Stability of the high on-treatment platelet reactivity phenotype over time in clopidogrel-treated patients

Summary

Interindividual response variability to clopidogrel treatment is a well established phenomenon. In recent studies and ongoing large-scale trials where patients with high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HPR) to clopidogrel are being randomised to an intensified antiplatelet treatment, confirmation of the HPR phenotype is based on one single platelet function assessment. The stability of the HPR phenotype over time has never been investigated but should be considered crucial for justification of intensified antiplatelet treatment regimens beyond clinical trials. The goal of this study was to test for the stability of the HPR phenotype over time in clopidogrel-treated patients. Patients (n=31) under chronic clopidogrel treatment (75 mg/day) were investigated by serial adenosine diphosphate (ADP)-induced platelet aggregation assessment with multiple electrode aggregometry (MEA) on a Multiplate analyser and light transmission aggregometry (LTA) at three different time points (once per week) during monitored antiplatelet treatment. On the basis of a cut-off level approach (468 AU*min for MEA, 53% for LTA) patients were classified into patients with (n=27) or without (n=4) HPR. For MEA, the phenotype was stable in 93.5% (n=29) of patients whereas 6.5% (n=2) crossed the cut-off level. For LTA, the phenotype was stable in 68% (n=21) of patients whereas 32% (n=10) patients crossed the cut-off level (chi-square P=0.01 for comparison of pheno-type stability between both assays). In conclusion, the HPR phenotype is stable over time in the majority of clopidogrel-treated patients. Comparative assessment of phenotype stability across available platelet function assays warrants further investigation.

Keywords

Clopidogrel - platelet aggregation - high on-treatment platelet reactivity

• References

• 1 Serebruany VL, Steinhubl SR, Berger PB. et al. Variability in platelet responsiveness to clopidogrel among 544 individuals. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 45: 246-251.
• 2 Gurbel PA, Bliden KP, Hiatt BL. et al. Clopidogrel for coronary stenting: response variability, drug resistance, and the effect of pretreatment platelet reactivity. Circulation 2003; 107: 2908-2913.
• 3 Sibbing D, Morath T, Braun S. et al. Clopidogrel response status assessed with Multiplate point-of-care analysis and the incidence and timing of stent thrombosis over six months following coronary stenting. Thromb Haemost 2010; 103: 151-159.
• 4 Schomig A, Neumann FJ, Kastrati A. et al. A randomized comparison of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy after the placement of coronary-artery stents. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 1084-1089.
• 5 Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Neumann FJ. et al. Abciximab in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention after clopidogrel pretreatment: the ISAR-REACT 2 randomized trial. J Am Med Assoc 2006; 295: 1531-1538.
• 6 Kastrati A, Neumann FJ, Mehilli J. et al. Bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2008; 359: 688-696.
• 7 Hochholzer W, Trenk D, Bestehorn HP. et al. Impact of the degree of peri-interventional platelet inhibition after loading with clopidogrel on early clinical outcome of elective coronary stent placement. J Am Coll Cardiol 2006; 48: 1742-1750.
• 8 Buonamici P, Marcucci R, Migliorini A. et al. Impact of platelet reactivity after clopidogrel administration on drug-eluting stent thrombosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49: 2312-2317.
• 9 Price MJ, Berger PB, Angiolillo DJ. et al. Evaluation of individualized clopidogrel therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with high residual platelet reactivity: design and rationale of the GRAVITAS trial. Am Heart J 2009; 157: 818-824 824 e811.
• 10 Breet NJ, van Werkum JW, Bouman HJ. et al. Comparison of platelet function tests in predicting clinical outcome in patients undergoing coronary stent implantation. J Am Med Assoc 2010; 303: 754-762.
• 11 Sibbing D, Braun S, Morath T. et al. Platelet reactivity after clopidogrel treatment assessed with point-of-care analysis and early drug-eluting stent thrombosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 53: 849-856.
• 12 Cattaneo M. Resistance to antiplatelet drugs: molecular mechanisms and laboratory detection. J Thromb Haemost 2007; 05 (Suppl. 01) 230-237.
• 13 Bliden KP, DiChiara J, Tantry US. et al. Increased risk in patients with high platelet aggregation receiving chronic clopidogrel therapy undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: is the current antiplatelet therapy adequate?. J Am Coll Cardiol 2007; 49: 657-666.
• 14 Gurbel PA, Bliden KP, Samara W. et al. Clopidogrel effect on platelet reactivity in patients with stent thrombosis: results of the CREST Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005; 46: 1827-1832.
• 15 Damani SB, Topol EJ. The Case for Routine Genotyping in Dual-Antiplatelet Therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56: 112-116.
• 16 Gurbel PA, Bliden KP, Hiatt BL. The early antiplatelet effects of clopidogrel loading for coronary stenting and the long-term stability of inhibition. J Thromb Haemost 2003; 01: 1319-1321.
• 17 Gurbel PA, Bliden KP. Durability of platelet inhibition by clopidogrel. Am J Cardiol 2003; 91: 1123-1125.
• 18 Bonello L, Tantry US, Marcucci R. et al. Consensus and future directions on the definition of high on-treatment platelet reactivity to adenosine diphosphate. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56: 919-933.
• 19 Sibbing D, Stegherr J, Braun S. et al. A double-blind, randomized study on prevention and existence of a rebound phenomenon of platelets after cessation of clopidogrel treatment. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 55: 558-565.
• 20 Gurbel PA, Antonino MJ, Bliden KP. et al. Platelet reactivity to adenosine diphosphate and long-term ischemic event occurrence following percutaneous coronary intervention: a potential antiplatelet therapeutic target. Platelets 2008; 19: 595-604.
• 21 Elsenberg EH, van Werkum JW, van de Wal RM. et al. The influence of clinical characteristics, laboratory and inflammatory markers on ‘high on-treatment platelet reactivity’ as measured with different platelet function tests. Thromb Haemost 2009; 102: 719-727.
• 22 Bal Dit Sollier C, Berge N, Boval B. et al. Differential sensitivity and kinetics of response of different ex vivo tests monitoring functional variability of platelet response to clopidogrel. Thromb Haemost 2010; 104: 571-581.
• 23 Paniccia R, Antonucci E, Maggini N. et al. Comparison of methods for monitoring residual platelet reactivity after clopidogrel by point-of-care tests on whole blood in high-risk patients. Thromb Haemost 2010; 104: 287-292.
• 24 Lordkipanidze M, Pharand C, Nguyen TA. et al. Comparison of four tests to assess inhibition of platelet function by clopidogrel in stable coronary artery disease patients. Eur Heart J 2008; 29: 2877-2885.
• 25 Siller-Matula JM, Christ G, Lang IM. et al. Multiple electrode aggregometry predicts stent thrombosis better than the vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation assay. J Thromb Haemost 2010; 08: 351-359.
• 26 Eshtehardi P, Windecker S, Cook S. et al. Dual low response to acetylsalicylic acid and clopidogrel is associated with myonecrosis and stent thrombosis after coronary stent implantation. Am Heart J 2010; 159: 891-898 e891.
• 27 Sibbing D, Braun S, Jawansky S. et al. Assessment of ADP-induced platelet aggregation with light transmission aggregometry and multiple electrode platelet aggregometry before and after clopidogrel treatment. Thromb Haemost 2008; 99: 121-126.
• 28 Sibbing D, Steinhubl SR, Schulz S. et al. Platelet aggregation and its association with stent thrombosis and bleeding in clopidogrel-treated patients: initial evidence of a therapeutic window. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010; 56: 317-318.