Platelet inhibitory effect of clopidogrel in patients treated with omeprazole, pantoprazole, and famotidine: a prospective, randomized, crossover study.
ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Concerns about an inhibitory effect of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on clopidogrel metabolism have been raised. Because the pharmacological effect of clopidogrel is dependent on genetically determined activity of the hepatic cytochrome P450 isoenzymes system, it is important to examine the interaction between different PPIs and high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) after controlling for genetic variability. The aim of the study was to assess the effect of 2 PPIs and a histamine-2 (H2) receptor-blocker on platelet reactivity in a crossover trial where each patient was alternately treated with each drug. HYPOTHESIS:Omeprazole reduces HPR more than other PPI or H2 blockers. METHODS:Patients treated with aspirin and clopidogrel for at least 1 month were assigned to 3 consecutive 1-month treatment periods during which they were treated with each of the 3 study medications twice daily: omeprazole 20 mg, famotidine 40 mg, and pantoprazole 20 mg. At the end of each treatment phase, platelet function was evaluated with the Verify Now system using 2 cutoff values (>208 P2Y12 reaction units [PRUs] and >230 PRUs) for the definition of HPR. RESULTS:Patients with HPR were older than those without HPR (62 ± 10 vs 55 ± 8 years, respectively, P = 0.03). HPR was more prevalent during omeprazole therapy compared to famotidine or pantoprazole (48%, 33%, and 31%, respectively, for the 208 PRU cutoff, P= 0.04; and 37%, 17%, and 23%, respectively, for the 230 PRU cutoff, P= 0.003). CONCLUSIONS:After eliminating the effects of interindividual variability in clopidogrel metabolism, omeprazole therapy was associated with substantially more HPR than famotidine or pantoprazole.
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Randomized trials and observation studies have revealed conflicting results regarding the interaction between clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). The aim of our study was to provide laboratory evidence regarding whether PPIs blunt the antiplatelet reactivity of clopidogrel.<h4>Methods</h4>We included records of Asian patients who received clopidogrel treatment for cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events and the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay for platelet reactivity monitoring. The responsiveness of antiplatelet effect to clopidogrel was analyzed according to 3 criteria:Results: Patients treated without PPIs did not differ significantly from those concomitantly treated with PPIs in terms of levels of PI (25.7% ± 24.3% vs 23.0 ± 25.3%, P?=?.4315), PRU (187.3 ± 74.0 vs 197.4?±?77.3, P?=?.3373), or responsiveness to antiplatelet (adjusted absolute risk, 3.5%; 95% confidence interval,?-?10.7 to 17.7%; P?=?.6297). Patients treated with lansoprazole, esomeprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole exhibited no significant differences in PRU or PI levels compared with those treated without PPIs. By contrast, patients treated with dexlansoprazole exhibited a significantly decreased level of PI (25.7%?±?24.3% vs 14.0%?±?21.6%, P?=?.0297) and responsiveness to clopidogrel under the criterion PI > 20% (adjusted absolute risk: 10.5%; 95% confidence interval: 2.6% to 43.6%; P?=?.0274).<h4>Conclusion</h4>No robust interaction between clopidogrel and PPIs was found, but caution should be exercised in the concomitant use of dexlansoprazole and clopidogrel in Asians.
Project description:This study evaluated the effect of omeprazole or pantoprazole on platelet reactivity in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) patients receiving clopidogrel.Consecutive patients with NSTE-ACS (n?=?620) from general hospital of Shenyang Military Command were randomized to the omeprazole or pantoprazole (20 mg/d) group (1:1), and received routine dual antiplatelet treatment. Patients' reversion rate of adenosine diphosphate-induced platelet aggregation (ADP-PA) was assessed at baseline, 12 to 24 h after administration of medication, and after 72 h of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The primary endpoint of the study was platelet reactivity assessed with ADP-PA at 30 days after PCI. Adverse events (AEs) were recorded for 30-day and 180-day follow-up periods.There were no significant differences between both the groups in platelet response to clopidogrel at 12-24 h after drug administration (54.09%?±?18.90% vs 51.62%?±?19.85%, P?=?0.12), 72 h after PCI (52.15%?±?19.45% vs 49.66%?±?20.05%, P?=?0.18), and 30 days after PCI (50.44%?±?14.54% vs 48.52%?±?15.08%, P?=?0.17). The rate of AEs did not differ significantly between groups during the 30-day (15.2% vs 14.8%, P?=?0.91) and 180-day (16.5% vs 14.5%, P?=?0.50) follow-up periods after PCI.The addition of omeprazole or pantoprazole to clopidogrel did not restrict the effect of platelet aggregation by reducing the conversion of clopidogrel. Compared with clopidogrel alone, pantoprazole-clopidogrel and omeprazole-clopidogrel combinations did not increase the incidence of adverse clinical events during 30-day and 180-day follow-up periods after PCI.The study is registered in the National Institutes of Health website with identifier NCT01735227. Registered 14 November 2012.
Project description:There is controversy and little information about whether individual proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) differentially alter the effectiveness of clopidogrel in reducing ischemic stroke risk. We, therefore, aimed to elucidate the risk of ischemic stroke among concomitant users of clopidogrel and individual PPIs.We conducted a propensity score-adjusted cohort study of adult new users of clopidogrel, using 1999 to 2009 Medicaid claims from 5 large states. Exposures were defined by prescriptions for esomeprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, rabeprazole, and pantoprazole-with pantoprazole serving as the referent. The end point was hospitalization for acute ischemic stroke, defined by International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision Clinical Modification codes in the principal position on inpatient claims, within 180 days of concomitant therapy initiation.Among 325 559 concomitant users of clopidogrel and a PPI, we identified 1667 ischemic strokes for an annual incidence of 2.4% (95% confidence interval, 2.3-2.5). Adjusted hazard ratios for ischemic stroke versus pantoprazole were 0.98 (0.82-1.17) for esomeprazole; 1.06 (0.92-1.21) for lansoprazole; 0.98 (0.85-1.15) for omeprazole; and 0.85 (0.63-1.13) for rabeprazole.PPIs of interest did not increase the rate of ischemic stroke among clopidogrel users when compared with pantoprazole, a PPI thought to be devoid of the potential to interact with clopidogrel.
Project description:High on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) is accompanied by an increased risk of adverse outcomes. Direct comparison of the antiplatelet effects between ticagrelor and high-dose clopidogrel has not yet been reported in acute myocardial infarction (AMI) or coronary artery in-stent restenosis (ISR) patients with HTPR. Consecutive patients with AMI or coronary artery ISR treated with standard-dose clopidogrel (75 mg/day) were screened with the VerifyNow assay, defining HTPR as P2Y12 reaction units (PRUs)>208. Of the 102 screened patients, 48 (47.06%) patients with HTPR were randomly assigned to either ticagrelor (180 mg/90 mg twice daily) or high-dose clopidogrel (150 mg/day) for 24 hours. Baseline characteristics and mean PRUs were similar in both groups. After 24 hours, ticagrelor was associated with a significantly lower platelet reactivity than high-dose clopidogrel (44.38±40.26 vs. 212.58±52.34 PRU, P<0.05). No patient receiving ticagrelor exhibited HTPR, whereas 15 (62.50%) patients after treatment with high-dose clopidogrel remained HTPR (P<0.05). During the follow-up (mean, 138.42±53.59 days), no patient exhibited a major bleeding event in either treatment group. In conclusion, in patients with AMI or coronary artery ISR exhibiting HTPR after standard clopidogrel treatment, ticagrelor is significantly more effective compared with high-dose clopidogrel in overcoming HTPR.
Project description:Concerns that proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) diminish the efficacy of clopidogrel could hamper the appropriate prescription of PPIs. We evaluated the influence of pantoprazole on the antiplatelet effect of clopidogrel compared with ranitidine, which is regarded as safe, after stratification of the population according to the presence of a cytochrome (CYP) 2C19 polymorphism in Korea.Forty patients who underwent dual antiplatelet therapy were randomized to receive pantoprazole (n=20) or ranitidine (n=20). Platelet aggregation was evaluated by impedance aggregometry at baseline (D0) and 8 days after acid-lowering treatments (D9). CYP2C19 was genotyped by polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism.After co-treatment, the percentage of clopidogrel low-response was 11.1% (2/18) in the pantoprazole group and 10.5% (2/19) in the ranitidine group (p=0.954). The impedance values with adenosine diphosphate stimulus after acid-lowering treatments did not significantly differ between the two groups. In a multiple regression analysis, only ST-elevation myocardial infarction was marginally associated with a reduced antiplatelet effect (odds ratio, 12.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.84 to 173.78). However, pantoprazole use did not affect the antiplatelet effect after correction for the CYP2C19 polymorphism.This study showed that pantoprazole does not increase platelet aggregation in patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02733640).
Project description:Interindividual variability in platelet aggregation is common among patients treated with clopidogrel and both high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) and low on-treatment platelet reactivity (LTPR) increase risks for adverse clinical outcomes. CYP2C19 influences clopidogrel response but only accounts for ?12% of the variability in platelet reactivity. To identify novel variants implicated in on-treatment platelet reactivity, patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) with extreme pharmacodynamic responses to clopidogrel and wild-type CYP2C19 were subjected to exome sequencing. Candidate variants that clustered in the LTPR subgroup subsequently were genotyped across the discovery cohort (n = 636). Importantly, carriers of B4GALT2 c.909C>T had lower on-treatment P2Y12 reaction units (PRUs; P = 0.0077) and residual platelet aggregation (P = 0.0008) compared with noncarriers, which remained significant after adjusting for CYP2C19 and other clinical variables in both the discovery (P = 0.0298) and replication (n = 160; PRU: P = 0.0001) cohorts. B4GALT2 is a platelet-expressed galactosyltransferase, indicating that B4GALT2 c.909C>T may influence clopidogrel sensitivity through atypical cell-surface glycoprotein processing and platelet adhesion.
Project description:Background: Short-term use of standard-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is the first-line initial non-eradication treatment for duodenal ulcer (DU), but the choice on individual PPI drug is still controversial. The purpose of this study is to compare the efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness of standard-dose PPI medications in the initial non-eradication treatment of DU. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Clinicaltrials.gov, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, and the Wanfang database from their earliest records to September 2017. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating omeprazole (20 mg/day), pantoprazole (40 mg/day), lansoprazole (30 mg/day), rabeprazole (20 mg/day), ilaprazole (10 mg/day), ranitidine (300 mg/day), famotidine (40 mg/day), or placebo for DU were included. The outcomes were 4-week ulcer healing rate (4-UHR) and the incidence of adverse events (AEs). A network meta-analysis (NMA) using a Bayesian random effects model was conducted, and a cost-effectiveness analysis using a decision tree was performed from the payer's perspective over 1 year. Results: A total of 62 RCTs involving 10,339 participants (eight interventions) were included. The NMA showed that all the PPIs significantly increased the 4-UHR compared to H2 receptor antagonists (H2RA) and placebo, while there was no significant difference for 4-UHR among PPIs. As to the incidence of AEs, no significant difference was observed among PPIs, H2RA, and placebo during 4-week follow-up. Based on the costs of both PPIs and management of AEs in China, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year (in US dollars) for pantoprazole, lansoprazole, rabeprazole, and ilaprazole compared to omeprazole corresponded to $5134.67, $17801.67, $25488.31, and $44572.22, respectively. Conclusion: Although the efficacy and tolerance of different PPIs are similar in the initial non-eradication treatment of DU, pantoprazole (40 mg/day) seems to be the most cost-effective option in China.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:This study sought to evaluate the influence of the genetic polymorphisms on platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes in acute ischemic stroke patients taking clopidogrel. BACKGROUND:Little research has been published on relationships between genetic polymorphisms, platelet reactivity, and clinical outcomes in stroke patients treated with clopidogrel. METHODS:Patients hospitalized in Changhai Hospital with acute ischemic stroke were randomly enrolled into treatment with a 75-mg daily maintenance dose of clopidogrel. Genotyping was detected by the MassARRAY iPLEX genotyping system (Sequenom Inc, San Diego, CA), and platelet reactivity was evaluated by the VerifyNow P2Y12 test (Accumetrics Inc., San Diego, CA). Sixteen single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within 9 genes were selected and high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity (HPR) was defined as P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) value ≥230. The primary endpoint was ischemic events, including major adverse cardiac events (MACE), recurrence of stroke, transient ischemic attack (TIA), and the composite of vascular death, and the secondary endpoint was bleeding. RESULTS:Of the 345 patients recruited, 275 (79.7%) patients were followed up for 1 year and 122 (35.4%) patients were categorized as HPR. Among the SNPs selected, only the CYP2C19*2 allele and the CYP2C19*3 allele were statistically significantly associated with PRU (P < 0.001 and P = 0.003, respectively). Similarly, the prevalence of HPR was associated with CYP2C19*2 and CYP2C19*3 (P < 0.001 and P = 0.001, respectively). During the 1 year of follow-up, a total of 64 (23.3%) cases of clinical events occurred, including 60 ischemic events and 4 bleeding events. There were no correlation between CYP2C19 variant alleles and clinical outcomes (P > 0.05), but a statistically significant relevance was found between the HPR and the ischemic events in 1 year of follow-up (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:CYP2C19*2 and CYP2C19*3 had a significant impact on clopidogrel response, but was not associated with ischemic events during 1 year of follow-up in patients with acute ischemic stroke. HPR was an independent risk factor for ischemic events, and the VerifyNow P2Y12 test may be available to guide individualized antiplatelet therapies in stroke patients in China.
