Why the study?
Does vorapaxar reduce atherothrombotic events in patients with ACS or a history of atherosclerosis?
Does vorapaxar reduce atherothrombotic events in patients with ACS or a history of atherosclerosis?
Vorapaxar reduces atherothrombotic events in patients with a history of atherosclerosis but its clinical utility is limited by a significantly increased risk of bleeding, particularly intracranial hemorrhage in patients with prior stroke.
Vorapaxar may reduce ischemic events in select patients; leaves open optimal positioning amid modern therapies.
INTRODUCTION: Atherosclerosis is frequently caused by clot blockage of the coronary or peripheral arteries, and may lead to myocardial infarction (MI) or peripheral arterial disease (PAD). Despite advancements in management of atherosclerosis, mortality and ischemic rates remain high. Vorapaxar is a protease activated receptor-1 (PAR-1) antagonist, and prevents thrombin activation of PAR-1 receptors on platelets. AREAS COVERED: Vorapaxar was studied in 2 landmark trials in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and in those with history of atherosclerosis. For patients with ACS, vorapaxar did not significantly reduce rates of the primary efficacy outcome as compared to placebo. For patients with a history of atherosclerosis, vorapaxar significantly reduced rates of primacy outcome. However, in both landmark trials, vorapaxar significantly increased risks of bleeding, and significantly increases risks of intracranial hemorrhage in patients with a history of stroke. Vorapaxar was approved in 2014 in the US for patients with a history of MI or PAD, and in the European Union for patients with a history of MI. EXPERT OPINION: Use of vorapaxar may be limited due to its high potential for causing bleeding. Efficacy of vorapaxar in addition to aspirin and prasugrel or ticagrelor for the management of ACS should be studied in the future.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Amy Wang (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: