Despite the established importance of platelet inhibition for the treatment or prevention of thrombotic vascular events, recent oral antiplatelet drug development cannot be considered as a uniform, complete success. In fact, the MATCH,1 CHARISMA,2 and TRITON3 trials raise concerns with regard to the vascular efficacy (questionable, if any) and the obvious increased bleeding risks that arise from more potent antiplatelet regimens. Therefore, attempts to identify the high-risk cohorts that experience worse clinical outcomes or excessive haemorrhagic complications should be undertaken and represent the top priority for further antiplatelet drug development. The delicate balance between meaningful antithrombotic effects and acceptable bleeding risk is especially sensitive in certain regions of the world, such as in Asia,4,5 where federal authorities are extremely concerned about the potential overdosing of antithrombotic agents. In some countries such as Japan, lower doses of antiplatelet agents are approved in order to combat bleeding complications. For instance, the allowed ticlopidine dose in Japan is only 200 mg/day, whereas in the rest of the world the standard dose is 500 mg/day. The Japanese goal was to reduce the safety concerns with ticlopidine, and a stand-alone Phase III clinical trial comparing ticlopidine (200 mg/day) with clopidogrel (300 mg loading followed by 75 mg daily maintenance dose) in acute coronary syndrome patients, similar to the CLASSIX trial,6 was carried out in Japanese patients, which suggested similar safety profiles for the two thienopyridines.7 Moreover, without loading, ticlopidine and clopidogrel exhibited similar efficacy in terms of secondary prevention in the Japanese patients after non-cardioembolic stroke.8 A 25 mg clopidogrel pill is now available in Japan, and physicians are able to titrate the maintenance dose. The introduction of a lower dose tablet in the rest of the world would be helpful for the individualization of antiplatelet drugs.

Hypothetically, individual tailoring of antiplatelet regimens is a logical and reasonable strategy for improving outcomes with chronic, preventive, oral antiplatelet therapy. Although presently lacking, a reliable biomarker to measure the antiplatelet effect is needed. The randomized, double-blind study, in 116 patients with documented stable coronary artery disease, by Lordkipanidzé et al., 9 is timely, elegant, well designed, convincing, and an important contribution to the field. Assessment of platelet response before and after clopidogrel dosing has been performed utilizing conventional light transmission and whole blood impedance aggregometry, PFA-100, and VerifyNow cartridge-based analysers. The major advance in the index study is that platelet assessment was done serially, before and after drug administration, using all four functional tests. The authors conclude that measurement of platelet inhibition by clopidogrel is highly test specific, the assays are not interchangeable, and, most importantly, cannot be currently recommended for routine clinical practice. This pessimistic, but fair and balanced, message deserves further clarification.

Before applying routine platelet function assessment in patients treated with antiplatelet agents, we need to understand better the shortcomings of antiplatelet monitoring and a few major mysteries need to be solved. We have no answer as to whether heightened platelet activity at baseline leads to worse vascular outcomes, or whether inhibiting platelets improves outcomes independently from the pre-treatment platelet activity. While the answers seem simple and obvious, facts and credible data are mostly lacking. Another missing piece of the puzzle is how to balance thrombotic and bleeding risks. For maintenance regimens, we have no clue as to the optimal degree or range (if any) of residual platelet activity necessary to prevent vascular occlusive events while avoiding excessive bleeding.10 These data are urgently needed before a transition to individual tailoring of antiplatelet regimens based on serial assessment of platelet activity becomes a reality, and can be intelligently advocated.

Even if we fill the knowledge gap with regard to the association between platelet activity inhibition and clinical outcomes, the clopidogrel equation remains difficult. Linking low clopidogrel response to impaired outcomes11,12 is a very attractive hypothesis, but we need to have definite proof that clopidogrel is even on board by measuring drug thiol or carboxyl metabolite(s) to confirm compliance. Obviously, the thrombotic burden in some patients exceeds the ability of even high dose loading with clopidogrel to prevent secondary events. However, it is not reasonable to generalize all clinical scenarios and blame low clopidogrel response for recurrent events, especially acknowledging that no-load, 75 mg clopidogrel saved 119 lives, and provided an absolute mortality benefit after acute myocardial infarction in the COMMIT trial.13 Based on the present laboratory definitions of low response or clopidogrel ‘resistance’, at least 70% of all COMMIT patients would be considered poor clopidogrel responders, yet COMMIT is the most successful clopidogrel trial. This obvious disconnection warns us against simplistic and premature conclusions that poor clopidogrel response, as assessed by the platelet tests, causes myocardial infarction or ischaemic stroke. A more reasonable and practical clinical scenario is outlined in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Algorithm for the patient to become ‘resistant’.

Figure 1.

Algorithm for the patient to become ‘resistant’.

Testing multiple doses of antithrombotics in Phase III clinical trials may become a reality in the near future, when heterogeneous cohorts will be treated differently. Uniformly accepted bedside platelet function testing will be beneficial if the changes in platelet activity actually predict vascular events. Unless we have definitive proof that the patient is indeed adherent to antiplatelet medication, any speculation on potential clopidogrel harm, that is sometimes region specific (e.g. liver dysfunction in Japanese),7 should be avoided.

