| 1. |
- Braun, Oscar, et al.
(författare)
-
Enhanced active metabolite generation and platelet inhibition with prasugrel compared to clopidogrel regardless of genotype in thienopyridine metabolic pathways
- 2013
-
Ingår i: Thrombosis and Haemostasis. - 0340-6245 .- 2567-689X. ; 110:6, s. 1223-1231
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Clopidogrel response varies according to the presence of genetic polymorphisms. The CYP2C19*2 allele has been associated with impaired response; conflicting results have been reported for CYP2C19*17, ABCB1, and PON1 genotypes. We assessed the impact of CYP2C19, PON1, and ABCB1 polymorphisms on clopidogrel and prasugrel pharmacodynamic (PD) and pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters. Aspirin-treated patients (N=194) with coronary artery disease from two independent, prospective, randomised, multi-centre studies comparing clopidogrel (75 mg) and prasugrel (10 mg) were genotyped and classified by predicted CYP2C19 metaboliser phenotype (ultra metabolisers [UM] = *17 carriers; extensive metabolisers [EM] = *1/1 homozygotes; reduced metabolisers [RM] = *2 carriers). ABCB1 T/T and C/T polymorphisms and PON1 A/A, A/G and G/G polymorphisms were also genotyped. PD parameters were assessed using VerifyNow (R) P2Y12 and vasodilator stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) expressed as platelet reactivity index (PR!) after 14 days of maintenance dosing. Clopi-, dogrel and prasugrel active metabolite (AM) exposure was calculated in a cohort of 96 patients. For clopidogrel, genetic variants in CYP2C19, but notABCB1 or PON1, affected PK and PD. For prasugrel, none of the measured genetic variants affected PK or PD. Compared with clopidogrel, platelet inhibition with prasugrel was greater even in the CYP2C19 UM phenotype. Prasugrel generated more AM and achieved greater platelet inhibition than clopidogrel irrespective of CYP2C19, ABCB1, and PON1 polymorphisms. The lack of effect from genetic variants on prasugrel AM generation or antiplatelet activity is consistent with previous studies in healthy volunteers and is consistent with improved efficacy in acute coronary syndrome patients managed with percutaneous coronary intervention.
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Lincoff, A. Michael, et al.
(författare)
-
Inhibition of delta-protein kinase C by delcasertib as an adjunct to primary percutaneous coronary intervention for acute anterior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the PROTECTION AMI Randomized Controlled Trial
- 2014
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 1522-9645 .- 0195-668X. ; 35:37, s. 2516-2523
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims Delcasertib is a selective inhibitor of delta-protein kinase C (delta-PKC), which reduced infarct size during ischaemia/reperfusion in animal models and diminished myocardial necrosis and improved reperfusion in a pilot study during primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Methods and results A multicentre, double-blind trial was performed in patients presenting within 6 h and undergoing primary PCI for anterior (the primary analysis cohort, n = 1010 patients) or inferior (an exploratory cohort, capped at 166 patients) STEMI. Patients with anterior STEMI were randomized to placebo or one of three doses of delcasertib (50,150, or 450 mg/h) by intravenous infusion initiated before PCI and continued for similar to 2.5 h. There were no differences between treatment groups in the primary efficacy endpoint of infarct size measured by creatine kinase MB fraction area under the curve (AUC) (median 5156, 5043, 4419, and 5253 ng h/mL in the placebo, delcasertib 50, 150, and 450 mg/mL groups, respectively) in the anterior STEMI cohort. No treatment-related differences were seen in secondary endpoints of infarct size, electrocardiographic ST-segment recovery AUC or time to stable ST recovery, or left ventricular ejection fraction at 3 months. No differences in rates of adjudicated clinical endpoints (death, heart failure, or serious ventricular arrhythmias) were observed. Conclusions Selective inhibition of delta-PKC with intravenous infusion of delcasertib during PCI for acute STEMI in a population of patients treated according to contemporary standard of care did not reduce biomarkers of myocardial injury.
|
|
| 4. |
- Rizik, David G., et al.
(författare)
-
Long-term Outcomes of Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Lotus Valve vs CoreValve/EvolutR : A Secondary Analysis of the REPRISE III Randomized Clinical Trial
- 2022
-
Ingår i: JAMA Network Open. - : American Medical Association (AMA). - 2574-3805. ; 5:10, s. 1-11
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Importance: Long-term follow-up after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is of interest given that longitudinal data on mortality and durability of transcatheter heart valves are limited. The REPRISE III (Repositionable Percutaneous Replacement of Stenotic Aortic Valve Through Implantation of Lotus Valve System-Randomized Clinical Evaluation) randomized clinical trial compared the mechanically expanded Lotus valve with the self-expanding CoreValve/EvolutR TAVR platforms. Objective: To describe the final 5-year outcomes of the REPRISE III trial. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prespecified secondary analysis assessed the final 5-year clinical, functional, and echocardiographic outcomes of 912 patients from the REPRISE III trial, which was conducted at 55 centers in North America, Europe, and Australia between September 22, 2014, and December 24, 2015. Patients had high risk for aortic stenosis or severe or symptomatic aortic stenosis. Data were analyzed from September 22, 2014, to May 21, 2021. Intervention: Lotus valve or CoreValve/EvolutR TAVR platforms. Main Outcomes and Measures: Valve Academic Research Consortium-2 end points, hemodynamic measures, functional status, and health status were examined through the 5-year follow-up. Results: A total of 912 patients (mean [SD] age, 82.8 [7.3] years; 463 women [50.8%]) were randomized to either the Lotus valve group (n = 607) or CoreValve/EvolutR group (n = 305), with a baseline Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score of 6.8%. Clinical follow-up data from the REPRISE III trial were available for 581 patients (95.7%) in the Lotus valve group and 285 patients (93.4%) in the CoreValve/EvolutR group. At 5 years, the cumulative event rate for all-cause mortality was 50.9% in the Lotus valve group vs 52.8% in the CoreValve/EvolutR group (P = .59). Disabling stroke was less frequent with the Lotus valve vs CoreValve/EvolutR (cumulative event rates, 8.3% vs 12.2%; P = .04), whereas the cumulative event rates for overall stroke were similar in both groups (14.1% vs 15.3%; P = .38). Insertion of a new permanent pacemaker (38.9% vs 27.3%; P < .001) and detection of prosthetic aortic valve thrombosis (5.8% vs 1.8%; P = .007) were more common in the Lotus valve group than in the CoreValve/EvolutR group. A smaller proportion of patients who received the Lotus valve experienced valve malpositioning (0% vs 2.6%; P < .001) and required the use of a second valve (1.0% vs 3.8%; P < .001) during the procedure compared with those who received the CoreValve/EvolutR. Compared with the Lotus valve group, the CoreValve/EvolutR group had a significantly lower mean (SD) aortic gradient (7.8 [4.2] mm Hg vs 12.6 [6.7] mm Hg; P < .001) and larger valve areas (1.57 [0.56] cm2 vs 1.42 [0.42] cm2; P = .10). After 5 years, the proportion of patients with moderate or greater paravalvular leak was not significantly higher with the CoreValve/EvolutR than with the Lotus valve (1.9% vs 0%; P = .31); however, the proportion of patients with mild paravalvular leak was higher in the CoreValve/EvolutR group compared with the Lotus valve group (23.1% vs 7.8%; P = .006). Long-term, similar improvements in New York Heart Association class and Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire score were observed in both groups. Conclusions and Relevance: The REPRISE III trial found that, at 5 years, the clinical outcomes of the Lotus valve were comparable to those of the CoreValve/EvolutR and that the Lotus valve was safe and effective. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02202434.
|
|
