Pereira, Naveen L

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.

Background In TAILOR‐PCI, genotype‐guided selection of P2Y 12 inhibitors after percutaneous coronary intervention did not significantly reduce the risk of ischemic events at 12 months. The Age, Body Mass Index, Chronic Kidney Disease, Diabetes, and Genotyping (ABCD‐GENE) score identifies patients with high platelet reactivity on clopidogrel at increased risk of ischemic events. The aim of this study was to investigate the value of the ABCD‐GENE score for tailoring P2Y 12 inhibitor selection after percutaneous coronary intervention. Methods and Results In a post hoc analysis of the TAILOR‐PCI, outcomes were analyzed by ABCD‐GENE score and allocation to genotype‐guided or conventional P2Y 12 inhibitor selection. Primary (death, myocardial infarction, or stroke) and secondary (cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, stent thrombosis, or severe recurrent ischemia) outcomes were assessed. Among 3883 patients discharged on clopidogrel in the genotype‐guided and conventional therapy groups, 15.8% and 84.2% had high (≥10 points) or low (<10) ABCD‐GENE scores, respectively. At 12 months, both the primary (5.2% versus 2.6%, P <0.001) and secondary outcomes (7.7% versus 4.6%, P =0.001) were significantly increased in patients with high ABCD‐GENE score. Among 4714 patients allocated to genotype‐guided or conventional therapy, the former did not significantly reduce the 12‐month risk of the primary and secondary outcomes in both the high and low ABCD‐GENE score groups (p interaction =0.48 and 0.27, respectively). Conclusions Among patients with percutaneous coronary intervention on clopidogrel, the ABCD‐GENE score was helpful in identifying those at higher risk. The ABCD‐GENE score may potentially enhance the precision of tailored selection of P2Y 12 inhibitors, which needs to be confirmed in prospective investigations. Clinical Trial Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique Identifier: NCT01742117.

Background: Among patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), the role of a genotype-guided approach for antiplatelet therapy compared with usual care is unclear. We conducted a Bayesian analysis of the entire TAILOR-PCI (Tailored Antiplatelet Initiation to Lessen Outcomes Due to Decreased Clopidogrel Response After Percutaneous Coronary Intervention) randomized clinical trial population to evaluate the effect of the genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy post-PCI compared with the usual care on the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). Methods: The primary outcome for our study was the composite of MACE (myocardial infarction, stroke, and cardiovascular death). Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular death, stroke, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, and major/minor bleeding. Bayesian modeling was used to estimate the probability of clinical benefit of genotype-guided therapy using (1) noninformative priors (ie, analyzing the TAILOR-PCI trial) and (2) informative priors derived from the ADAPT, POPular Genetics, IAC-PCI, and PHARMCLO trials (ie, analyzing TAILOR-PCI trial in the context of prior evidence). Risk ratio (RR: ratio of cumulative outcome incidence between genotype-guided and conventional therapy group) and 95% credible interval (CrI) were estimated for the study outcomes, and probability estimates for RR <1 were computed. Results: Using noninformative priors, in TAILOR-PCI the RR for MACE was 0.78 (95% CrI, 0.55–1.07) in genotype-guided therapy after PCI, and the probability of RR <1 was 94%. Using noninformative priors, the probability of RR <1 for cardiovascular death (RR, 0.95 [95% CrI, 0.52–1.74]), stroke (RR, 0.68 [95% CrI, 0.44–1.06]), myocardial infarction (RR, 0.84 [95% CrI, 0.37–1.89]), stent thrombosis (RR, 0.75 [95% CrI, 0.37–1.45]), and major or minor bleeding (RR, 1.22 [95% CrI, 0.84–1.77]) were 57%, 96%, 67%, 81%, and 15%, respectively. Using informative priors, the posterior probability of RR <1 for MACE, from genotype-guided therapy, was 99% (RR, 0.69 [95% CrI, 0.57–0.84]). Using informative priors, the posterior probability of RR <1 for cardiovascular death (RR, 0.86 [95% CrI, 0.61–1.19]), stroke (RR, 0.69 [95% CrI, 0.48–0.99]), myocardial infarction (RR:0.56 [95% CrI, 0.40–0.78]), stent thrombosis (RR, 0.59 [95% CrI, 0.38–0.94]), and major or minor bleeding (RR, 0.84 [95% CrI, 0.70–0.99]) were 81%, 99%, 99%, 99%, and 99%, respectively. Conclusions: Bayesian analysis of the TAILOR-PCI trial provides clinically meaningful data on the posterior probability of reducing MACE using genotype-guided P2Y 12 inhibitor therapy after PCI.