatment platelet reactivity while on antiplatelet therapy (e.g., aspirin and clopidogrel) are associated with poor clinical outcomes. Therefore, strategies to reduce baseline platelet reactivity or improve the pharmacodynamic profile of antiplatelet therapies are an unmet clinical need. The potential use of lipid-lowering therapies for optimizing platelet reactivity provides several advantages as there is strong evidence that reducing circulating lipoproteins can improve clinical outcomes, and they may avoid the need for potent antiplatelet therapies that, although more effective, are associated with increased bleeding risk. This review will provide a systematic overview of the effects of lipid-lowering therapy on platelet reactivity in patients treated with and without antiplatelet therapy. We will focus on the potential biological mechanism(s) of action and the effect of statins, ezetimibe, proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin 9 inhibitors, omega-3 fatty acids, and recombinant high-density lipoprotein on platelet reactivity. Ultimately, we will assess the current gaps in the literature and future perspective in the field.

Background: Among patients treated with a novel oral anticoagulant (NOAC) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), combination therapy with clopidogrel (ie, known as dual antithrombotic therapy [DAT]) is the treatment of choice. However, there are concerns for individuals with impaired response to clopidogrel., Objectives: The authors sought to assess the pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of clopidogrel vs low-dose ticagrelor in patients with impaired clopidogrel response assessed by the ABCD-GENE score., Methods: This was a prospective, randomized PD study of NOAC-treated patients undergoing PCI. Patients with an ABCD-GENE score ≥10 (n = 39), defined as having impaired clopidogrel response, were randomized to low-dose ticagrelor (n = 20; 60 mg twice a day) or clopidogrel (n = 19; 75 mg once a day). Patients with an ABCD-GENE score <10 (n = 42) were treated with clopidogrel (75 mg once a day; control cohort). PD assessments at baseline and 30 days post-randomization (trough and peak) were performed to assess P2Y 12 signaling (VerifyNow P2Y 12 reaction units [PRU], light transmittance aggregometry, and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein); makers of thrombosis not specific to P2Y 12 signaling were also assessed. The primary endpoint was PRU (trough levels) at 30 days., Results: At 30 days, PRU levels were reduced with ticagrelor-based DAT compared with clopidogrel-based DAT at trough (23.0 [Q1-Q3: 3.0-46.0] vs 154.5 [Q1-Q3: 77.5-183.0]; P < 0.001) and peak (6.0 [Q1-Q3: 4.0-14.0] vs 129.0 [Q1-Q3: 66.0-171.0]; P < 0.001). Trough PRU levels in the control arm (104.0 [Q1-Q3: 35.0-167.0]) were higher than ticagrelor-based DAT (P = 0.005) and numerically lower than clopidogrel-based DAT (P = 0.234). Results were consistent by light transmittance aggregometry and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein. Markers measuring other pathways leading to thrombus formation were largely unaffected., Conclusions: In NOAC-treated patients undergoing PCI with an ABCD-GENE score ≥10, ticagrelor-based DAT using a 60-mg, twice-a-day regimen reduced platelet P2Y 12 reactivity compared with clopidogrel-based DAT. (Tailoring P2Y12 Inhibiting Therapy in Patients Requiring Oral Anticoagulation After PCI [SWAP-AC-2]; NCT04483583)., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The study was funded by institutional grants from the University of Florida. Dr Franchi has received consulting fees or honoraria from AstraZeneca; and institutional 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 Ajjan has received institutional research grants and honoraria/educational support/consultancy from Abbott Diabetes Care, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Menarini Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, and Roche. 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, and Sanofi; and has received institutional 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. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.)

Since its emergence, the COVID-19 pandemic has been ravaging the medical and economic sectors even with the significant vaccination advances. In severe presentations, the disease of SARS-CoV-2 can manifest with life-threatening thromboembolic and multi-organ repercussions provoking notable morbidity and mortality. The pathogenesis of such burdensome forms has been under extensive investigation and is attributed to a state of immune dysfunction and hyperinflammation. In light of these extraordinary circumstances, research efforts have focused on investigating and repurposing previously available agents that target the inflammatory and hematological cascades. Aspirin, due to its well-known properties and multiple molecular targets, and ought to its extensive clinical use, has been perceived as a potential therapeutic agent for COVID-19. Aspirin acts at multiple cellular targets to achieve its anti-inflammatory and anti-platelet effects. Although initial promising clinical data describing aspirin role in COVID-19 has appeared, evidence supporting its use remains fragile and premature. This review explores the notion of repurposing aspirin in COVID-19 infection. It delves into aspirin as a molecule, along with its pharmacology and clinical applications. It also reviews the current high-quality clinical evidence highlighting the role of aspirin in SARS-CoV-2 infection., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Zareef, Diab, Al Saleh, Makarem, Younis, Bitar and Arabi.)

Ever since gadolinium was found to deposit in the brain of patients with normal kidney function by Kanda et al. in 2014, several studies have been conducted to evaluate its effect on the patients' health. However, conflicting results were obtained regarding imaging in gadolinium retention. These finding were attributed to the chelating structure of the administered gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA): linear agents were found to accumulate in the dentate nucleus (DN) and the globus pallidus (GP) of subjects even after one dose. There are some contradictory results when assessing macrocyclic agents. In the following article, we review the basis of GBCAs characteristics and their side effects, as well as, the MRI studies that assessed the accumulation of gadolinium in the brain. Based on the results of several studies, in 2017, the European Medicine Agency requested the suspension of the marketing authorizations for three linear GBCAs: gadodiamide (Omniscan®), gadoversetamide (Optimark®) and gadopentate dimeglimine (Magnevist®) and limited the use of gadoxetate disodium (Primovist/Eovist®) and gadobenate dimeglumine (MultiHance®) to hepatic uptake for imaging poorly vascularized hepatic lesions. Accordingly, the FDA did not restrict GBCA use, but will continue to study their safety and urged clinicians to use these agents sparingly. All macrocyclic GBCAs continued however to be used as no available valid evidence linked them to brain gadolinium retention. Regardless of possible accumulation in the brain, there is no evidence to-date that gadolinium retention leads to any disease or disorders in subjects with normal renal function. Further investigations with long-term follow-up are needed.