Article

2020 Asian Pacific Society of Cardiology Consensus Recommendations on the Use of P2Y12 Receptor Antagonists in the Asia-Pacific Region

Abstract

The unique characteristics of patients with acute coronary syndrome in the Asia-Pacific region mean that international guidelines on the use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) cannot be routinely applied to these populations. Newer generation P2Y12 inhibitors (i.e. ticagrelor and prasugrel) have demonstrated improved clinical outcomes compared with clopidogrel. However, low numbers of Asian patients participated in pivotal studies and few regional studies comparing DAPTs have been conducted. This article aims to summarise current evidence on the use of newer generation P2Y12 inhibitors in Asian patients with acute coronary syndrome and provide recommendations to assist clinicians, especially cardiologists, in selecting a DAPT regimen. Guidance is provided on the management of ischaemic and bleeding risks, including duration of therapy, switching strategies and the management of patients with ST-elevation and non-ST-elevation MI or those requiring surgery. In particular, the need for an individualised DAPT regimen and considerations relating to switching, de-escalating, stopping or continuing DAPT beyond 12 months are discussed.

Disclosure: This work was funded through the Asian Pacific Society of Cardiology by unrestricted educational grants from Abbott Vascular, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer and Roche Diagnostics. JWCT has received honoraria from AstraZeneca, Bayer, Amgen, Medtronic, Abbott Vascular, Biosensors, Orbus Neich, Boehringer Ingelheim and Pfizer; and research grants from Medtronic, Abbott Diagnostics and Beckmann. DPC reports consulting fee from Asian Pacific Society of Cardiology; support for travel to meetings for the study or otherwise from Asian Pacific Society of Cardiology; grants/grants pending from Roche Diagnostics; and payment for development of educational presentations including service on speakers’ bureaus from AstraZeneca. JA reports honoraria from AstraZeneca, Daiichi Sankyo, Bayer and Sanofi; and grants/grants pending from Daiichi Sankyo. MC reports consulting fee/honorarium from AstraZeneca. KWP reports consulting fee from Arnold & Porter LLP. DQH reports consulting fee or honorarium from AstraZeneca; and support for travel to meetings for the study or otherwise from AstraZeneca. SJ reports honorarium from Medtronic; and travel/accommodation expenses from Medtronic and Edward Lifesciences. DAJ reports board membership at Menarini; honorarium from AstraZeneca; and travel/accommodation expenses from Boston Scientific. DT reports honorarium from The Meeting Lab; and travel/accommodation expenses paid to institution from The Meeting Lab. GM reports research grants to the institution or consulting/lecture fees from Abbott, Amgen, Actelion, American College of Cardiology Foundation, AstraZeneca, Axis-Santé, Bayer, Boston-Scientific, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical, Brigham Women’s Hospital, Idorsia, Elsevier, Fédération Française de Cardiologie, Frequence Medicale, ICAN, Lead-Up, Medtronic, Menarini, MSD, Pfizer, Quantum Genomics, Sanofi, SCOR global life, Servier and WebMD. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Received:

Accepted:

Published online:

Citation:European Cardiology Review 2021;16:e02.

Correspondence: Jack Wei Chieh Tan, National Heart Centre, 5 Hospital Dr, Singapore 169609, Singapore. E: jack.tan.w.c@singhealth.com.sg

Acknowledgements: Medical writing support was provided by Ivan Olegario of MIMS Pte Ltd.

Open access:

This work is open access under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 License which allows users to copy, redistribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work is cited correctly.

The management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) varies across the Asia-Pacific region.1 In particular, there is significant heterogeneity regarding the use of reperfusion techniques and pharmacological management.1 For example, thrombolysis is commonly used for reperfusion in China, India and parts of South-East Asia, whereas percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are more common in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, Australia and New Zealand.1

Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with a P2Y12 inhibitor and aspirin is generally recommended for at least 1 year following an ACS, or longer for patients with a high ischaemic/low bleeding risk.2,3 However, there is considerable variation in DAPT duration across Asia and a one-size-fits-all approach based on Western guidelines may not be appropriate for Asian populations.4 For example, genetic polymorphisms (i.e. polymorphisms affecting CYP2C19 function) associated with a slower rate of bioactivation of clopidogrel have a substantially higher prevalence in Asian people (29–60%) than Caucasian people (15%).5 Furthermore, the ‘East Asian paradox’ results in a different benefit–risk profile, where the risk of ischaemic events is lower, and bleeding higher, than Western populations, despite higher average on-treatment platelet reactivity.6,7 Nevertheless, data generated from Asian patients are limited and rarely incorporated into major international guidelines.

