Blog
About

  • Record: found
  • Abstract: found
  • Article: found

Comparison of Three Tests to Distinguish Platelet Reactivity in Patients with Renal Impairment during Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

Read this article at

ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
Bookmark
      There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

      Abstract

      Background: Clopidogrel and aspirin combination remains a cornerstone for modern dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) following coronary stenting. Although monitoring is not currently recommended, certain high-risk cohorts may benefit from tailoring antiplatelet options to reduce thrombotic or/and hemorrhagic risks. Patients with diminished estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) are prone to both vascular occlusions and bleeding events in whom monitoring may be especially advantageous. We compared the residual platelet reactivity assessed by 3 conventional tests during the maintenance antiplatelet therapy dependent on eGFR. Methods: Post-stenting patients (n = 701) receiving aspirin 100 mg/daily and clopidogrel 75 mg/daily were prospectively enrolled in the cross-sectional single-center study. Patients were dichotomized into 5 groups: eGFR >90, 60-89, 30-59, <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, and dialysis. Platelet reactivity by VerifyNow™, light transmittance aggregometry (LTA), and Multiplate analyzer by multiple electrode platelet aggregometry (MEA) assays together with eGFR calculations were done simultaneously at 1 month after coronary stenting. Results: VerifyNow assay distinguished residual platelet reactivity dependent on eGFR deterioration (191 ± 72 vs. 216 ± 78 vs. 248 ± 80 vs. 264 ± 70 vs. 317 ± 96 PRU; p < 0.001). In contrast, LTA (34.3 ± 18.1 vs. 34.7 ± 18.1 vs. 38.0 ± 16.6 vs. 33.0 ± 17.3 vs. 34.1 ± 29.3%; p = 0.242), or MEA (37.2 ± 19.6 vs. 33.8 ± 18.4 vs. 38.6 ± 21.4 vs. 36.5 ± 20.5 vs. 38.3 ± 28.3 AU/min; p = 0.086) failed to triage platelet reactivity in renal patients. Agreement among assays to identify patients with impaired platelet reactivity and eGFR during antiplatelet therapy was low. The multivariable regression analyses confirmed the VerifyNow advantage, since the differences in the platelet reactivity were highly significant for all renal impairment (RI) groups. In contrast, LTA did not distinguish RI patients, and for the MEA, only RI5 (dialysis) cohort exhibit borderline significant decline of residual platelet reactivity. Conclusion: Among 3 assays, VerifyNow was capable to reliably triage residual platelet reactivity in post-stenting DAPT patients dependent on the gradual decline of eGFR during therapy with clopidogrel and aspirin. These data should be confirmed in a large validation longitudinal trial, and may justify future platelet activity monitoring for potential regimen/dose adjustment in high-risk patients. The clinical implications of these data are still unclear, but may give an indication as to whether or when DAPT dose adjustment will become a reality.

      Related collections

      Most cited references 17

      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      National Kidney Foundation practice guidelines for chronic kidney disease: evaluation, classification, and stratification.

      Chronic kidney disease is a worldwide public health problem with an increasing incidence and prevalence, poor outcomes, and high cost. Outcomes of chronic kidney disease include not only kidney failure but also complications of decreased kidney function and cardiovascular disease. Current evidence suggests that some of these adverse outcomes can be prevented or delayed by early detection and treatment. Unfortunately, chronic kidney disease is underdiagnosed and undertreated, in part as a result of lack of agreement on a definition and classification of its stages of progression. Recent clinical practice guidelines by the National Kidney Foundation 1) define chronic kidney disease and classify its stages, regardless of underlying cause, 2) evaluate laboratory measurements for the clinical assessment of kidney disease, 3) associate the level of kidney function with complications of chronic kidney disease, and 4) stratify the risk for loss of kidney function and development of cardiovascular disease. The guidelines were developed by using an approach based on the procedure outlined by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. This paper presents the definition and five-stage classification system of chronic kidney disease and summarizes the major recommendations on early detection in adults. Recommendations include identifying persons at increased risk (those with diabetes, those with hypertension, those with a family history of chronic kidney disease, those older than 60 years of age, or those with U.S. racial or ethnic minority status), detecting kidney damage by measuring the albumin-creatinine ratio in untimed ("spot") urine specimens, and estimating the glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine measurements by using prediction equations. Because of the high prevalence of early stages of chronic kidney disease in the general population (approximately 11% of adults), this information is particularly important for general internists and specialists.
        Bookmark
        • Record: found
        • Abstract: found
        • Article: not found

        Standard- vs high-dose clopidogrel based on platelet function testing after percutaneous coronary intervention: the GRAVITAS randomized trial.

