Why the study?
Do PAR-1 inhibitors like vorapaxar provide additional benefits in attenuating ischemic events in selected patients with atherothrombotic risk?
Do PAR-1 inhibitors like vorapaxar provide additional benefits in attenuating ischemic events in selected patients with atherothrombotic risk?
While PAR-1 inhibitors may offer additional ischemic protection beyond standard dual antiplatelet therapy, significant safety concerns like intracranial hemorrhage necessitate further large-scale trials to define their clinical role.
Safety signals should limit PAR-1 inhibitor use; leaves open net benefit in selected patients pending phase 3 trials.
INTRODUCTION: Platelet activation and reactivity are pivotal for both acute and chronic atherothrombotic event occurrences. AREAS COVERED: Only 20% relative risk (∼ 2% absolute risk) reduction associated with newer P2Y(12) receptor blocker therapy such as prasugrel and ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel indicates that dual antiplatelet therapy may be associated with a ceiling effect in attenuating platelet-mediated ischemic event occurrence and that residual ischemic event occurrences are mediated by other pathways that are unblocked by current antiplatelet therapy. Therefore, inhibition of the thrombin-protease-activated receptor (PAR)-1 interaction may provide additional benefits in attenuating ischemic event occurrence in selected patients. There are two major PAR-1 blockers are under investigations - vorapaxar and atopaxar. In preclinical and Phase I - II studies, inhibition of thrombin-mediated platelet activation by a PAR-1 inhibitor, in general, has added to the antithrombotic efficacy of aspirin and clopidogrel without increasing bleeding. However, intracranial hemorrhage in patients with a history of stroke associated with vorapaxar and hepatic toxicity associated with atopaxar are important concerns. EXPERT OPINION: At this time, the specific role of PAR-1 inhibitor in the settings of percutaneous coronary intervention and acute coronary syndrome, both during the acute setting and as a long-term therapeutic agent, is not clear. Although the PAR-1 inhibitors are associated with less bleeding, its effectiveness as an antithrombotic agent and also side effects are major concerns. Future large-scale trials with goals addressing these concerns are needed to define the specific role of PAR-1 receptor inhibitor.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gurbel et al. (2011) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: