Platelet activation and inhibition in sickle cell disease (pains) study.

Platelet activation/aggregation in sickle cell disease (SCD) may promote tissue ischemia, suggesting that antiplatelet therapy may be useful. However, the assessment of platelet function and the effect of antiplatelet therapy in blood from SCD patients may be confounded by hemolysis with the release of adenosine 5'-diphosphate (ADP). Here we evaluate the levels of platelet activation markers in SCD adolescents vs. normal controls and compare, by multiple methods, the effect of in vitro blockade of the platelet ADP receptor P2Y12 by prasugrel's active metabolite, R-138727. Platelet activation markers in blood from SCD adolescents (n = 15) and healthy adults (n = 10), and the effect of R-138727 (0.1-10 µM) added in vitro, were evaluated with and without ADP stimulation. The circulating levels of platelet-monocyte and platelet-neutrophil aggregates were significantly higher (p < 0.01) in SCD patients than in healthy controls. R-138727, in a concentration-dependent manner, inhibited platelet function in both SCD patients and healthy subjects as judged by ADP-stimulated light transmission aggregation, VerifyNow P2Y12 assay, multiple electrode aggregometry, and flow cytometric analysis of platelet vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein, activated GPIIb-IIIa and P-selectin. The R-138727 IC50s for each assay were not significantly different in SCD vs. healthy subjects. In summary: (1) The high circulating levels of platelet-monocyte and platelet-neutrophil aggregates demonstrate in vivo platelet activation in SCD and may be useful as markers of the in vivo pharmacodynamic efficacy of antiplatelet therapy in SCD. (2) The similar in vitro R-138727 IC50s in SCD and healthy subjects suggest that the prasugrel dose-dependence for platelet inhibition in SCD patients will be similar to that previously observed in healthy subjects.

Clopidogrel pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics vary widely despite exclusion or control of polymorphisms (CYP2C19, ABCB1, PON1), noncompliance, diet, smoking, co-medications (including proton pump inhibitors), and pre-existent variability in platelet function.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine whether known genetic, drug, dietary, compliance, and lifestyle factors affecting clopidogrel absorption and metabolism fully account for the variability in clopidogrel pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. BACKGROUND: Platelet inhibition by clopidogrel is highly variable. Patients with reduced inhibition have increased risk for major adverse cardiovascular events. Identification of factors contributing to clopidogrel's variable response is needed to improve platelet inhibition and reduce risk for cardiovascular events. METHODS: Healthy subjects (n = 160; ages 20 to 53 years; homozygous CYP2C19 extensive metabolizer genotype; no nicotine for 6 weeks, prescription drugs for 4 weeks, over-the-counter drugs for 2 weeks, and no caffeine or alcohol for 72 h; confined; restricted diet) received clopidogrel 75 mg/day for 9 days, at which time clopidogrel pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic endpoints were measured. RESULTS: At steady-state, clopidogrel active metabolite (clopidogrel(AM)) pharmacokinetics varied widely between subjects (coefficients of variation [CVs] 33.8% and 40.2% for clopidogrel(AM) area under the time-concentration curve and peak plasma concentration, respectively). On-treatment vasodilator stimulated phosphoprotein P2Y(12) platelet reactivity index (PRI), maximal platelet aggregation (MPA) to adenosine phosphate, and VerifyNow P2Y12 platelet response units (PRU) also varied widely (CVs 32% to 53%). All identified factors together accounted for only 18% of intersubject variation in pharmacokinetic parameters and 32% to 64% of intersubject variation in PRI, MPA, and PRU. High on-treatment platelet reactivity was present in 45% of subjects. CONCLUSIONS: Clopidogrel pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics vary widely despite rigorous exclusion or control of known disease, polymorphisms (CYP2C19, CYP3A5, ABCB1, PON1), noncompliance, co-medications, diet, smoking, alcohol, demographics, and pre-treatment platelet hyperreactivity. Thus, as yet unidentified factors contribute to high on-treatment platelet reactivity with its known increased risk of major adverse cardiovascular events. (A Study of the Effects of Multiple Doses of Dexiansoprazole, Lansoprazole, Omeprazole or Esomeprazole on the Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Clopidogrel in Healthy Participants: NCT00942175).

A randomized, 2-period, crossover design study to assess the effects of dexlansoprazole, lansoprazole, esomeprazole, and omeprazole on the steady-state pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of clopidogrel in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the effects of different proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) on the steady-state pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of clopidogrel. BACKGROUND: Metabolism of clopidogrel requires cytochrome P450s (CYPs), including CYP2C19. However, PPIs may inhibit CYP2C19, potentially reducing the effectiveness of clopidogrel. METHODS: A randomized, open-label, 2-period, crossover study of healthy subjects (n = 160, age 18 to 55 years, homozygous for CYP2C19 extensive metabolizer genotype, confined, standardized diet) was conducted. Clopidogrel 75 mg with or without a PPI (dexlansoprazole 60 mg, lansoprazole 30 mg, esomeprazole 40 mg, or, as a positive control to maximize potential interaction and demonstrate assay sensitivity, omeprazole 80 mg) was given daily for 9 days. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were assessed on days 9 and 10. Pharmacodynamic end-points were vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein P2Y(12) platelet reactivity index, maximal platelet aggregation to 5 and 20 µmol/l adenosine diphosphate, and VerifyNow P2Y12 platelet response units. RESULTS: Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic responses with omeprazole demonstrated assay sensitivity. The area under the curve for clopidogrel active metabolite decreased significantly with esomeprazole but not with dexlansoprazole or lansoprazole. Similarly, esomeprazole but not dexlansoprazole or lansoprazole significantly reduced the effect of clopidogrel on vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein platelet reactivity index. All PPIs decreased the peak plasma concentration of clopidogrel active metabolite (omeprazole > esomeprazole > lansoprazole > dexlansoprazole) and showed a corresponding order of potency for effects on maximal platelet aggregation and platelet response units. CONCLUSIONS: Generation of clopidogrel active metabolite and inhibition of platelet function were reduced less by the coadministration of dexlansoprazole or lansoprazole with clopidogrel than by the coadministration of esomeprazole or omeprazole. These results suggest that the potential of PPIs to attenuate the efficacy of clopidogrel could be minimized by the use of dexlansoprazole or lansoprazole rather than esomeprazole or omeprazole.