PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
November 13, 2011New England Journal of Medicine756 citationsOpen Access

Thrombin-Receptor Antagonist Vorapaxar in Acute Coronary Syndromes

View Full Paper
PTPierluigi TricociZHZhen HuangCHClaes Held

Structured PICO

Does vorapaxar added to standard therapy reduce the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischemia, or urgent revascularization in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes?

P
Population
12,944 patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation, multinational.
I
Intervention
Vorapaxar (oral PAR-1 antagonist) added to standard therapy
C
Comparator
Placebo added to standard therapy
O
Outcome
Composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, or urgent coronary revascularizationcomposite

In patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes, adding vorapaxar to standard therapy does not significantly improve ischemic outcomes but substantially increases the risk of major bleeding and intracranial hemorrhage.

Limitations

  • Follow-up in the trial was terminated early after a safety review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Vorapaxar is a new oral protease-activated-receptor 1 (PAR-1) antagonist that inhibits thrombin-induced platelet activation. METHODS: In this multinational, double-blind, randomized trial, we compared vorapaxar with placebo in 12,944 patients who had acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. The primary end point was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, recurrent ischemia with rehospitalization, or urgent coronary revascularization. RESULTS: Follow-up in the trial was terminated early after a safety review. After a median follow-up of 502 days (interquartile range, 349 to 667), the primary end point occurred in 1031 of 6473 patients receiving vorapaxar versus 1102 of 6471 patients receiving placebo (Kaplan-Meier 2-year rate, 18.5% vs. 19.9%; hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% confidence interval CI, 0.85 to 1.01; P=0.07). A composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or stroke occurred in 822 patients in the vorapaxar group versus 910 in the placebo group (14.7% and 16.4%, respectively; hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.81 to 0.98; P=0.02). Rates of moderate and severe bleeding were 7.2% in the vorapaxar group and 5.2% in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.16 to 1.58; P<0.001). Intracranial hemorrhage rates were 1.1% and 0.2%, respectively (hazard ratio, 3.39; 95% CI, 1.78 to 6.45; P<0.001). Rates of nonhemorrhagic adverse events were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute coronary syndromes, the addition of vorapaxar to standard therapy did not significantly reduce the primary composite end point but significantly increased the risk of major bleeding, including intracranial hemorrhage. (Funded by Merck; TRACER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00527943.).

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Tricoci et al. (2011) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a1080318090e499da614664https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1109719
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper