Dániel Aradi

Dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and a P2Y 12 inhibitor is the treatment of choice for the prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndromes and for those undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions. The availability of different oral P2Y 12 inhibitors (clopidogrel, prasugrel, ticagrelor) has enabled physicians to contemplate switching among therapies because of specific clinical scenarios. The recent introduction of an intravenous P2Y 12 inhibitor (cangrelor) further adds to the multitude of modalities and settings in which switching therapies may occur. In clinical practice, it is not uncommon to switch P2Y 12 inhibitor, and switching may be attributed to a variety of factors. However, concerns about the safety of switching between these agents have emerged. Practice guidelines have not fully elaborated on how to switch therapies, leaving clinicians with limited guidance on when and how to switch therapies when needed. This prompted the development of this expert consensus document by key leaders from North America and Europe with expertise in basic, translational, and clinical sciences in the field of antiplatelet therapy. This expert consensus provides an overview of the pharmacology of P2Y 12 inhibitors, different modalities and definitions of switching, and available literature and recommendations for switching between P2Y 12 inhibitors.

AIMS: Although platelet reactivity during P2Y12-inhibitors is associated with stent thrombosis (ST) and bleeding, standardized and clinically validated thresholds for accurate risk stratification after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are lacking. We sought to determine the prognostic value of low platelet reactivity (LPR), optimal platelet reactivity (OPR), or high platelet reactivity (HPR) by applying uniform cut-off values for standardized devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: Authors of studies published before January 2015, reporting associations between platelet reactivity, ST, and major bleeding were contacted for a collaborative analysis using consensus-defined, uniform cut-offs for standardized platelet function assays. Based on best available evidence for each device (exploratory studies), LPR-OPR-HPR categories were defined as <95, 95-208, and >208 PRU for VerifyNow, <19, 19-46, and >46 U for the Multiplate analyser and <16, 16-50, and >50% for VASP assay. Seventeen studies including 20 839 patients were used for the analysis; 97% were treated with clopidogrel and 3% with prasugrel. Patients with HPR had significantly higher risk for ST [risk ratio (RR) and 95% CI: 2.73 (2.03-3.69), P < 0.00001], yet a slight reduction in bleeding [RR: 0.84 (0.71-0.99), P = 0.04] compared with those with OPR. In contrast, patients with LPR had a higher risk for bleeding [RR: 1.74 (1.47-2.06), P < 0.00001], without any further benefit in ST [RR: 1.06 (0.68-1.65), P = 0.78] in contrast to OPR. Mortality was significantly higher in patients with HPR compared with other categories (P < 0.05). Validation cohorts (n = 14) confirmed all results of exploratory studies (n = 3). CONCLUSIONS: Platelet reactivity assessment during thienopyridine-type P2Y12-inhibitors identifies PCI-treated patients at higher risk for mortality and ST (HPR) or at an elevated risk for bleeding (LPR).