Why the study?
It was unknown whether the prasugrel intermediate metabolite exerts biological function, and chewed prasugrel previously failed to improve bioactivity despite accelerated active metabolite kinetics.
Does chewed prasugrel compared to integral prasugrel alter the levels of prasugrel intermediate metabolite and affect platelet inhibition in STEMI patients?
Does chewed prasugrel compared to integral prasugrel alter the levels of prasugrel intermediate metabolite and affect platelet inhibition in STEMI patients?
The prasugrel intermediate metabolite (PIM) negatively interferes with the active metabolite (PAM) at the P2Y12 receptor, explaining why chewed prasugrel does not improve platelet inhibition despite accelerated active metabolite kinetics.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
PIM modulation of PAM effects is hypothesis-generating; leaves open whether intermediate metabolites influence prasugrel response in vivo.
BACKGROUND: Prasugrel is converted into prasugrel active metabolite (PAM; R-138727) through the cytochrome P450–mediated conversion of an intermediate metabolite (PIM; R-95913). It is unknown whether PIM exerts any biological function. The FABOLUS-FASTER trial (Facilitation Through Aggrastat or Cangrelor Bolus and Infusion Over Prasugrel: A Multicenter Randomized Open-Label Trial in Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction Referred for Primary Percutaneous Intervention) showed that chewed prasugrel does not improve bioactivity, in spite of accelerated PAM kinetics. METHODS: PIM and PAM pharmacokinetics were assessed by mass spectrometry in blood samples collected from ST-segment–elevation myocardial infarction patients randomized to chewed (n=17) or integral (n=15) 60 mg prasugrel. The ex vivo and in vitro effects of PAM and PIM were assessed on ADP-induced platelet activation. The binding sites of PIM and PAM were investigated by molecular dynamics simulation. RESULTS: Chewed prasugrel was associated with higher PIM levels compared with integral prasugrel: PIM median area under the curve (25–75 p): 73 (41.5–92.0) versus 33 (0.0–50.0) ng·h/mL ( P <0.05). PIM plasma concentrations negatively correlated with inhibition of ADP-induced platelet aggregation, which strongly correlated to the PAM/PIM ratio (ρ=0.782; P <0.001; n=30) than PAM, suggesting an antagonistic role of PIM on PAM-induced P2Y 12 inhibition. Subsequent in vitro tests confirmed the dose-dependent, reversible antagonistic effect of PIM on PAM inhibition of aggregation (maximum effect, −49.5% [95% CI, −54.4% to −44.6%]; P <0.001), confirmed by P-selectin expression and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation as readouts at the signaling level. At molecular dynamics simulations of the drug-receptor systems, PIM accommodates through noncovalent reversible binding in the same PAM-binding site, distinct from that of 2-methylthio-adenosine-5′-diphosphate. CONCLUSIONS: PIM negatively interferes with PAM, thereby reducing its inhibitory activity, likely competing at the P2Y 12 receptor–binding site. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02978040. URL: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu ; Unique identifier: EudraCT 2017-001065-24.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Minuz et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: