| 1. |
- Melloni, Chiara, et al.
(author)
-
Safety and efficacy of adjusted-dose eptifibatide in patients with acute coronary syndromes and reduced renal function
- 2011
-
In: American Heart Journal. - : Elsevier BV. - 0002-8703 .- 1097-6744. ; 162:5, s. 884-892
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Dose adjustment of renally excreted antithrombotic drugs is recommended for patients with reduced renal function. We examined the influence of dose modification on bleeding and efficacy. Methods Based on initial study drug infusion rate, Early GP IIb/IIIa Inhibition in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes (EARLY ACS) patients were categorized into groups: standard dose (2 mu g/kg/min; estimated creatinine clearance [eCrCl] >= 50 ml/min), adjusted dose (1 mu g/kg/min; eCrCl <50 ml/min, per protocol), excess dose (2 mu g/kg/min; eCrCl <50 ml/min). We explored relationships among initial dosing, randomized treatment assignment, and bleeding and ischemic end points (96-h composite of death, myocardial infarction [MI], recurrent ischemia requiring urgent revascularization or thrombotic bailout, and 30-d death or MI). Results Of 8,708 patients with eCrCl and dosing data, 19% had eCrCl <50 ml/min. Of these, 13% received adjusted dose eptifibatide and 6% received an excess dose. Across all dosing groups, no significant reductions were found in ischemic end points between early versus delayed provisional eptifibatide (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.80-1.65; OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.81-1.56, respectively, for 96-h and 30-d composite end points). Bleeding risk was not significantly increased in the early versus delayed provisional treatment group in either the adjusted (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.95-2.39) or excess dose group (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.85-3.39). There were no significant interactions between dose group and treatment strategy on bleeding or efficacy. Conclusion Similar to observations in practice, despite guidelines recommendations and protocol guidance, 34% of EARLY ACS patients with reduced renal function failed to receive an appropriately adjusted study drug infusion. Use of an appropriately adjusted eptifibatide infusion was not associated with expected reductions in bleeding among patients with renal insufficiency.
|
|
| 2. |
- Ungar, Leo, et al.
(author)
-
Stroke Outcomes With Vorapaxar Versus Placebo in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes : Insights From the TRACER Trial
- 2018
-
In: Journal of the American Heart Association. - 2047-9980. ; 7:24
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- BackgroundVorapaxar, a protease‐activated receptor‐1 antagonist, is approved for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events but is associated with increased intracranial hemorrhage.Methods and ResultsTRACER (Thrombin Receptor Antagonist for Clinical Event Reduction in Acute Coronary Syndrome) was a trial of vorapaxar versus placebo among patients with acute coronary syndrome. Strokes were adjudicated by a central events committee. Of 12 944 patients, 199 (1.5%) had ≥1 stroke during the study period (median follow‐up, 477 days). Four patients had a single stroke of unknown type; 195 patients had ≥1 stroke classified as hemorrhagic or nonhemorrhagic (165 nonhemorrhagic, 28 hemorrhagic, and 2 both). Strokes occurred in 96 of 6473 patients (1.5%) assigned vorapaxar and 103 of 6471 patients (1.6%) assigned placebo. Kaplan‐Meier incidence of stroke for vorapaxar versus placebo was higher for hemorrhagic stroke (0.45% versus 0.14% [hazard ratio, 2.74; 95% confidence interval, 1.22–6.15]), lower but not significantly different for nonhemorrhagic stroke (1.53% versus 1.98% at 2 years [hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.58–1.07]), and similar for stroke overall (1.93% versus 2.13% at 2 years [hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.71–1.24]).ConclusionsStroke occurred in <2% of patients. Vorapaxar‐assigned patients had increased hemorrhagic stroke but a nonsignificant trend toward lower nonhemorrhagic stroke. Overall stroke frequency was similar with vorapaxar versus placebo.
|
|
