Why the study?
Does cangrelor administered as an intravenous bolus plus continuous infusion provide rapid and reversible platelet inhibition in healthy volunteers?
Does cangrelor administered as an intravenous bolus plus continuous infusion provide rapid and reversible platelet inhibition in healthy volunteers?
Cangrelor administered as an intravenous bolus followed by a continuous infusion offers rapid and reversible inhibition of platelet function.
Enables precise periprocedural antiplatelet control with rapid offset; confirms reversibility in volunteers and supports PCI trials.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of cangrelor administered as an intravenous bolus plus a continuous infusion in healthy volunteers. Twenty-two healthy volunteers are randomized to receive 1 of 2 intravenous cangrelor dosing regimens: a 15-microg/kg bolus followed by a 2-microg/kg/min infusion or a 30-microg/kg bolus followed by a 4-microg/kg/min infusion. The infusion is continued for 60 minutes, and serial blood samples are obtained for evaluation of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters. Administration of an intravenous bolus followed by a continuous infusion rapidly achieves maximum concentrations of cangrelor that are associated with extensive platelet inhibition within 2 minutes. Moreover, extensive platelet inhibition is maintained throughout the infusion period with near-full recovery of platelet function within 60 to 90 minutes of terminating the infusion. The effect of high-dose cangrelor is more consistent and demonstrates a greater level of inhibition on adenosine diphosphate-induced P-selectin expression; how ever, no significant differences are observed between the 2 dosing regimens with regard to platelet aggregation or time to recovery of platelet function. Cangrelor administered as an intravenous bolus followed by a continuous infusion in healthy volunteers offers rapid and reversible inhibition of platelet function.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Akers et al. (2009) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: