Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 2 Platelet function testing on different antiplatelet therapies and regimens

From: A brief review on resistance to P2Y12 receptor antagonism in coronary artery disease

Authors (year) Study design Population No. studies (no. patients) Drug and/or intervention Lab method Laboratory outcome Data are presented mainly as mean difference in PR with 95% confidence interval (CI) or frequency (%) of HPR
Zhang, H. et al. (2017) [14] Meta-analysis of RCTs [12] and registry studies [6] Patients with CAD 16 (2187) Prasugrel vs. ticagrelor VN and/or VASP For the LD, the difference in PR between the prasugrel and ticagrelor groups was [10.80 (− 9.81, 31.40), p = 0.30] using the VN test and [− 2.87 (− 6.35, 0.60), p = 0.10] using the VASP test. For the MD, the PR was lower in the ticagrelor group than in the prasugrel group, [− 43.37 (− 60.53, − 26.21), p < 0.01] using the VN test and [− 9.23 (− 15.82, − 2.64), p < 0.01], using the VASP test.
Lhermusier, T. et al. (2015) [15] Meta-analysis Patients with CAD 29 (5395) Ticagrelor vs. prasugrel vs. clopidogrel VASP, VN, LTA Compared with clopidogrel 75 mg, both prasugrel 10 mg and ticagrelor 90 mg × 2 were associated with lower PRU [− 117 (− 134.1, − 100.5)] and [− 159.7 (− 182.6, − 136.6)], respectively), lower PRI [− 24.2 (− 28.2, − 20.3) and [− 33.6 (− 39.9, − 27.6)], respectively), and lower MPA [− 11.8 (− 17, − 6.3) and [− 20.7 (− 28.5, − 12.8)], respectively). Similar results were obtained comparing clopidogrel 75 mg with 150 mg. with prasugrel 10 mg, ticagrelor 90 mg × 2 was associated with lower PRU [− 42.5 (− 62.9, − 21.9)], lower PRI [− 9.3 (− 15.6, − 3.5)], and lower MPA [− 8.9 (− 16.4, − 1.2)].
Lemesle, G. et al. (2015) [16] Meta-analysis of RCTs [1] and registry studies [6] Patients with CAD 14 (1822) Prasugrel vs. ticagrelor VASP, VN The frequency of HPR was significantly lower in the ticagrelor group: 1.5% vs. 9.8% (p < 0.0001). In studies testing impact of LD, the frequency of HPR was 4.5% (ticagrelor) vs. 13.2% (prasugrel) (p = 0.07). In studies testing impact of MD, the frequency was 0.6% (ticagrelor) vs. 7.8% (prasugrel) (p < 0.0001).
Alexopoulos, D. et al. (2014) [17] Meta-analysis Patients with CAD 8 (445) Ticagrelor VN Distribution of PR during ticagrelor MD was highly skewed toward lower values. No case of HPR (cut-off ≥230 PRU) was observed. Age and BMI positively affected PR, while current smoking lowered PR.