Project description:INTRODUCTION:This prospective study aimed to determine whether trimetazidine (TMZ) alters the pharmacodynamic (PD) effects of clopidogrel. METHODS:Patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) (n?=?24) who were actively treated with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) of aspirin 81 mg daily and clopidogrel 75 mg daily were recruited. Platelet function was measured with the VerifyNow P2Y12 assay (Accriva Diagnostics, San Diego, CA, USA) and assessed before the initiation of and after 14 days of treatment with TMZ. Results were compared using a paired t test. RESULTS:Almost 80% of the study population were of South Asian descent and had diabetes mellitus (DM). P2Y12 reaction units (PRUs) were higher in patients on TMZ (204?±?56 compared with 174?±?71 before TMZ, p?=?0.005). The average increase in PRU score was 29 (95% confidence interval 8.8-49.7). Before TMZ, the proportion of patients with high on-treatment platelet reactivity (PRU?>?208 units) was 25%, which increased to 42% for patients on TMZ. CONCLUSION:Higher platelet reactivity was seen in patients on TMZ, suggesting that TMZ attenuated the PD effects of clopidogrel in this study of a predominantly South Asian diabetic subpopulation. Alternative therapies should be considered and further research is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03603249.
Project description:<h4>Objectives</h4>In 2009, the FDA issued a warning that omeprazole--a proton pump inhibitor (PPI)--reduces the antithrombotic effect of clopidogrel by almost half when taken concomitantly. This study aims to analyze the impact of the FDA Safety Communications on prescribing clopidogrel together with PPIs.<h4>Methods</h4>This retrospective study identified clopidogrel users from the Truven Health Analytics MarketScan Databases (01/2006-12/2012). Rates of clopidogrel-PPI combination therapy were estimated in 6-month intervals for patients with ?1 clopidogrel prescription fill, then were analyzed pre- and post-safety communication (11/17/2009). Analyses were also conducted by grouping PPIs into CYP2C19 inhibitors (omeprazole and esomeprazole) and CYP2C19 non-inhibitors (pantoprazole, lansoprazole, dexlansoprazole, and rabeprazole).<h4>Results</h4>Overall, 483,074 patients met the selection criteria; of these, 157,248 used a clopidogrel-PPI combination. On average, 30.5% of patients in the pre- and 19.9% in the post-communication period used a clopidogrel-PPI combination therapy. Among clopidogrel users, the probability of using clopidogrel-PPI combinations fell by over 40% in the post-communication period (OR = 0.57; p<0.001); the proportion of patients using esomeprazole fell from 12.9% to 5.3%, and the proportion using omeprazole fell from 10.1% to 6.3%. Among combination therapy users, the probability of patients using a combination with a CYP2C19 inhibitor decreased by 53% (OR = 0.47; p<0.001); however, 31.5% of patients were still prescribed a clopidogrel-PPI combination therapy. Trends were similar for all and newly treated patients, regardless of clopidogrel indication and physician specialty.<h4>Conclusions</h4>The FDA Safety Communication resulted in a reduction in the number of patients undergoing combination therapy; however approximately one-third of patients still used combination therapy post-communication.