Newer oral therapies have been developed offering faster onset, more potent platelet inhibition and lower response variability than clopidogrel. Ticagrelor, a cyclo-pentyl-triazolo-pyrimidine, has a reversible, direct-acting mechanism of action that is not impacted by CYP2C19 polymorphisms and prasugrel, a thienopyridine prodrug, is less susceptible to CYP2C19 polymorphisms than clopidogrel.8–11 We aim to summarise key evidence and provide recommendations on the use of P2Y12 inhibitors in Asian patients.

Methods

The Asian Pacific Society of Cardiology (APSC) convened a panel of 22 experts from 13 countries in Asia-Pacific with clinical and research expertise in the use of P2Y12 inhibitors, to develop consensus statements on the use of these class of drugs in ACS patients in the Asia-Pacific region. The experts were members of the APSC who were nominated by national societies and endorsed by the APSC consensus board. After a comprehensive literature search, with particular focus on Asian-centric studies, selected applicable articles were reviewed and appraised using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system, as follows:

  1. High (authors have high confidence that the true effect is similar to the estimated effect).
  2. Moderate (authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect).
  3. Low (true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect).
  4. Very low (true effect is probably markedly different from the estimated effect).12

The available evidence was then discussed during two consensus meetings. Consensus statements were developed during these meetings, which were then put to an online vote. Each statement was voted on by each panel member using a three-point scale (agree, neutral or disagree). Consensus was reached when 80% of votes for a statement were agree or neutral. In the case of non-consensus, the statements were further discussed using email, then revised accordingly until the criteria for consensus was reached.

Results and Discussion

The efficacy and safety of ticagrelor was demonstrated in the Study of Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO), which enrolled more than 18,500 patients with an ACS.13 The risk of cardiovascular (CV) death, MI or stroke with ticagrelor decreased by 16% compared with clopidogrel after 12 months, with benefit being observed within 30 days and accruing throughout the study period. Notably, ticagrelor reduced the risk of both CV death and recurrent non-fatal MI versus clopidogrel.

The PEGASUS-TIMI 54 study subsequently demonstrated a benefit when extending ticagrelor-based DAPT for up to 3 years.14

No difference in PLATO- or TIMI-defined major bleeding was observed between ticagrelor or clopidogrel in the PLATO study, but non-CABG-related and TIMI-defined major bleeding was significantly increased in PLATO and PEGASUS-TIMI 54, respectively.13,14 Ticagrelor was also associated with an increased risk of dyspnoea.13

No interaction between Asian/non-Asian ethnicity and efficacy was observed in PLATO.15 However, the overall event rate was higher in Asian patients, despite a similar bleeding risk.15 Southeast Asian patients also appeared to experience higher rates of ischaemic events and bleeding than East Asian patients.15

Two randomised but underpowered studies, PHILO and TICA KOREA, compared ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in Asian patients.16,17 The risk of bleeding and ischaemic events was increased among East Asian patients with ACS from Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea in PHILO.16 Likewise, in TICA KOREA, the incidence of clinically significant bleeding was significantly higher with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel among Koreans hospitalised for ACS with planned invasive management, while the incidence of CV death, MI, or stroke was also numerically higher in the ticagrelor arm.17

TRITON-TIMI 38 compared prasugrel with clopidogrel in patients with an ACS scheduled to undergo PCI; prasugrel reduced the risk of CV death, MI or stroke by 19% compared with clopidogrel, but the incidence of non-CABG-related TIMI major and life-threatening bleeding were significantly increased.18 As a result, a reduced 5 mg dose is indicated for patients aged ≥75 years or with body weight <60 kg, and prasugrel is contraindicated for those with a history of stroke or transient ischaemic attacks.8

The PRASFIT-ACS study on Japanese patients with ACS undergoing PCI is the only randomised trial comparing the outcomes with prasugrel and clopidogrel in an exclusively Asian population.19 Notably, patients were administered markedly lower doses of prasugrel (20 mg loading/3.75 mg daily maintenance dosing), yet the incidence of CV death, MI or stroke was reduced by 23% at 24 weeks without significantly increasing non-CABG-related major bleeding. While the reduced risk of ischaemic events was not statistically significantly different, the result was comparable with the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial, although follow-up was shorter.18,19

Only one randomised head-to-head comparison of prasugrel and ticagrelor has been performed – the Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment (ISAR-REACT) 5 trial.20 In this open-label study the risk of CV death, MI, or stroke was 36% higher with ticagrelor than prasugrel at 1 year (9.3% versus 6.9%; p=0.006), while rates of major bleeding were similar.20 However, this result must be interpreted with caution because of the open-label design, high rate of drug discontinuation, an unexpectedly low rate of MI in the prasugrel arm and allowance for telephone follow-up of participants.20 No head-to-head studies comparing ticagrelor and prasugrel have been performed in Asian patients.

Overall, DAPT incorporating ticagrelor or prasugrel, instead of clopidogrel, reduces the risk of ischaemic events, but may increase the risk of bleeding.13,18 However, studies of ticagrelor and prasugrel have largely been performed in Western populations that may have a differing risk profile for both ischaemic and bleeding events versus Asian patients. Therefore, targeted guidance for physicians prescribing ticagrelor or prasugrel to Asian patients with an ACS are necessary.

ST-elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome

Statement 1. A 12-month duration of therapy for ticagrelor (180 mg loading and 90 mg twice-daily maintenance dose) and prasugrel (60 mg loading and 10 mg daily) are effective and safe in the prevention of adverse cardiovascular events among patients with ST-elevation MI (STEMI) and are recommended in patients who are undergoing primary PCI.

Level of evidence: High.

Level of agreement: 100% agree, 0% neutral, 0% disagree.

Statement 2. If aspirin and clopidogrel are introduced early in thrombolysis, a switch to ticagrelor should be considered the next day or after 8 hours.

Level of evidence: High.

Level of agreement: 90.9% agree, 9.1% neutral, 0% disagree.

Both ticagrelor and prasugrel significantly reduce the risk of CV death, MI or stroke in patients with an ST-elevation ACS (STE-ACS) versus clopidogrel.21,22 However, ticagrelor and prasugrel have not been extensively studied in Asian patients with STE-ACS, so the use of clopidogrel should not be disregarded.

Antiplatelet therapy should be initiated upon diagnosis of STE-ACS, ideally before or while a patient is being transported to the hospital for primary PCI, in the absence of contraindications (e.g. severe bleeding; Figure 1).2,3 Prehospital administration of ticagrelor (i.e. in transit) to patients presenting with an STE-ACS is possible, but does not offer significant benefits beyond a reduced risk of stent thrombosis.23 Aspirin (300 mg or 325 mg loading dose and 75 mg or 81–100 mg maintenance dose) should be initiated for all STE-ACS patients prior to or at hospital presentation.2,3

For patients initially managed using thrombolysis, US and European guidelines recommend administering clopidogrel immediately, because ticagrelor was administered >24 hours after a STE-ACS in the PLATO study.2,24 The European guidelines note switching from clopidogrel to prasugrel or ticagrelor may be considered after 48 hours for patients who receive fibrinolysis and subsequently undergo PCI.24

No significant differences in the rate of TIMI major bleeding after 30 days in patients have been observed in STEMI patients treated with ticagrelor or clopidogrel after undergoing fibrinolysis in an approximately 8-hour/next-day timeframe.25 Likewise, rates of major bleeding were similar after 12 months, indicating that early switching from clopidogrel to ticagrelor after fibrinolysis is feasible.26 The use of prasugrel after fibrinolysis for STEMI has not been well studied, so no recommendation is made.

Treatment Algorithm for Patients with STEMI

Article image

Non-ST-elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome

Statement 3. Ticagrelor (180 mg loading and 90 mg twice daily maintenance dose) is recommended in patients with non-STelevation ACS (NSTE-ACS). In patients receiving an early invasive strategy (<12 hours), pre-treatment may not be mandated.

Level of evidence: High.

Level of agreement: 100% agree, 0.0% neutral, 0.0% disagree.

Statement 4. Prasugrel (60 mg loading and 10 mg daily) is recommended only in patients who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention. In countries where a reduced loading or maintenance dose is approved, a reduced dose may be considered. Pre-treatment is not recommended.

Level of evidence: High.

Level of agreement: 100% agree, 0% neutral, 0% disagree.

Statement 5. Unless bleeding risk is high, a minimum of 6 months of DAPT is recommended to reduce ischaemic risk in NSTE-ACS.

Level of evidence: Moderate.

Level of agreement: 86.4% agree, 4.5% neutral, 9.1% disagree.

This consensus statement recommends the use of P2Y12 inhibitors as part of DAPT as a cornerstone intervention for NSTE-ACS (Figure 2), in a similar manner to Western guidelines.27

The efficacy and safety profile of ticagrelor in patients with NSTE-ACS is consistent with the overall PLATO study population.28 While a study in Chinese patients with NSTE-ACS undergoing PCI suggested that doubling the ticagrelor loading dose may achieve faster onset of platelet inhibition without an increase in adverse events, this is unlikely to be associated with a clinically meaningful benefit and is inconsistent with the approved ticagrelor label.9,10,29

Treatment Algorithm for Patients with NSTEMI

Article image

No benefit has been observed versus placebo when initiating P2Y12 antiplatelet therapy when invasive procedures for ACS are planned within 12 hours of presentation, so routine pre-treatment prior to early invasive intervention is not mandated.30

The efficacy and safety of prasugrel was only investigated in patients who underwent PCI in TRITON-TIMI 38, and the approved indication has been limited accordingly.8,11,18 Reduced prasugrel dosing (20 mg loading/3.75 mg daily maintenance dosing) has demonstrated improved efficacy compared with clopidogrel in Japanese patients with ACS without significantly increasing non-CABG-related major bleeding, supporting lower indicated dosing in some Asian countries.19

Prasugrel pre-treatment prior to invasive procedures is not recommended because of the increased risk of bleeding without reducing the risk of ischaemic events.31

A net clinical benefit is expected for all patient groups with at least 6 months of DAPT after an ACS.32 However, for patients with a high risk of bleeding, the reduced risk of ischaemic events needs to be weighed against the risk of bleeding after 6 months.32 Furthermore, as pointed out by some panellists, the DAPT study evaluated a treatment duration of at least 12 months.