Presently, the body of available evidence suggests that routine assessment of platelet function for monitoring antiplatelet therapy cannot be recommended. We need to know more before we are able to use platelet data to determine risk. A large-scale, multicentre outcomes study, backed up with universal quality platelet function assessments, is needed to prove that serial platelet measures are useful tools for benefit/risk stratification, and tailored antiplatelet strategies.

Conflict of interest: none declared.

References

1
Diener
HC
Bogousslavsky
J
Brass
LM
Cimminiello
C
Csiba
L
Kaste
M
Leys
D
Matias-Guiu
J
Rupprecht
HJ
MATCH investigators
Aspirin and clopidogrel compared with clopidogrel alone after recent ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack in high-risk patients (MATCH): randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial
Lancet
 , 
2004
, vol. 
364
 (pg. 
331
-
337
)
2
Bhatt
DL
Fox
KA
Hacke
W
Berger
PB
Black
HR
Boden
WE
Cacoub
P
Cohen
EA
Creager
MA
Easton
JD
Flather
MD
Haffner
SM
Hamm
CW
Hankey
GJ
Johnston
SC
Mak
KH
Mas
JL
Montalescot
G
Pearson
TA
Steg
PG
Steinhubl
SR
Weber
MA
Brennan
DM
Fabry-Ribaudo
L
Booth
J
Topol
EJ
CHARISMA Investigators
Clopidogrel and aspirin versus aspirin alone for the prevention of atherothrombotic events
N Engl J Med
 , 
2006
, vol. 
354
 (pg. 
1706
-
1717
)
3
Wiviott
SD
Braunwald
E
McCabe
CH
Montalescot
G
Ruzyllo
W
Gottlieb
S
Neumann
FJ
Ardissino
D
De Servi
S
Murphy
SA
Riesmeyer
J
Weerakkody
G
Gibson
CM
Antman
EM
TRITON-TIMI 38 Investigators
Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes
N Engl J Med
 , 
2007
, vol. 
357
 (pg. 
2001
-
2015
)
4
Goto
S
Cardiovascular risk factors in patients at high risk of atherothrombosis: what can be learned from registries?
Thromb Haemost
 , 
2008
, vol. 
100
 (pg. 
611
-
613
)
5
Steg
PG
Bhatt
DL
Wilson
PW
D'Agostino
R
Sr.
Ohman
EM
Rother
J
Liau
CS
Hirsch
AT
Mas
JL
Ikeda
Y
Pencina
MJ
Goto
S
One-year cardiovascular event rates in outpatients with atherothrombosis
JAMA
 , 
2007
, vol. 
297
 (pg. 
1197
-
1206
)
6
Bertrand
ME
Rupprecht
HJ
Urban
P
Gershlick
AH
Double-blind study of the safety of clopidogrel with and without a loading dose in combination with aspirin compared with ticlopidine in combination with aspirin after coronary stenting: the clopidogrel aspirin stent international cooperative study (CLASSICS)
Circulation
 , 
2000
, vol. 
102
 (pg. 
624
-
629
)
7
Japanese Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Agency (PMDA) homepage
 
8
Fukuuchi
Y
Tohgi
H
Okudera
T
Ikeda
Y
Miyanaga
Y
Uchiyama
S
Hirano
M
Shinohara
Y
Matsumoto
M
Yamaguchi
T
A randomized double-blind study comparing the safety efficacy of clopidogrel versus ticlopidine in Japanese patients with noncardioembolic cerebral infarction
Cerebrovasc Dis
 , 
2008
, vol. 
25
 (pg. 
40
-
49
)
9
Lordkipanidzé
M
Pharand
C
Nguyen
TA
Schampaert
E
Palisaitis
DA
Diodati
JG
Comparison of four tests to assess inhibition of platelet function by clopidogrel in stable coronary artery disease patients
Eur Heart J
 , 
2008
, vol. 
29
 (pg. 
2877
-
2885
First published on September 30, 2008. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehn419
10
Serebruany
VL
The ‘clopidogrel resistance’ trap
Am J Cardiol
 , 
2007
, vol. 
100
 (pg. 
1044
-
1046
)
11
Geisler
T
Langer
H
Wydymus
M
Gohring
K
Zurn
C
Bigalke
B
Stellos
K
May
AE
Gawaz
M
Low response to clopidogrel is associated with cardiovascular outcome after coronary stent implantation
Eur Heart J
 , 
2006
, vol. 
27
 (pg. 
2420
-
2425
)
12
Matetzky
S
Shenkman
B
Guetta
V
Shechter
M
Bienart
R
Goldenberg
I
Novikov
I
Pres
H
Savion
N
Varon
D
Hod
H
Clopidogrel resistance is associated with increased risk of recurrent atherothrombotic events in patients with acute myocardial infarction
Circulation
 , 
2004
, vol. 
109
 (pg. 
3171
-
3175
)
13
Chen
ZM
Jiang
LX
Chen
YP
Xie
JX
Pan
HC
Peto
R
Collins
R
Liu
LS
COMMIT (ClOpidogrel, Metoprolol in Myocardial Infarction Trial) collaborative group
Addition of clopidogrel to aspirin in 45,852 patients with acute myocardial infarction: randomised placebo-controlled trial
Lancet
 , 
2005
, vol. 
366
 (pg. 
1607
-
1621
)
doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehn419

Author notes

The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those of the Editors of the European Heart Journal or of the European Society of Cardiology.

Supplementary data

Comments

0 Comments