Variation in Patient Profiles and Outcomes in US and Non-US Subgroups of the Cangrelor Versus Standard Therapy to Achieve Optimal Management of Platelet Inhibition (CHAMPION) PHOENIX Trial

Muthiah Vaduganathan, Robert A Harrington, Gregg W Stone, Ph Gabriel Steg, C Michael Gibson, Christian W Hamm, Matthew J Price, Jayne Prats, Efthymios N Deliargyris, Kenneth W Mahaffey, Harvey D White, Deepak L Bhatt, Muthiah Vaduganathan, Robert A Harrington, Gregg W Stone, Ph Gabriel Steg, C Michael Gibson, Christian W Hamm, Matthew J Price, Jayne Prats, Efthymios N Deliargyris, Kenneth W Mahaffey, Harvey D White, Deepak L Bhatt

Abstract

Background: The Cangrelor Versus Standard Therapy to Achieve Optimal Management of Platelet Inhibition (CHAMPION) PHOENIX trial demonstrated superiority of cangrelor in reducing ischemic events at 48 hours in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention compared with clopidogrel.

Methods and results: We analyzed all patients included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis in US (n=4097; 37.4%) and non-US subgroups (n=6845; 62.6%). The US cohort was older, had a higher burden of cardiovascular risk factors, and had more frequently undergone prior cardiovascular procedures. US patients more frequently underwent percutaneous coronary intervention for stable angina (77.9% versus 46.2%). Almost all US patients (99.1%) received clopidogrel loading doses of 600 mg, whereas 40.5% of non-US patients received 300 mg. Bivalirudin was more frequently used in US patients (56.7% versus 2.9%). At 48 hours, rates of the primary composite end point were comparable in the US and non-US cohorts (5.5% versus 5.2%; P=0.53). Cangrelor reduced rates of the primary composite end point compared with clopidogrel in US (4.5% versus 6.4%; odds ratio 0.70 [95% confidence interval 0.53-0.92]) and in non-US patients (4.8% versus 5.6%; odds ratio 0.85 [95% confidence interval 0.69-1.05]; interaction P=0.26). Similarly, rates of the key secondary end point, stent thrombosis, were reduced by cangrelor in both regions. Rates of Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Arteries (GUSTO)-defined severe bleeding were low and not significantly increased by cangrelor in either region.

Conclusions: Despite broad differences in clinical profiles and indications for percutaneous coronary intervention by region in a large global cardiovascular clinical trial, cangrelor consistently reduced rates of ischemic end points compared with clopidogrel without an excess in severe bleeding in both the US and non-US subgroups.

Clinical trial registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT01156571.

Keywords: antiplatelet therapy; clinical trial; international comparison; percutaneous coronary intervention; variation.

© 2016 The Authors.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Number of enrolled patients (black bars) and sites (gray bars) per country in the Cangrelor Versus Standard Therapy to Achieve Optimal Management of Platelet Inhibition (CHAMPION) PHOENIX trial.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Kaplan–Meier failure curves for the primary efficacy end point in US (A) and non-US (B) subgroups. The primary efficacy end point of composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, or stent thrombosis at 48 hours after randomization was reduced by cangrelor in both US and non-US subgroups (interaction P=0.26) compared with clopidogrel in the modified intention-to-treat population (which comprised patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and received the study drug). Failure functions were compared by region using the log-rank test.