Bleeding Risk

Statement 6. There is no specific bleeding risk calculator recommended for use in Asian populations.

Level of evidence: Very low.

Level of agreement: 95.5% agree, 4.5% neutral, 0.0% disagree.

Statement 7. Ticagrelor or prasugrel in combination with aspirin should be considered as first-line for NSTE-ACS patients at high risk of ischaemia, unless patient has prior history of bleeding or is above 85 years old. Adjust the duration of therapy based on bleeding risk.

Level of evidence: Low.

Level of agreement: 72.8% agree, 0.0% neutral, 13.6% disagree.

Statement 8. Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may be considered for use in patients with high risk of bleeding. However, other causes of bleeding or anaemia should be investigated.

Level of evidence: Moderate.

Level of agreement: 100.0% agree, 0.0% neutral, 0.0% disagree.

Statement 9. A radial access should be considered as default strategy for patients undergoing catheterisation.

Level of evidence: High.

Level of agreement: 95.5% agree, 4.5% neutral, 0.0% disagree.

Statement 10. Among patients on DAPT who are scheduled to undergo non-cardiac surgery, consider the risk associated with stopping DAPT or continuing aspirin alone versus delaying surgery until completion of 6 months of DAPT post-MI. A joint discussion between cardiologist and proceduralist regarding the risk of bleeding versus an ischaemic event following cessation of DAPT should be considered. Stop ticagrelor and clopidogrel 5 days, and prasugrel 7 days, prior to surgery.

Level of evidence: Moderate.

Level of agreement: 95.5% agree, 4.5% neutral, 0.0% disagree

A recommendation for a specific bleeding risk score was not recommended in Asia because there is no validated bleeding risk calculator for Asian patients. Post-ACS bleeding risk tends to be overestimated compared with ischaemic risk in Asian patients.33 Therefore, an individualised assessment of the benefit-risk ratio of DAPT should be performed on the basis of a patient’s medical history, physical examination, and laboratory parameters.

Both ticagrelor and prasugrel have demonstrated improved efficacy versus clopidogrel in patients with ACS undergoing revascularisation, although some panellists have highlighted that the data for prasugrel is only for PCI.18,34,35 No difference in the risk of major bleeding was observed between ticagrelor and clopidogrel in the Asian subgroup analysis of the PLATO study or in several real-world comparisons in Asian populations.15,36–38 However, other studies have suggested there is an increased risk of major bleeding with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel in East Asian patients.16,17,39–43 The risk of bleeding with prasugrel has also been reported to be higher than for clopidogrel in Korean patients.44 The risk of any bleeding has been reported as being comparable between ticagrelor and prasugrel in East Asian patients.43 Therefore, duration of therapy should be based on a perceived on-going net clinical benefit.

No increase in the risk of bleeding or ischaemic events has been observed in patients administered ticagrelor or prasugrel versus clopidogrel alongside a PPI.45–47 However, PPI administration is associated with lower clopidogrel active metabolite levels and ex vivo-measured platelet inhibition.48

Bleeding complications may also be reduced with the use of a transradial access during PCI. A 2020 meta-analysis that included 18 randomised controlled trials (n=21,669) found that among patients with ACS who have undergone PCI, transradial access decreased the risk of major bleeding by 38% (p<0.001) compared to a transfemoral route.49 Radial access was also associated with a 25% lower risk of all-cause mortality (p=0.002). Both results were consistent across subgroups except in those that used bivalirudin as an anticoagulant, wherein no benefit was seen for major bleeding or mortality.

DAPT should not be stopped within 4 weeks of stenting unless it is for critical surgery. The ischaemic versus bleeding risk in patients treated with DAPT undergoing surgery must be weighed during pre-surgery discussions between the cardiologist and the proceduralist.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA)-approved label states that ticagrelor should be stopped for up to 5 days prior to elective surgery.9, 10

While the European Society of Cardiology 2017 guidelines recommend stopping treatment up to 3 days prior to surgery based on the results of the ONSET/OFFSET study, the panel does not support this recommendation because it is based on a single study.3,50 Clopidogrel and prasugrel treatment should be stopped 5 and 7 days before surgery, respectively.3

Switching Antiplatelet Therapy

Statement 11. Clinicians must evaluate reasons for de-escalation and weigh these against the risk of a possible ischaemic event. If de-escalation is necessary, this should be delayed for as long as possible (at least 1 month, but preferably >3 months after the ACS event) as risk of ischaemic events in revascularised patients decreases over time.

Level of evidence: Low.

Level of agreement: 86.4% agree, 13.7% neutral, 4.5% disagree.

Statement 12. Regardless of time frame, reloading is required when switching from ticagrelor or prasugrel to clopidogrel unless there is on-going bleeding.

Level of evidence: Very low.

Level of agreement: 81.9% agree, 4.5% neutral, 13.6% disagree.

DAPT should be continued for a minimum of 12 months, unless contraindicated or not tolerated.2,3 De-escalation (change from ticagrelor or prasugrel to clopidogrel) may be required due to major bleeding, ambiguity surrounding dose requirements for elderly patients/patients with low body weight using prasugrel, or cost.51–53

De-escalation of ticagrelor or prasugrel to clopidogrel may reduce the risk of bleeding without compromising efficacy.54 However, observational data from Asian patients have suggested that de-escalating DAPT in the absence of platelet-function-testing-guided clopidogrel dosing may increase the risk of ischaemic events without reducing bleeding risk.38,51,53,55

If de-escalation to clopidogrel is necessary, de-escalation should be delayed as long as possible, preferably until >3 months after an ACS, and avoided <1 month after the event,56 because of the time-dependent decrease in the risk of ischaemic events following an ACS.

Data from patients who de-escalate DAPT is limited and a consensus on a de-escalation strategy has not been reached in the literature.

To guide practice despite the lack of strong evidence, the panel consensus is to consider a 600 mg loading dose of clopidogrel when de-escalating from ticagrelor to clopidogrel, irrespective of time from ACS. However, directly de-escalating to a 75 mg daily maintenance dose of clopidogrel is reasonable when de-escalation is due to bleeding.57

Long-term Versus Short-term Dual Antiplatelet Therapy

Statement 13. The standard duration of DAPT is 12 months after an ACS. Extension of DAPT beyond 1 year may be considered for high ischaemic-risk patients, such as those with high-risk stent anatomy, complex coronary anatomy or additional risk factors (e.g. diabetes). Clinicians must evaluate both ischaemic and bleeding risk.

Level of evidence: High.

Level of agreement: 85.5% agree, 0.0% neutral, 4.5% disagree

Continuing DAPT with clopidogrel beyond 12 months has been shown to decrease the risk of ischaemic events, including CV death, among high-risk patients with a history of MI versus aspirin alone, but is associated with an increased risk of major bleeding.58 Similar outcomes when continuing DAPT with ticagrelor (60 or 90 mg) beyond 12 months were reported in the PEGASUS-TIMI 54 trial, although there was no significant increase in the rate of fatal bleeding or intracranial haemorrhage.14 The FDA and EMA licensed the use of ticagrelor 60 mg from 12–36 months because of its comparable efficacy but lower risk of bleeding versus a 90-mg dose.9,10 DAPT using ticagrelor 60 mg beyond 12 months has also demonstrated a benefit compared with placebo in patients with concomitant multivessel disease or diabetes.59,60

Genotyping, CYP2C19 Polymorphisms and Platelet Function Testing

Statement 14. Due to the lack of positive prospective trials in Asian patients, the routine use of point-of-care platelet function testing to guide decisions in antiplatelet therapy is not recommended.

Level of evidence: Very low.

Level of agreement: 100% agree, 0.0% neutral, 0.0% disagree.

Patients with a CYP2C19 poor metaboliser phenotype may not achieve adequate platelet inhibition with the CYP219-dependent prodrug clopidogrel.5 In contrast, ticagrelor and prasugrel are not dependent on CYP2C19 bioactivation,5 but differences in bioactivation alone do not fully account for the reduced risk of ischaemic events with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel.61

CYP2C19 polymorphism-guided antiplatelet prescribing may improve clinical outcomes for patients with ACS and offers a cost-effective approach to treatment.62–64 Point-of-care platelet function testing may also act as a surrogate marker for CYP2C19 polymorphisms for patients administered clopidogrel.65 Nonetheless, despite the high prevalence of CYP2C19 polymorphisms in the Asia-Pacific region, routine use of genotype-guided DAPT is not recommended because of the lack of prospective randomised trials performed in the Asia-Pacific region demonstrating a clinical benefit, though further research is warranted.5,65,66

Special Populations

Statement 15. Ticagrelor has been shown to be effective and safe among specific populations (diabetes, elderly and chronic kidney disease [CKD]) with ACS.

Level of evidence: Moderate.

Level of agreement: 89.9% agree, 9.1% neutral, 0.0% disagree.

