ArticleJournal of thrombosis and thrombolysis2008
Determining the efficacy of antiplatelet therapies for the individual: lessons from clinical trials.
Article in Journal of thrombosis and thrombolysis, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Enhanced potency of prasugrel on protease-activated receptors following bivalirudin treatment for PCI as compared to clopidogrel.Thrombosis research · 2019Article
- Suppression of arterial thrombosis without affecting hemostatic parameters with a cell-penetrating PAR1 pepducin.Circulation · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article focuses on lessons learned from clinical trials of antiplatelet therapies-in particular, that the degree of inhibition of ex vivo platelet aggregation does not necessarily directly translate into clinical efficacy. As an example, the case of the oral platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors is presented, in which despite consistent evidence of substantial inhibition of platelet aggregation, this class of drugs provided no clinical benefit in Phase III trials and, in fact, was harmful. Several hypotheses for these unexpected findings have been proposed, but none has been confirmed. The connection between ex vivo inhibition of platelet aggregation and clinical benefit of platelet P2Y(12) antagonists is also not straightforward and is currently being tested in large clinical trials. A link between inflammatory status and clinical benefit from antiplatelet agents continues to emerge and highlights the fact that biomarkers beyond ex vivo platelet aggregation may predict the clinical benefit of antiplatelet agents that can reduce platelet activation (i.e., aspirin and thienopyridines). Results of past and ongoing trials hold valuable clues to determining the appropriate targets for maximizing antiplatelet efficacy, but the current lack of a proven ex vivo assay that correlates with clinical outcomes hampers clinical investigation, drug development programs, and clinical practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.