4.5 Article

Inhibition of platelet aggregation with prasugrel and clopidogrel: An integrated analysis in 846 subjects

Journal

PLATELETS
Volume 20, Issue 5, Pages 316-327

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/09537100903046317

Keywords

Prasugrel; clopidogrel; thienopyridine; platelet aggregation inhibitor; integrated analysis

Funding

  1. Daiichi Sankyo Company, Limited
  2. Eli Lilly and Company

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This integrated analysis compared speed of onset, level of platelet inhibition, and response variability to prasugrel and clopidogrel in healthy subjects and in patients with stable coronary artery disease with data pooled from 24 clinical pharmacology studies. Data from subjects (N = 846) were categorized into the following treatment groups: prasugrel 60 mg loading dose (LD)/10 mg maintenance dose (MD), clopidogrel 300 mg LD/75 mg MD, or clopidogrel 600 mg LD/75 mg MDs. Maximum platelet aggregation (MPA) and inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA) to 5 and 20 M ADP were assessed by turbidimetric aggregometry. A linear mixed-effect model compared the MPA and IPA between treatments over time points evaluated in the integrated database, and covariates affecting platelet inhibition were identified. Prasugrel 60 mg LD resulted in faster onset, greater magnitude, and more consistent levels of inhibition of platelet function compared to either clopidogrel 300 mg or 600 mg LDs. Greater and more consistent levels of platelet inhibition were observed with the prasugrel 10 mg MD compared to the clopidogrel 75 mg MD. This integrated analysis confirms the findings of earlier individual studies, that prasugrel achieves faster onset of greater extent and more consistent platelet inhibition compared to the approved and higher loading doses of clopidogrel. Gender, race, body weight, and age were identified as statistically significant covariates impacting platelet inhibition.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available