Caution and clinical judgment must be exercised when using DAPT in patients with comorbidities associated with an increased risk of ischaemic events and/or bleeding, such as diabetes or CKD, and in elderly patients (age >75 years).67–69 No dose adjustment is required for ticagrelor.9,10 A reduced 5 mg daily dose of prasugrel is required for patients weighing <60 kg and prasugrel is not recommended for patients aged ≥75 years.8,67–69

Future Directions

Spontaneous major bleeding and bleeding associated with urgent invasive procedures remain concerns for patients administered DAPT following an ACS. In particular, the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor cannot be reversed with platelet transfusion.70 A candidate reversal agent is PB2452 (PhaseBio Pharmaceuticals), a monoclonal antibody fragment that binds ticagrelor, is under investigation and has demonstrated immediate and sustained reversal of the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor in a phase 1 study.70

Efforts to prospectively investigate the efficacy and safety of CYP2C19 polymorphism-guided antiplatelet prescribing in Asia, and subsequent cost-effectiveness analyses, would be welcomed given the economic considerations that drive antiplatelet prescribing in the region.

Limitations

The breadth of literature on the role of ticagrelor, prasugrel, and clopidogrel in ACS is diverse and these consensus recommendations are not exhaustive and are based on the best available evidence at the time of publication. The consensus statements are not intended to replace clinical judgement. Furthermore, the use of P2Y12 inhibitors in patients receiving oral anticoagulants due to concomitant AF was not discussed, and is discussed in another consensus document.

Conclusion

When managing Asian patients who have had an ACS with DAPT, there are different considerations compared with those for Western populations. While data from Asian populations comparing outcomes with ticagrelor, prasugrel, and clopidogrel are limited, there is evidence to suggest that ticagrelor or prasugrel should be preferred over clopidogrel for most patients with ACS, particularly those who have undergone PCI. The decision on duration of DAPT – including the need to de-escalate, stop or continue therapy beyond 12 months – should be individualised, considering both the ischaemic and bleeding risk for each patient.

