Steg, P Gabriel

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.

AbstractBackgroundGuidelines suggest that “upstream” P2Y12 receptor antagonists should be considered in patients with non–ST‐segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (NSTE‐ACS).HypothesisEarly use of ticagrelor in patients managed with an invasive strategy would be more effective than clopidogrel because of its more rapid onset of action and greater potency.MethodsIn the PLATO trial, 6792 NSTE‐ACS patients were randomized to ticagrelor or clopidogrel (started prior to angiography) and underwent angiography within 72 hours of randomization. We compared efficacy and safety outcomes of ticagrelor vs clopidogrel as a function of “early” (<3h) vs “late” (≥3h) time to angiography. Adjusted Cox proportional hazards models evaluated interaction between randomized treatment and time from randomization to angiography on subsequent outcomes.ResultsOverall, a benefit of ticagrelor vs clopidogrel for cardiovascular death/myocardial infarction/stroke was seen at day 7 (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.67, P = 0.002), day 30 (HR: 0.81, P = 0.042), and 1 year (HR: 0.80, P = 0.0045). There were no significant interactions in the <3h vs ≥3h groups at any timepoint. For major bleeding, overall there was no significant increase (HR: 1.04, 95% confidence interval: 0.85‐1.27); but there was a significant interaction with no difference between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in the early group (HR: 0.79), but higher bleeding risk with ticagrelor in the late angiography group, at 7 days (HR: 1.51, Pint = 0.002). Patterns were similar at 30 days and 1 year.ConclusionsThe benefit of ticagrelor over clopidogrel was consistent in those undergoing early and late angiography, supporting upstream use of ticagrelor.

Objective The effects of ticagrelor in the subpopulation of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) were consistent with those observed in the overall Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) study. However, this subgroup included patients initially or ultimately treated conservatively. The aim of this study is to compare treatment using ticagrelor with treatment using clopidogrel in patients with STEMI undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Methods This post-hoc subgroup analysis compared ticagrelor with clopidogrel in 4949 PLATO patients with STEMI that were treated with primary PCI within 12 h of admission. The primary endpoint was cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke. The safety endpoint consisted of any major bleeding. Secondary endpoints included stent thrombosis. The analysis was not adequately powered to establish significance of any treatment effects. Results During a median of 286 days, the primary endpoint occurred in 7.9% of ticagrelor-treated patients versus 8.6% of clopidogrel-treated patients (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.12, p=0.38). Major bleeding occurred in 6.7% in ticagrelor-treated patients versus 6.8% of clopidogrel-treated patients (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.22, p=0.79). No interactions were observed for the treatment effect of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel on the primary efficacy (p=0.40) and primary safety endpoints (p=0.15) as compared with the full PLATO population. Treatment with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel reduced the occurrence of definite stent thrombosis (HR 0.58, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.89, p=0.013). Conclusions In the subset of patients with STEMI treated with primary PCI, ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel was safe, and efficacy outcomes were consistent with the overall PLATO trial. Trial registration number NCT00391872; Results.

Background— Studies report a protective effect of higher attained educational level (AEL) on cardiovascular outcomes. However, most of these studies have been conducted in high-income countries (HICs) and lack representation from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), which bear >80% of the global burden of cardiovascular disease. Methods and Results— The Reduction of Atherothrombosis for Continued Health (REACH) Registry is a prospective study of 67 888 subjects with either established atherothrombotic (coronary, cerebrovascular, and/or peripheral arterial) disease or multiple atherothrombotic risk factors enrolled from 5587 physician practices in 44 countries. At baseline, AEL (0 to 8 years, 9 to 12 years, trade or technical school, and university) was self-reported for 61 332 subjects. Outcomes included the baseline prevalence of atherothrombotic risk factors and the rate of incident cardiovascular events (cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke) through 23 months across AEL groups, stratified by sex and world region (LMICs or HICs). Educational attainment was inversely associated with age and diabetes mellitus and directly associated with hypercholesterolemia in all subjects. However, for other risk factors such as obesity, smoking, hypertension, and baseline burden of vascular disease, AEL was protective (inversely associated) in HICs but not protective in LMICs. The protective effect of greater AEL on incident cardiovascular events was strongest in men from HICs ( P <0.0001), more modest in women from HICs ( P =0.0026) and in men from LMICs ( P =0.082), and essentially absent in women from LMICs ( P =0.32). Conclusion— In contrast to HICs, higher AEL may not be protective against cardiovascular events in LMICs, particularly in women.