EARLY-ACS: Insignificant advantage to early Eptifibatide use during PCI in high-risk patients
In patients with high risk of myocardial infarction,
early utilization of eptifibatide is not superior to delayed, provisional use
of eptifibatide during percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), according to
research presented at the American College of Cardiology's 58th annual scientific
session.
The EARLY ACS study (Early Glycoprotien IIb/IIIa Inhibition
in Non-ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes) aimed to clarify the best
strategy for eptifibatide use, an antiplatelet drug therapy successfully implemented
in clinical practice for 10 years. Two common strategies of eptifibatide utilization
were examined in patients with high-risk of myocardial infarction: early intravenous
injection upon immediate arrival at the hospital, and delayed, provisional injection
during PCI.
"The drivers for our study are the gaps that exist in
the practice guidelines for when and how best to use eptifibatide, an already
tested and proven treatment, in the context of other modern therapies that have
evolved since the drug was first introduced," said L. Kristin Newby, M.D., MHS,
associate professor of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.
"Guidelines in North America and Europe vary in their
recommendations regarding early use vs. delayed provisional treatment with eptifibatide
and drugs like it. Individual hospitals and individual clinicians in all regions
apply these recommendations differently."
EARLY ACS was a randomized, double-blind, controlled
study of early eptifibatide vs. provisional eptifibatide during PCI with standard
background antithrombin therapy. A total of 9492 patients were enrolled, all of
whom were scheduled to undergo an invasive strategy 12 to 96 hours after starting
the study drug.
The primary efficacy endpoint for EARLY ACS was composite all-cause death, myocardial
infarction, recurrent ischemia requiring urgent revascularization or thrombotic
bailout during the first 96 hours. The secondary endpoint was death or myocardial
infarction through 30 days. Safety endpoints included bleeding, transfusions,
stroke and serious adverse events.
At its final enrollment, EARLY ACS had a 98 percent power
to detect a 22.5 percent reduction in the 96-hour primary composite with early
eptifibatide vs. delayed, provisional eptifibatide and 81 percent power for a
15 percent reduction in 30-day death or myocardial infarction.
"We set out to determine what is the better strategy
when it comes to the treatment of these high- risk patients," said Robert P. Giugliano,
M.D. assistant professor of medicine at the Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard,
M.A. "Many hospitals in the United States routinely start a course of injectable
eptifibatide early when a patient arrives at the hospital. However, there are
other physicians who prefer to employ a 'wait and see' approach with the drug
until after catheterization. Prior to this study, it was not clear which strategy
was better. And, according to current practice guidelines, either strategy would
be supported."
They found that early use of eptifibatide was not associated
with any significant reduction in either the primary or the secondary endpoints.
They did find, however, that earlier use of eptifibatide was associated with more
non-life-threatening bleeding.
"Our study, although not the final word regarding eptifibatide,
has helped shed a light on how to best use eptifibatide among high-risk patients,"
Newby said. "In general, physicians can feel comfortable with a strategy of delayed,
provisional administration after a decision to proceed to PCI is made." As far
as patients are concerned, the primary results from EARLY ACS are the key message
-an early routine strategy of eptifibatide is not superior to a delayed provisional
strategy."
The study was funded by the Schering-Plough Research Institute and Millennium
Pharmaceuticals.
Co-authors include Robert Harrington, Robert Califf,
Kerry Lee, Jennifer White and Lisa Berdan from Duke, Christoph Bode, from the
University of Freiberg; Paul Armstrong, from the University of Alberta; Gilles
Montalescot, of Centre Hospitalier Universitaire Pitie-Salpetriere; Frans Van
de Werf, Universitair Ziekenhuis Gasthuisberg; Eugene Braunwald, Brigham and Women's
Hospital; Steven Hildemann, Essex-Pharma GmbH; and John Strony and Enrico Veltri,
Schering-Plough Corporation.
|