Impact of proton pump inhibitor therapy on the efficacy of clopidogrel in the CAPRIE and CREDO trials

University of Virginia Health System, Charlottesville, VA.
Journal of the American Heart Association (Impact Factor: 4.31). 12/2013; 2(1):e004564. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.112.004564
Source: PubMed


Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) may interfere with the metabolic activation of clopidogrel via inhibition of cytochrome P450 2C19, but the clinical implications remain unclear.
The impact of PPI use on the 1-year primary end point (ischemic stroke, myocardial infarction [MI], or vascular death) in the Clopidogrel versus Aspirin in Patients at Risk of Ischemic Events (CAPRIE) trial and the 28-day (all-cause death, MI, or urgent target vessel revascularization) and 1-year (all-cause death, MI, or stroke) primary end points in the Clopidogrel for Reduction of Events During Observation (CREDO) trial were examined. Clopidogrel appeared to elevate risk for the primary end point in CAPRIE among PPI users (estimated hazard ratio [EHR] 2.66, 95% CI 0.94 to 7.50) while lowering it for non-PPI users (EHR 0.90, 95% CI 0.83 to 0.99, interaction P=0.047). Moreover, PPI use was associated with worse outcomes in patients receiving clopidogrel (EHR 2.39, 95% CI 1.74 to 3.28) but not aspirin (EHR 1.04, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.57, interaction P=0.001). Clopidogrel did not significantly alter risk for the 1-year primary end point in CREDO among PPI users (EHR 0.82, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.40) while lowering it for non-PPI users (EHR 0.71, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.98, interaction P=0.682). Also, PPI use was associated with worse outcomes in both patients receiving clopidogrel (EHR 1.67, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.64) and those receiving placebo (EHR 1.56, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.30, interaction P=0.811).
In CREDO, the efficacy of clopidogrel was not significantly affected by PPI use. However, in CAPRIE, clopidogrel was beneficial to non-PPI users while apparently harmful to PPI users. Whether this negative interaction is clinically important for patients receiving clopidogrel without aspirin needs further study.

Download full-text


Available from: Steven P Dunn,
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Barrett esophagus, a complication of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), predisposes patients to esophageal adenocarcinoma, a tumor that has increased in incidence more than 7-fold over the past several decades. Controversy exists regarding the issues of endoscopic screening and surveillance for Barrett esophagus, treatment for the underlying GERD, and the role of endoscopic eradication therapy. To review current concepts on the pathogenesis, diagnosis, and treatment of Barrett esophagus; to discuss the importance of dysplasia and the role of endoscopic eradication therapy for its treatment; and to review current management guidelines. MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched from 1984 to April 2013. Additional citations were obtained by reviewing references from selected research and review articles. Risk factors for cancer in Barrett esophagus include chronic GERD, hiatal hernia, advanced age, male sex, white race, cigarette smoking, and obesity with an intra-abdominal body fat distribution. The annual risk of esophageal cancer is approximately 0.25% for patients without dysplasia and 6% for patients with high-grade dysplasia. High-quality studies have found no significant differences in cancer incidence for patients with Barrett esophagus whose GERD is treated medically or surgically. Endoscopic eradication therapy with radiofrequency ablation significantly reduces the frequency of progression to cancer for patients with high-grade dysplasia. Endoscopic screening is recommended for patients with multiple risk factors for cancer in Barrett esophagus. For patients with Barrett esophagus without dysplasia, endoscopic surveillance at intervals of 3 to 5 years is recommended, and GERD is treated much as it is for patients without Barrett esophagus. Endoscopic eradication therapy is the treatment of choice for high-grade dysplasia and is an option for low-grade dysplasia. Endoscopic eradication therapy is not recommended for the general population of patients with nondysplastic Barrett esophagus.
    JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association 08/2013; 310(6):627-36. DOI:10.1001/jama.2013.226450 · 35.29 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is highly effective in the treatment of severe coronary artery disease. Antiplatelet therapy is a critical component of the medical management of patients following CABG. Patient idiosyncrasies in responsiveness to antiplatelet agents, however, lead to variable suppression of platelet aggregation. This problem is underscored by inconsistent findings from the different laboratory instruments used to document antiplatelet drug responsiveness and its uncertain clinical impact. The laboratory results reveal a spectrum of platelet inhibition effects. The cutoff values discriminating between “resistance” and “response” to antiplatelet therapy often rely solely on definition. It is therefore not surprising that regular testing for antiplatelet therapy response has neither been routinely instituted in a wider clinical arena nor is there unequivocal evidence to support it. The purpose of this review is to offer insight into the incidence and clinical impact of antiplatelet therapy resistance in patients undergoing surgical myocardial revascularization.
    Drug Development Research 11/2013; 74(7). DOI:10.1002/ddr.21107 · 0.77 Impact Factor
  • Source

    The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery 12/2013; 147(3). DOI:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2013.10.008 · 4.17 Impact Factor
Show more