AIMS: This open-label, two-period, randomized, crossover study was designed to determine the effect of CYP2C19 reduced function variants on exposure to active metabolites of, and platelet response to, prasugrel and clopidogrel. METHODS:Ninety healthy Chinese subjects, stratified by CYP2C19 phenotype, were randomly assigned to treatment with prasugrel 10 mg or clopidogrel 75 mg for 10 days followed by 14 day washout and 10 day treatment with the other drug. Eighty-three subjects completed both treatment periods. Blood samples were collected at specified time points for measurement of each drug's active metabolite (Pras-AM and Clop-AM) concentrations and determination of inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA) by light transmittance aggregometry. CYP2C19 genotypes were classified into three predicted phenotype groups: rapid metabolizers [RMs (*1/*1)], heterozygous or intermediate metabolizers [IMs (*1/*2, *1/*3)] and poor metabolizers [PMs (*2/*2, *2/*3)]. RESULTS: Pras-AM exposure was similar in IMs and RMs (90% CI 0.85, 1.03) and slightly lower in PMs than IMs (90% CI 0.74, 0.99), whereas Clop-AM exposure was significantly lower in IMs compared with RMs (90% CI 0.62, 0.83), and in PMs compared with IMs (90% CI 0.53, 0.82). IPA was more consistent among RMs, IMs and PMs in prasugrel treated subjects (80.2%, 84.2% and 80.2%, respectively) than in clopidogrel treated subjects (59.7%, 56.2% and 36.8%, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Prasugrel demonstrated higher active metabolite exposure and more consistent pharmacodynamic response across all three predicted phenotype groups compared with clopidogrel, confirming observations from previous research that CYP2C19 phenotype plays an important role in variability of response to clopidogrel, but has no impact on response to prasugrel.
RCT Entities:
AIMS: This open-label, two-period, randomized, crossover study was designed to determine the effect of CYP2C19 reduced function variants on exposure to active metabolites of, and platelet response to, prasugrel and clopidogrel. METHODS: Ninety healthy Chinese subjects, stratified by CYP2C19 phenotype, were randomly assigned to treatment with prasugrel 10 mg or clopidogrel 75 mg for 10 days followed by 14 day washout and 10 day treatment with the other drug. Eighty-three subjects completed both treatment periods. Blood samples were collected at specified time points for measurement of each drug's active metabolite (Pras-AM and Clop-AM) concentrations and determination of inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA) by light transmittance aggregometry. CYP2C19 genotypes were classified into three predicted phenotype groups: rapid metabolizers [RMs (*1/*1)], heterozygous or intermediate metabolizers [IMs (*1/*2, *1/*3)] and poor metabolizers [PMs (*2/*2, *2/*3)]. RESULTS: Pras-AM exposure was similar in IMs and RMs (90% CI 0.85, 1.03) and slightly lower in PMs than IMs (90% CI 0.74, 0.99), whereas Clop-AM exposure was significantly lower in IMs compared with RMs (90% CI 0.62, 0.83), and in PMs compared with IMs (90% CI 0.53, 0.82). IPA was more consistent among RMs, IMs and PMs in prasugrel treated subjects (80.2%, 84.2% and 80.2%, respectively) than in clopidogrel treated subjects (59.7%, 56.2% and 36.8%, respectively; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS:Prasugrel demonstrated higher active metabolite exposure and more consistent pharmacodynamic response across all three predicted phenotype groups compared with clopidogrel, confirming observations from previous research that CYP2C19 phenotype plays an important role in variability of response to clopidogrel, but has no impact on response to prasugrel.
Authors: Guillaume Paré; Shamir R Mehta; Salim Yusuf; Sonia S Anand; Stuart J Connolly; Jack Hirsh; Katy Simonsen; Deepak L Bhatt; Keith A A Fox; John W Eikelboom Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-08-29 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Sarah C Sim; Carl Risinger; Marja-Liisa Dahl; Eleni Aklillu; Magnus Christensen; Leif Bertilsson; Magnus Ingelman-Sundberg Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2006-01 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: C Combescure; P Fontana; N Mallouk; P Berdague; C Labruyere; I Barazer; J C Gris; S Laporte; P Fabbro-Peray; J L Reny Journal: J Thromb Haemost Date: 2010-02-12 Impact factor: 5.824
Authors: Jessica L Mega; Sandra L Close; Stephen D Wiviott; Lei Shen; Joseph R Walker; Tabassome Simon; Elliott M Antman; Eugene Braunwald; Marc S Sabatine Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-10-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: David S Small; Ying G Li; C Steven Ernest; John H April; Nagy A Farid; Christopher D Payne; Kenneth J Winters; Shashank Rohatagi; Lan Ni Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2010-04-21 Impact factor: 3.126