Person:

Wiviott, Stephen

Aims: In the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial, greater platelet inhibition with prasugrel reduced the first occurrence of the primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, MI, or stroke) compared with clopidogrel in patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) undergoing planned percutaneous coronary intervention. We hypothesized that prasugrel would reduce not only first events but also recurrent primary endpoint events and therefore total events compared with clopidogrel. Methods and results: Poisson regression analysis was performed to compare the number of occurrences of the primary endpoint between prasugrel and clopidogrel in TRITON-TIMI 38. Landmark analytic methods were used to evaluate the risk of a recurrent primary endpoint event following an initial non-fatal endpoint event. Among patients with an initial non-fatal event, second events were significantly reduced with prasugrel compared to clopidogrel (10.8 vs. 15.4%, HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.46–0.92; P = 0.016), as was CV death following the non-fatal event (3.7 vs. 7.1%, HR 0.46, 95% CI 0.25–0.82; P = 0.008). Overall there was a reduction of 195 total primary efficacy events with prasugrel vs. clopidogrel (rate ratio 0.79, 95% CI 0.71–0.87; P < 0.001). Recurrent bleeding events occurred infrequently (TIMI major non-CABG bleeds: four with prasugrel and two with clopidogrel). Study drug discontinuation was frequent following the initial major bleeding event (42% of patients discontinued study drug). Conclusion: While standard statistical analytic techniques for clinical trials censor patients who experience a component of the primary composite endpoint, total cardiovascular events remain important to both patients and clinicians. Prasugrel, a more potent anti-platelet agent, reduced both first and subsequent cardiovascular events compared with clopidogrel in patients with ACS.

Clinical trial evidence supports the use of intensive statin therapy for patients with coronary artery disease. High doses of potent statins have shown the greatest clinical benefit, but concerns persist regarding the efficacy and safety of achieving very low levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. We grouped patients treated with 40 mg of rosuvastatin daily by the LDL cholesterol achieved according to previous work (<40, 40 to <60, 60 to <80, 80 to <100, and ≥100 mg/dl) and by National Cholesterol Education Program targets (<70, 70 to <100, and ≥100 mg/dl) in A Study to Evaluate the Effect of Rosuvastatin on Intravascular Ultrasound-Derived Coronary Atheroma Burden (ASTEROID). The rates of key safety end points, including death, hemorrhagic stroke, and liver and muscle enzyme elevations, and key efficacy end points (atheroma burden) were compared using chi-square testing or Fisher's exact testing. The analysis included 471 patients who had had their LDL cholesterol measured at 3 months, of whom 340 (72.2%) had LDL cholesterol of <70 mg/dl, exhibiting excellent achievement of even the most stringent guideline-based goals. Of these 471 subjects, 192 (40.8%) had LDL cholesterol ≥40 mg/dl but <60 mg/dl, and 57 (12.1%) had LDL cholesterol <40 mg/dl. Adverse events occurred infrequently during the trial, and no pattern appeared relating the frequency of any adverse event to the achieved LDL cholesterol. Similarly, the on-treatment atheroma volume, change in atheroma volume, and high percentage of subjects with atheroma regression did not differ by the achieved LDL cholesterol. In conclusion, although the power to detect such changes was limited, these data showed no clear relation between the LDL cholesterol achieved by intensive statin therapy with rosuvastatin and adverse effects. Atheroma regression occurred in most patients and was not linked to the LDL cholesterol achieved.