References

    1. FDA approves new antiplatelet drug used during heart procedure [press release] Available at: . Accessed December 21, 2015.
    1. Bhatt DL, Stone GW, Mahaffey KW, Gibson CM, Steg PG, Hamm CW, Price MJ, Leonardi S, Gallup D, Bramucci E, Radke PW, Widimský P, Tousek F, Tauth J, Spriggs D, McLaurin BT, Angiolillo DJ, Généreux P, Liu T, Prats J, Todd M, Skerjanec S, White HD, Harrington RA CHAMPION PHOENIX Investigators. Effect of platelet inhibition with cangrelor during PCI on ischemic events. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:1303–1313. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1300815.
    1. Généreux P, Stone GW, Harrington RA, Gibson CM, Steg PG, Brener SJ, Angiolillo DJ, Price MJ, Prats J, Lasalle L, Liu T, Todd M, Skerjanec S, Hamm CW, Mahaffey KW, White HD, Bhatt DL CHAMPION PHOENIX Investigators. Impact of intraprocedural stent thrombosis during percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the CHAMPION PHOENIX Trial (Clinical Trial Comparing Cangrelor to Clopidogrel Standard of Care Therapy in Subjects Who Require Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;63:619–629. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2013.10.022.
    1. O’Shea JC, Calif RM. Inter-regional differences in acute coronary syndrome trials. Eur Heart J. 2000;21:1397–1399. doi: 10.1053/euhj.2000.2121.
    1. Bhatt DL, Cavender MA. Are all clinical trial sites created equal? J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:580–581. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.10.024.
    1. Mahaffey KW, Wojdyla DM, Carroll K, Becker RC, Storey RF, Angiolillo DJ, Held C, Cannon CP, James S, Pieper KS, Horrow J, Harrington RA, Wallentin L PLATO Investigators. Ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel by geographic region in the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Circulation. 2011;124:544–554. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.047498.
    1. Ruff CT, Giugliano RP, Antman EM, Murphy SA, Lotan C, Heuer H, Merkely B, Baracioli L, Schersten F, Seabro-Gomes R, Braunwald E, Wiviott SD TRITON-TIMI 38 Investigators. Safety and efficacy of prasugrel compared with clopidogrel in different regions of the world. Int J Cardiol. 2012;155:424–429. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2010.10.040.
    1. Leonardi S, Mahaffey KW, White HD, Gibson CM, Stone GW, Steg GW, Hamm CW, Price MJ, Todd M, Dietrich M, Gallup D, Liu T, Skerjanec S, Harrington RA, Bhatt DL. Rationale and design of the Cangrelor Versus Standard Therapy to Achieve Optimal Management of Platelet Inhibition PHOENIX trial. Am Heart J. 2012;163:768–776.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2012.02.018.
    1. CHAMPION PHOENIX – protocol & SAP supplement. Available at: . Assessed December 21, 2015.
    1. Cutlip DE, Windecker S, Mehran R, Boam A, Cohen DJ, van Es GA, Steg PG, Morel MA, Mauri L, Vranckx P, McFadden E, Lansky A, Hamon M, Krucoff MW, Serruys PW Academic Research Consortium. Clinical end points in coronary stent trials: a case for standardized definitions. Circulation. 2007;115:2344–2351. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.106.685313.
    1. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, White HD, Jaffe AS, Apple FS, Galvani M, Katus HA, Newby LK, Ravkilde J, Chaitman B, Clemmensen PM, Dellborg M, Hod H, Porela P, Underwood R, Bax JJ, Beller GA, Bonow R, Van der Wall EE, Bassand JP, Wijns W, Ferguson TB, Steg PG, Uretsky BF, Williams DO, Armstrong PW, Antman EM, Fox KA, Hamm CW, Ohman EM, Simoons ML, Poole-Wilson PA, Gurfinkel EP, Lopez-Sendon JL, Pais P, Mendis S, Zhu JR, Wallentin LC, Fernández-Avilés F, Fox KM, Parkhomenko AN, Priori SG, Tendera M, Voipio-Pulkki LM, Vahanian A, Camm AJ, De Caterina R, Dean V, Dickstein K, Filippatos G, Funck-Brentano C, Hellemans I, Kristensen SD, McGregor K, Sechtem U, Silber S, Tendera M, Widimsky P, Zamorano JL, Morais J, Brener S, Harrington R, Morrow D, Lim M, Martinez-Rios MA, Steinhubl S, Levine GN, Gibler WB, Goff D, Tubaro M, Dudek D, Al-Attar N Joint ESC/ACCF/AHA/WHF Task Force for the Redefinition of Myocardial Infarction. Universal definition of myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2007;116:2634–2653. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.187397.
    1. Bernardez-Pereira S, Lopes RD, Carrion MJ, Santucci EV, Soares RM, de Oliveira Abreu M, Laranjeira LN, Ikeoka DT, Zazula AD, Moreira FR, Cavalcanti AB, Mesquita ET, Peterson ED, Califf RM, Berwanger O. Prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of early termination of cardiovascular clinical trials due to low recruitment: insights from the registry. Am Heart J. 2014;168:213–219.e1.
    1. Moses H, 3rd, Matheson DH, Cairns-Smith S, George BP, Palisch C, Dorsey ER. The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons. JAMA. 2015;313:174–189. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.15939.
    1. Getz KA. Global Clinical Trials Activity in the Details. Applied Clinical Trials. 2007
    1. Butler J, Subacius H, Vaduganathan M, Fonarow GC, Ambrosy AP, Konstam MA, Maggioni A, Mentz RJ, Swedberg K, Zannad F, Gheorghiade M EVEREST Investigators. Relationship between clinical trial site enrollment with participant characteristics, protocol completion, and outcomes: insights from the EVEREST (Efficacy of Vasopressin Antagonism in Heart Failure: Outcome Study with Tolvaptan) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:571–579. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.10.025.
    1. Tobbia P, Brodie BR, Stuckey T, McLaurin BT, Cox DA, Fahy M, Xu K, Mehran R, Stone GW. Are adverse events following an invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes more frequent at US sites versus non-US sites? Analysis from the ACUITY trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82:E365–E374. doi: 10.1002/ccd.24587.
    1. Tobbia P, Brodie BR, Witzenbichler B, Metzger C, Guagliumi G, Yu J, Kellett MA, Stuckey T, Fahy M, Mehran R, Stone GW. Adverse event rates following primary PCI for STEMI at US and non-US hospitals: three-year analysis from the HORIZONS-AMI trial. EuroIntervention. 2013;8:1134–1142. doi: 10.4244/EIJV8I10A176.
    1. Franchi F, Rollini F, Muñiz-Lozano A, Cho JR, Angiolillo DJ. Cangrelor: a review on pharmacology and clinical trial development. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther. 2013;11:1279–1291. doi: 10.1586/14779072.2013.837701.
    1. Pocock S, Calvo G, Marrugat J, Prasad K, Tavazzi L, Wallentin L, Zannad F, Alonso Garcia A. International differences in treatment effect: do they really exist and why? Eur Heart J. 2013;34:1846–1852. doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht071.

Source: PubMed

3
Prenumerera