        High platelet reactivity while receiving clopidogrel has been linked to cardiovascular events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), but a treatment strategy for this issue is not well defined. To evaluate the effect of high-dose compared with standard-dose clopidogrel in patients with high on-treatment platelet reactivity after PCI. Randomized, double-blind, active-control trial (Gauging Responsiveness with A VerifyNow assay-Impact on Thrombosis And Safety [GRAVITAS]) of 2214 patients with high on-treatment reactivity 12 to 24 hours after PCI with drug-eluting stents at 83 centers in North America between July 2008 and April 2010. High-dose clopidogrel (600-mg initial dose, 150 mg daily thereafter) or standard-dose clopidogrel (no additional loading dose, 75 mg daily) for 6 months. The primary end point was the 6-month incidence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. The key safety end point was severe or moderate bleeding according to the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and t-PA for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) definition. A key pharmacodynamic end point was the rate of persistently high on-treatment reactivity at 30 days. At 6 months, the primary end point had occurred in 25 of 1109 patients (2.3%) receiving high-dose clopidogrel compared with 25 of 1105 patients (2.3%) receiving standard-dose clopidogrel (hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.58-1.76; P = .97). Severe or moderate bleeding was not increased with the high-dose regimen (15 [1.4%] vs 25 [2.3%], HR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.31-1.11; P = .10). Compared with standard-dose clopidogrel, high-dose clopidogrel provided a 22% (95% CI, 18%-26%) absolute reduction in the rate of high on-treatment reactivity at 30 days (62%; 95% CI, 59%-65% vs 40%; 95% CI, 37%-43%; P < .001). Among patients with high on-treatment reactivity after PCI with drug-eluting stents, the use of high-dose clopidogrel compared with standard-dose clopidogrel did not reduce the incidence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stent thrombosis. clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00645918.
          Bookmark
          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A randomized trial of prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with high platelet reactivity on clopidogrel after elective percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of drug-eluting stents: results of the TRIGGER-PCI (Testing Platelet Reactivity In Patients Undergoing Elective Stent Placement on Clopidogrel to Guide Alternative Therapy With Prasugrel) study.

          This study sought to investigate the efficacy, safety, and antiplatelet effect of prasugrel as compared with clopidogrel in patients with high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) after elective percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The extent to which prasugrel can correct HTPR and improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing elective PCI is unknown. Stable coronary artery disease (CAD) patients with HTPR (>208 P2Y(12) reaction units [PRU] by the VerifyNow test) after elective PCI with at least 1 drug-eluting stent (DES) were randomly assigned to either prasugrel 10 mg daily or clopidogrel 75 mg daily. Platelet reactivity of the patients on the study drug was reassessed at 3 and 6 months. The study was stopped prematurely for futility because of a lower than expected incidence of the primary endpoint. In 212 patients assigned to prasugrel, PRU decreased from 245 (225 to 273) (median [interquartile range]) at baseline to 80 (42 to 124) at 3 months, whereas in 211 patients assigned to clopidogrel, PRU decreased from 249 (225 to 277) to 241 (194 to 275) (p < 0.001 vs. prasugrel). The primary efficacy endpoint of cardiac death or myocardial infarction at 6 months occurred in no patient on prasugrel versus 1 on clopidogrel. The primary safety endpoint of non-coronary artery bypass graft Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction major bleeding at 6 months occurred in 3 patients (1.4%) on prasugrel versus 1 (0.5%) on clopidogrel. Switching from clopidogrel to prasugrel in patients with HTPR afforded effective platelet inhibition. However, given the low rate of adverse ischemic events after PCI with contemporary DES in stable CAD, the clinical utility of this strategy could not be demonstrated. Copyright © 2012 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Affiliations
            aDepartment of Cardiology, and bClinical Trial Center, Dong-A University Hospital, Busan, South Korea; cDepartment of Cardiology, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, China; dHeartDrug™ Research Laboratories, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md., USA
            Journal
            NEF
            Nephron
            10.1159/issn.1660-8151
            Nephron
            Nephron
            S. Karger AG (Basel, Switzerland karger@ 123456karger.com http://www.karger.com )
            1660-8151
            2235-3186
            March 2016
            26 February 2016
            : 132
            : 3
            : 191-197
            NEF2016132003191
            10.1159/000444027
            26914786
            Nephron 2016;132:191-197
            © 2016 S. Karger AG, Basel

            Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center. Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug. Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

            Counts
            Figures: 1, Tables: 3, References: 18, Pages: 7
            Categories
            Clinical Practice: Original Paper

            Comments

            Comment on this article