1,721,302 research outputs found
Editorial: Navigating the complexity of bleeding and hypercoagulable disorders in patients with acute myocardial infarction
De-escalation of antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndromes: Why, how and when?
The synergistic blockade of the key platelet signaling pathways of cyclooxygenase-1 blockade and P2Y(12) signaling by combining aspirin plus a potent P2Y(12) inhibitor (prasugrel or ticagrelor), the so called dual antiplatelet treatment (DAPT), has represented the antithrombotic regimen of choice in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) for nearly a decade. Nevertheless, the use of such antiplatelet treatment regimen, while reduced the risk of thrombotic complications, it is inevitably associated with increased bleeding and this risk may outweigh the benefit of a reduction of ischemic events in specific subgroup of patients. In light of the adverse prognostic implications of a bleeding complication, there has been a great interest in the development of antiplatelet regimens aimed at reducing bleeding without any trade-off in ischemic events. The fact that the ischemic risk is highest in the early phase after an ACS while the risk of bleeding remains relatively stable over time has represented the rationale for the implementation of a more intense antithrombotic regimen early after an ACS, followed by a less intense antithrombotic regimen thereafter. This practice, known as a “de-escalation” strategy, represents one of the more promising approaches for personalization of antithrombotic therapy in ACS. In this review we discuss the rationale, appraise the evidence and provide practical recommendations on the use of a de-escalation strategy of antiplatelet therapy in patients with an ACS
Updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the safety and efficacy of different prophylactic anticoagulation dosing regimens in non-critically ill hospitalized patients with COVID-19
N
Oral anticoagulation alone in atrial fibrillation and stable coronary artery disease: evidence silences doubt
Genetic Testing in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Rationale, Evidence and Practical Recommendations
INTRODUCTION: Clopidogrel is the most frequently utilized P2Y(12) inhibitor and is characterized by broad interindividual response variability resulting in impaired platelet inhibition and increased risk of thrombotic complications in a considerable number of patients. The potent P2Y(12) inhibitors, prasugrel and ticagrelor, can overcome this limitation but at the expense of an increased risk of bleeding. Genetic variations of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19 enzyme, a key determinant in clopidogrel metabolism, have been strongly associated with clopidogrel response profiles prompting investigations of genetic-guided selection of antiplatelet therapy. AREAS COVERED: The present manuscript focuses on the rationale for the use of genetic testing to guide the selection of platelet P2Y(12) inhibitors among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Moreover, a comprehensive appraisal of the available evidence and practical recommendations are provided. EXPERT COMMENTARY: Implementation of genetic testing as a strategy to guide the selection of therapy can result into escalation (i.e., switching to prasugrel or ticagrelor) or de-escalation (i.e., switching to clopidogrel) of P2Y(12) inhibiting therapy. Most recent investigations support the clinical benefit of a genetic guided selection of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergo PCI. Integrating the results of genetic testing with clinical and procedural variables represents a promising strategy for a precision medicine approach for the selection of antiplatelet therapy among patients undergoing PCI
Interindividual variability in platelet reactivity among individuals with or without antiplatelet therapy. Results from a large tertiary care hospital
Antiplatelet therapy is crucial for reducing thrombotic events in patients with atherosclerotic disease, but the response vary widely among individuals. The identification of patients at high (HPR), optimal (OPR) or low platelet reactivity (LPR) is dependent on high interlaboratory variability. We report results of a large dataset of patients to assess the gold standard light transmission aggregometry (LTA). A total of 11,913 patients who sequentially underwent LTA assessment using several stimuli (ADP-2 mu M, collagen-2 mu g/ml, arachidonic acid 0.5 mM, epinephrine 10 mu M) with a standardized methodology between 2004 and 2022 were screened. After application of inclusion-exclusion criteria, 5,901 patients were included and divided into five groups: healthy-volunteers (HV; N = 534); controls (CTR; N = 1073); aspirin-treated patients (ASA; 75-150 mg/die; N = 3280); clopidogrel-treated patients (CLOP; 75 mg/die; N = 495) and patients treated with dual antiplatelet therapy, ASA plus CLOP (DAPT; N = 519). The mean PA% in response to ADP 2 mu m was 72.4 +/- 33.3 in the CTR population, 40.6 +/- 29.9 in the ASA group, 25.1 +/- 35.1 in the CLOP group and 10.2 +/- 18.5 in the DAPT group. The mean PA% in response to collagen 2 ug/ml was 90.7 +/- 10.5 in the CTR population, 40.8 +/- 26.3 in the ASA group, 79.4 +/- 21.8 in the CLOP group and 17.9 +/- 19.9 in the DAPT group. The percentage of patients at OPR following ADP stimuli was 66%, 25%, and 26%, in the ASA, CLOP, and DAPT group, respectively. The percentage of patients at OPR following collagen stimuli was 56%, 22%, and 41%, in the ASA, CLOP, and DAPT group, respectively. LTA was significantly increased in response to ADP (72.4 +/- 33.3vs62.7 +/- 37.1; p < 0.001) and AA (90.7 +/- 15.6vs87.6 +/- 20.5; p < 0.001) in CTR compared to HV. Our findings support the concept that a significant proportion of individuals present a hyper- or hypo-reactive platelet phenotype potentially affecting the safety and efficacy of antiplatelet therapy. The variability in response to antiplatelet therapy was particularly evident in patients undergoing single as opposed to dual antiplatelet therapy regimens. These data support ongoing strategies of guided selection of antiplatelet therapy in patients with cardiovascular disease
Drug-drug interactions between clopidogrel and novel cardiovascular drugs
The combination of aspirin and the thienopyridine clopidogrel is a cornerstone in the prevention of atherothrombotic events. These two agents act in concert to ameliorate the prothrombotic processes stimulated by plaque rupture and vessel injury complicating cardiovascular disease. Guidelines recommend the use of clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes and in those undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, and the drug remains the most utilized P2Y12 receptor inhibitor despite the fact that newer antiplatelet agents are now available. In recent years, numerous studies have shown inconsistency in the efficacy of clopidogrel to prevent atherothrombotic events. Studies of platelet function testing have shown variability in the response to clopidogrel. One of the major reason for this phenomenon lies in the interaction between clopidogrel and other drugs that may affect clopidogrel absorption, metabolism, and ultimately its antiplatelet action. Importantly, these drug-drug interactions have prognostic implications, since patients with high on-treatment platelet reactivity associated with reduced clopidogrel metabolism have an increased risk of ischemia. Previous systematic reviews have focused on drug-drug interactions between clopidogrel and specific pharmacologic classes, such as proton pump inhibitors, calcium channel blockers, and statins. However, more recent pieces of scientific evidence show that clopidogrel may also interact with newer drugs that are now available for the treatment of cardiovascular patients. Accordingly, the aim of this review is to highlight and discuss recent data on drug-drug interactions between clopidogrel and third-generation proton pump inhibitors, pantoprazole and lansoprazole, statins, pitavastatin, and antianginal drug, ranolazine
- …
