Viewpoint: Paradoxical excess mortality in the PLATO trial should be independently verified

Summary

The PLATO trial revealed excess all-cause (4.5%) and vascular (4.0%) mortality after experimental pyrimidine, ticagrelor, and even higher death rates (5.9% and 5.1%, respectively) after clopidogrel, which have never been seen in any previous acute coronary syndrome (ACS) trial. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducted, and recently released the ticagrelor review outlining some paradoxical mortality patterns in PLATO, including the existence of alive patient, who initially was reported dead. The drug was recently approved in Europe, but repeatedly delayed in the USA. The objective of this viewpoint article was to evaluate extremely high death rates in PLATO by scrutinising FDA-released evidence, and comparing mortality patterns in recent ACS trials. These data were first presented as the analytical report submitted to the FDA on October 26, 2010. The available evidence suggest that mortality rates in PLATO, so as death benefit of ticagrelor over clopidogrel are extreme, despite incomplete follow-up, short duration of the trial, frequent preloading with clopidogrel, and gross mismatch between conventional average myocardial infarction rates but disproportionally frequent vascular fatalities, and heavily imbalanced sepsis-related deaths. In contrast to the overall PLATO results, the deaths rates in the USA were much lower (3.2% vs. 3.8%) not only favouring clopidogrel, but more importanly matching very well with identical rates in TRITON (3.2%), and one-year ACUITY (3.6%-3.9%) fatalities. Since the «play of chance» cannot explain these discrepancies due to excess death rates in both PLATO arms, and considering that study sponsor self-monitored sites in most countries, but not in the USA, the mortality data are questionable, and should be independently virified. It was concluded that excess mortality rates and delayed timing of the benefit onset in PLATO do not match with any recent ACS trial, and do not look natural. Reevaluation of the survival, especially driven from the several high-volume sponsor monitored sites in Eastern Europe may reveal discrepancies between those reported in PLATO and actual vital records. Future practice of self monitoring in pivotal indication-seeking clinical trials should be completely banned.

Keywords

Mortality - ticagrelor - clinical trial - outcomes - site monitoring

• References

• 1 Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A. et al. Ticagrelor versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 1045-1057.
• 2 Ticagrelor Secondary Review. Available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Advi soryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/Drugs/CardiovascularandRenalDrugsAdvisoryCommittee/UCM220192.pdf.
• 3 CURE Trial Investigators.. Effects of clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. N Eng J Med 2001; 345: 494-502.
• 4 Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH. et al. Prasugrel versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2001-2015.
• 5 Stone GW, Ware JH, Bertrand ME. et al. Antithrombotic strategies in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing early invasive management: one-year results from the ACUITY trial. J Am Med Assoc 2007; 298: 2497-2506.
• 6 Serebruany VL, Atar D. The PLATO trial: do you believe in magic?. Eur Heart J 2010; 31: 764-767.
• 7 Serebruany VL. Dyspnea after AZD6140: safety first?. Eur Heart J 2006; 27: 1505.
• 8 ISIS-2 Trial Investigators.. Randomised trial of intravenous streptokinase, oral aspirin, both, or neither among 17,187 cases of suspected acute myocardial infarction: ISIS-2. ISIS-2 (Second International Study of Infarct Survival) Collaborative Group. Lancet 1988; 2: 349-360.
• 9 COMMIT Collaborative Group.. Addition of clopidogrel to aspirin in 45852 patients with acute myocardial infarction: randomized placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2005; 366: 1607-1621.
• 10 Malkin CJ, Channer KS. Life saving or life prolonging? Interpreting data from survival curves for patients with congestive heart failure. Eur J Heart Fail 2005; 7: 143-148.
• 11 Serebruany VL. Mortality benefit in PLATO cannot be explained by antiplatelet properties of ticagrelor. Cardiology 2011; 117: 231-233.
• 12 AstraZeneca initiates Brilinta Pegasus-TIMI 54 study. Available at: http://clinical/trials.pharmaceutical-businessreview.com/news/astrazeneca_initiates_brilinta_pegasustimi_54_study_101004.
• 13 Husted S, van Giezen JJ. Ticagrelor: the first reversibly binding oral P2Y12 receptor antagonist. Cardiovasc Ther 2009; 27: 259-274.
• 14 Cannon CP, Husted S, Harrington RA. et al. Safety, tolerability, and initial efficacy of AZD6140, the first reversible oral adenosine diphosphate receptor antagonist, compared with clopidogrel, in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome: primary results of the DISPERSE-2 trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 50: 1844-1851.
• 15 Pritsch M, Unnebrink K. Monitoring clinical studies. Development, measures and consequences. Med Klin (Munich) 2000; 95: 72-76.
• 16 Ricci S, Lewis S, Sandercock P. IST Collaborative Group. Previous use of aspirin and baseline stroke severity: an analysis of 17,850 patients in the International Stroke Trial. Stroke 2006; 37: 1737-1740.
• 17 Harrington RA, Stone GW, McNulty S. et al. Platelet inhibition with cangrelor in patients undergoing PCI. N Engl J Med 2009; 361: 2318-2329.
• 18 Massie BM, O’Connor CM, Metra M. et al. Rolofylline, an adenosine A1-receptor antagonist, in acute heart failure. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 1419-1428.
• 19 Serebruany VL. Adenosine release: A potential explanation for the benefits of ticagrelor in the PLATelet inhibition and Outcomes trial. Am Heart J 2010; 161: 1-4.
• 20 Ruff CT, Giugliano RP, Antman EM. et al. for the TRITON-TIMI 38 Investigators.. Safety and efficacy of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel in different regions of the world. Int J Cardiol. 2011 in press.