Article

Optimal use of platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions.

Division of Cardiology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7075, USA.
Drugs (Impact Factor: 4.13). 10/2011; 71(15):2009-30. DOI: 10.2165/11595010-000000000-00000
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Discovery of the central role of platelets in the pathogenesis of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and ischaemic complications of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) has led to the widespread use of oral and parenteral platelet inhibitors to treat these conditions. Glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa (also known as α(IIb)β(3)) receptors on the surface of platelets play an essential role in platelet aggregation and serve as a key mediator in the formation of arterial thrombus. When activated, GP IIb/IIIa receptors bind to fibrinogen, which serves as the 'final common pathway' in platelet aggregation. Of the numerous agents developed for modulating platelet activity, intravenous platelet GP IIb/IIIa receptor antagonists are the most potent. There are four agents in clinical use, including abciximab, eptifibatide, tirofiban and lamifiban, although lamifiban is not approved for use in the US. While all agents block fibrinogen binding to GP IIb/IIIa, they do so by different mechanisms. Abciximab is a humanized form of a murine monoclonal antibody directed against GP IIb/IIIa, eptifibatide is a synthetic, cyclic heptapeptide that contains a lysine-glycine-aspartic acid (KGD) sequence that mimics the arginine-glycine-aspartic acid (RGD) sequence found on GP IIb/IIIa, tirofiban is a non-peptide antagonist derived by optimization of the tyrosine analogue that structurally mimicks the RGD-containing loop of the disintegrin echistatin, and lamifiban is a synthetic, non-cyclic, non-peptide, low-molecular-weight compound. In clinical trials, use of these agents reduces ischaemic adverse cardiovascular events in patients with ACS undergoing PCI, but at a cost of increased bleeding.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
85 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Aim: Vorapaxar is a proteaseactivated receptor (PAR)-1 antagonist being developed for the prevention and treatment of thrombotic vascular events. To evaluate race/ethnic differences between Caucasians and Chinese in the pharmacokinetics of vorapaxar and its active metabolite SCH 2046273 (M20) or in the metabolite/parent ratio, we conducted a cross-study comparison on pharmacokinetic data of vorapaxar and M20 obtained from two similarly designed studies: one in healthy Chinese subjects and the other in a healthy Western (United States, [U.S.]) population. Methods: The pharmacokinetic profiles of vorapaxar and M20 were characterized using open label, two treatment parallel group designs in men and women aged 18 - 45 years. Vorapaxar was administered orally as a single dose of 40 mg in Chinese subjects (n = 14) or 120 mg in U.S. subjects (n = 14), or 2.5 mg QD for 6 weeks in both studies (Chinese, n = 14; U.S., n = 23). Results: Vorapaxar was rapidly absorbed in both Chinese and U.S. subjects. Vorapaxar and M20 had similar elimination half-lives. The range of metabolite/parent ratios after single dose or daily administration was largely overlapped in Chinese and U.S. subjects. Steady state was attained by day 21 for vorapaxar and M20 in both race/ethnic groups. The accumulation ratios for vorapaxar and M20 during daily administration were similar in Chinese and U.S. subjects. Vorapaxar was well-tolerated in Chinese and U.S. subjects. Conclusion: The pharmacokinetic profiles of vorapaxar and M20 and the metabolite/parent ratios in healthy Chinese were generally comparable to those in a healthy Western population.
    International journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics 08/2014; · 1.20 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Platelet adhesion and aggregation at the site of coronary stenting can have catastrophic clinical and economic consequences. Therefore, effective platelet inhibition is vital during and after percutaneous coronary intervention. Eptifibatide is an intravenous antiplatelet agent that blocks the final common pathway of platelet aggregation and thrombus formation by binding to glycoprotein IIb/IIIa receptors on the surface of platelets. In clinical studies, eptifibatide was associated with a significant reduction of mortality, myocardial infarction, or target vessel revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. However, recent trials conducted in the era of dual antiplatelet therapy and newer anticoagulants failed to demonstrate similar results. The previously seen favorable benefit of eptifibatide was mainly offset by the increased risk of bleeding. Current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines recommend its use as an adjunct in high-risk patients who are undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention with traditional anticoagulants (heparin or enoxaparin), who are not otherwise at high risk of bleeding. In patients receiving bivalirudin (a newer safer anticoagulant), routine use of eptifibatide is discouraged except in select situations (eg, angiographic complications). Although older pharmacoeconomic studies favor eptifibatide, in the current era of P2Y12 inhibitors and newer safer anticoagulants, the increased costs associated with bleeding make the routine use of eptifibatide an economically nonviable option. The cost-effectiveness of eptifibatide with the use of strategies that decrease the bleeding risk (eg, transradial access) is unknown. This review provides an overview of key clinical and economic studies of eptifibatide well into the current era of potent antiplatelet agents, novel safer anticoagulants, and contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention.
    Therapeutics and Clinical Risk Management 01/2014; 10:603-14. · 1.34 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Biological agents (BA) are increasingly used effectively in the treatment of a range of disorders, but to date, their application in diseases affecting the orofacial region has been fairly limited. Several orofacial adverse effects related to BA have been recently reported. However, the evidence for such adverse reactions is not always strong, and some of the adverse effects of BA have only been reported in case reports or case series. Most reactions to BA reported thus far have been in association with antitumor necrosis factor-α agents, which is not surprising, as these are the most widely-used BA. In the present study, the orofacial adverse effects are reported with various BA in order to sensitize clinicians to the possibilities. In addition, we briefly summarize the mode of action and indications of these BA. As the use and range of BA increases, the number and diversity of adverse effects might well increase. Despite the adverse effects of biological agents, these may often be less serious than the adverse effects of the more traditional immunosuppressive agents.
    Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry. 05/2014;