References

  1. Chan MY, Du X, Eccleston D, et al. Acute coronary syndrome in the Asia-Pacific region. Int J Cardiol 2016;202:861–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Levine GN, Bates ER, Bittl JA, et al. 2016 ACC/AHA guideline focused update on duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 2016;134:e123–55.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Valgimigli M, Bueno H, Byrne RA, et al. 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS: the Task Force for dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 2018;39:213–60.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Jeong YH. “East Asian Paradox”: challenge for the current antiplatelet strategy of “one-guideline-fits-all races” in acute coronary syndrome. Curr Cardiol Rep 2014;16:485.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Scott SA, Sangkuhl K, Gardner EE, et al. Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium guidelines for cytochrome P450-2C19 (CYP2C19) genotype and clopidogrel therapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2011;90:328–32.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Kang J, Park KW, Palmerini T, et al. Racial differences in ischaemia/bleeding risk trade-off during anti-platelet therapy: individual patient level landmark meta-analysis from seven RCTs. Thromb Haemost 2019;119:149–62.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Misumida N, Ogunbayo GO, Kim SM, et al. higher risk of bleeding in asians presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: analysis of the National Inpatient Sample Database. Angiology 2018;69:548-54.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. EFFIENT (prasugrel) tablets. Highlights of prescribing information. FDA. 2009. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2011/022307s003lbl.pdf (accessed 16 November 2020).
  9. BRILINTA (ticagrelor) tablets, for oral use. Highlights of prescribing information. FDA. 2016. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2016/022433s020lbl.pdf (accessed 16 November 2020).
  10. Brilique 60 mg film-coated tablets. Summary of product characteristics. European Medicines Agency. 2019. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/brilique-epar-product-information_en.pdf (accessed 16 November 2020).
  11. Efient 10 mg film-coated tablets. Efient 5 mg film-coated tablets. Summary of product characteristics. European Medicines Agency. 2019. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/product-information/efient-epar-product-information_en.pdf (accessed 16 November 2020).
  12. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:401–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2009;361:1045–57.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Bonaca MP, Bhatt DL, Cohen M, et al. Long-term use of ticagrelor in patients with prior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2015;372:1791–800.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Kang HJ, Clare RM, Gao R, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in Asian patients with acute coronary syndrome: a retrospective analysis from the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) Trial. Am Heart J 2015;169:899–905.e1.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Goto S, Huang CH, Park SJ, et al. Ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in Japanese, Korean and Taiwanese patients with acute coronary syndrome – randomized, double-blind, phase III PHILO study. Circ J 2015;79:2452–60.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Park DW, Kwon O, Jang JS, et al. Clinically significant bleeding with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in Korean patients with acute coronary syndromes intended for invasive management: a randomized clinical trial. Circulation 2019;140:1865–77.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2001–15.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Saito S, Isshiki T, Kimura T, et al. Efficacy and safety of adjusted-dose prasugrel compared with clopidogrel in Japanese patients with acute coronary syndrome: the PRASFIT-ACS study. Circ J 2014;78:1684–92.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Schupke S, Neumann FJ, Menichelli M, et al. Ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2019;381:1524–34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Steg PG, James S, Harrington RA, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes intended for reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention: a Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial subgroup analysis. Circulation 2010;122:2131–41.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Udell JA, Braunwald E, Antman EM, et al. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction according to timing of percutaneous coronary intervention: a TRITON-TIMI 38 subgroup analysis (Trial to Assess Improvement in Therapeutic Outcomes by Optimizing Platelet Inhibition with Prasugrel-Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction 38). JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2014;7:604–12.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Montalescot G, van ‘t Hof AW, Lapostolle F, et al. Prehospital ticagrelor in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 2014;371:1016–27.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, et al. 2017 ESC guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: the Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 2018;39:119–77.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Berwanger O, Nicolau JC, Carvalho AC, et al. Ticagrelor vs clopidogrel after fibrinolytic therapy in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Cardiol 2018;3:391–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Berwanger O, Lopes RD, Moia DDF, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with STEMI treated with fibrinolysis: TREAT Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019;73:2819–28.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Collet JP, Thiele H, Barbato E, et al. 2020 ESC guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Eur Heart J 2020; epub ahead of press.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Lindholm D, Varenhorst C, Cannon CP, et al. Ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome with or without revascularization: results from the PLATO trial. Eur Heart J 2014;35:2083–93.
    Crossref | PubMed
  29. Liu HL, Wei YJ, Ding P, et al. Antiplatelet effect of different loading doses of ticagrelor in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the APELOT Trial. Can J Cardiol 2017;33:1675–82.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Valgimigli M. Pretreatment with P2Y12 inhibitors in non-ST-segment-elevation acute coronary syndrome is clinically justified. Circulation 2014;130:1891–903.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. Montalescot G, Bolognese L, Dudek D, et al. Pretreatment with prasugrel in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 2013;369:999–1010.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Wilson SJ, Newby DE, Dawson D, et al. Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in acute coronary syndrome. Heart 2017;103:573.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Liu R, Lyu SZ, Zhao GQ, et al. Comparison of the performance of the CRUSADE, ACUITY-HORIZONS, and ACTION bleeding scores in ACS patients undergoing PCI: insights from a cohort of 4939 patients in China. J Geriatr Cardiol 2017;14:93-9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Held C, Asenblad N, Bassand JP, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery: results from the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;57:672–84.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Cannon CP, Harrington RA, James S, et al. Comparison of ticagrelor with clopidogrel in patients with a planned invasive strategy for acute coronary syndromes (PLATO): a randomised double-blind study. Lancet 2010;375:283–93.
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. Chen IC, Lee CH, Fang CC, et al. Efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome in Taiwan: a multicenter retrospective pilot study. J Chin Med Assoc 2016;79:521–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Lee CH, Cheng CL, Kao Yang YH, et al. Cardiovascular and bleeding risks in acute myocardial infarction newly treated with ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in Taiwan. Circ J 2018;82:747–56.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Kim C, Shin DH, Hong SJ, et al. One-year clinical outcomes of ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute myocardial infarction: from Korean health insurance review and assessment data. J Cardiol 2019;73:191–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Park KH, Jeong MH, Ahn Y, et al. Comparison of short-term clinical outcomes between ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute myocardial infarction undergoing successful revascularization; from Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry – National Institute of Health. Int J Cardiol 2016;215:193–200.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Wang HY, Li Y, Xu XM, et al. impact of baseline bleeding risk on efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in chinese patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Chin Med J (Engl) 2018;131:2017–24.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Wu B, Lin H, Tobe RG, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in East-Asian patients with acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Comp Eff Res 2018;7:281–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  42. Misumida N, Aoi S, Kim SM, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in East Asian patients with acute coronary syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2018;19:689–94.
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. Yun JE, Kim YJ, Park JJ, et al. Safety and effectiveness of contemporary P2Y12 inhibitors in an East Asian population with acute coronary syndrome: a nationwide population-based cohort study. J Am Heart Assoc 2019;8:e012078.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Kang J, Han JK, Ahn Y, et al. Third-generation P2Y12 inhibitors in East Asian acute myocardial infarction patients: a nationwide prospective multicentre study. Thromb Haemost 2018;118:591–600.
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Goodman SG, Clare R, Pieper KS, et al. Association of proton pump inhibitor use on cardiovascular outcomes with clopidogrel and ticagrelor: insights from the platelet inhibition and patient outcomes trial. Circulation 2012;125:978–86.
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Jackson LR, 2nd, Peterson ED, McCoy LA, et al. impact of proton pump inhibitor use on the comparative effectiveness and safety of prasugrel versus clopidogrel: insights from the treatment with adenosine diphosphate receptor inhibitors: longitudinal assessment of treatment patterns and events after acute coronary syndrome (TRANSLATE-ACS) Study. J Am Heart Assoc 2016;5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Yan Y, Wang X, Fan JY, et al. Impact of concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors and clopidogrel or ticagrelor on clinical outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome. J Geriatr Cardiol 2016;13:209–17.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Scott SA, Owusu Obeng A, Hulot JS. Antiplatelet drug interactions with proton pump inhibitors. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2014;10:175–89.
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Shah R, Khan S, Rashid A, et al. An updated meta-analysis of radial versus femoral access for percutaneous coronary intervention in the context of aggressive bleeding avoidance strategies. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 2020;21:242–4.
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Gurbel PA, Bliden KP, Butler K, et al. Randomized double-blind assessment of the ONSET and OFFSET of the antiplatelet effects of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with stable coronary artery disease: the ONSET/OFFSET study. Circulation 2009;120:2577–85.
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Han YL. De-escalation of anti-platelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a narrative review. Chin Med J (Engl) 2019;132:197–210.
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Kupka D, Sibbing D. De-escalation of P2Y12 receptor inhibitor therapy after acute coronary syndromes in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Korean Circ J 2018;48:863–72.
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. Li XY, Su GH, Wang GX, et al. Switching from ticagrelor to clopidogrel in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing successful percutaneous coronary intervention in real-world China: occurrences, reasons, and long-term clinical outcomes. Clin Cardiol 2018;41:1446–54.
    Crossref | PubMed
  54. Cuisset T, Deharo P, Quilici J, et al. Benefit of switching dual antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndrome: the TOPIC (Timing Of Platelet Inhibition after acute Coronary syndrome) randomized study. Eur Heart J 2017;38:3070–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  55. Liu L, Liao H, Zhong S, et al. Effects of switching ticagrelor to clopidogrel on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Medicine (Baltimore) 2018;97:e13381.
    Crossref | PubMed
  56. Kim HS, Kang J, Hwang D, et al. Prasugrel-based de-escalation of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome (HOST-REDUCE-POLYTECH-ACS): an open-label, multicentre, non-inferiority randomised trial. Lancet 2020;396:1079–89.
    Crossref | PubMed
  57. Angiolillo DJ, Rollini F, Storey RF, et al. international expert consensus on switching platelet P2Y12 receptor-inhibiting therapies. Circulation 2017;136:1955–75.
    Crossref | PubMed
  58. Udell JA, Bonaca MP, Collet JP, et al. Long-term dual antiplatelet therapy for secondary prevention of cardiovascular events in the subgroup of patients with previous myocardial infarction: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Heart J 2016;37:390–9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  59. Bansilal S, Bonaca MP, Cornel JH, et al. ticagrelor for secondary prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with multivessel coronary disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;71:489–96.
    Crossref | PubMed
  60. Bhatt DL, Bonaca MP, Bansilal S, et al. reduction in ischemic events with ticagrelor in diabetic patients with prior myocardial infarction in PEGASUS-TIMI 54. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016;67:2732–40.
    Crossref | PubMed
  61. Wallentin L, James S, Storey RF, et al. Effect of CYP2C19 and ABCB1 single nucleotide polymorphisms on outcomes of treatment with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel for acute coronary syndromes: a genetic substudy of the PLATO trial. Lancet 2010;376:1320–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  62. Zheng L, Yang C, Xiang L, Hao Z. Genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy compared with conventional therapy for patients with acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Biomarkers 2019;24:517–23.
    Crossref | PubMed
  63. Jiang M, You JH. CYP2C19 LOF and GOF-guided antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Cardiovasc Drugs Ther 2017;31:39–49.
    Crossref | PubMed
  64. Lee JH, Ahn SG, Lee JW, et al. Switching from prasugrel to clopidogrel based on cytochrome P450 2C19 genotyping in East Asian patients stabilized after acute myocardial infarction. Platelets 2016;27:301–7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  65. Su-Yin DT. Using pharmacogenetic testing or platelet reactivity testing to tailor antiplatelet therapy: are Asians different from Caucasians? Eur Cardiol 2018;13:112–4.
    Crossref | PubMed
  66. Sibbing D, Aradi D, Alexopoulos D, et al. Updated expert consensus statement on platelet function and genetic testing for guiding P2Y12 receptor inhibitor treatment in percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2019;12:1521–37.
    Crossref | PubMed
  67. James S, Budaj A, Aylward P, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in acute coronary syndromes in relation to renal function: results from the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Circulation 2010;122:1056–67.
    Crossref | PubMed
  68. James S, Angiolillo DJ, Cornel JH, et al. Ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes and diabetes: a substudy from the PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Eur Heart J 2010;31:3006–16.
    Crossref | PubMed
  69. Husted S, James S, Becker RC, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in elderly patients with acute coronary syndromes: a substudy from the prospective randomized PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2012;5:680–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  70. Bhatt DL, Pollack CV, Weitz JI, et al. Antibody-based ticagrelor reversal agent in healthy volunteers. N Engl J Med 2019;380:1825–33.
    Crossref | PubMed