Advertisement

Inactivations, deletions, non-adjudications, and downgrades of clinical endpoints on ticagrelor: Serious concerns over the reliability of the PLATO trial

      Abstract

      Objective

      Ascertain platelet inhibition and patient outcomes (PLATO) trial conduct.

      Methods

      We examined information from the FDA complete response review.

      Results

      FDA Medical Review indicated that (1) patients on ticagrelor monitored by the study sponsor had a lower odds ratio for the primary endpoint (p = 0.0004) versus ticagrelor patients monitored by a third party Clinical Research Organisation (CRO) independent of the study sponsor, (2) a significant interaction existed between ticagrelor and regions monitored by the study sponsor for all cause mortality through study end in favor of ticagrelor (p = 0.006), (3) ticagrelor faired worse than clopidogrel when regions were monitored independent of the study sponsor by a third party Contract Research Organisation (United States, Russia and Georgia), (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 0.91 to 1.59, p = 0.2022), (4) 46% of all primary endpoint events favoring ticagrelor came from just two countries (Poland and Hungary), (5) PLATO was easy to unblind by breaking open a clopidogrel/dummy clopidogrel tablet with at least 452 patients being unblinded prior to the database lock, (6) significantly more cardiac events submitted for clopidogrel counted in the primary analysis as a myocardial infarction (MI) compared to those submitted for ticagrelor (p < 0.0001), (7) significantly more ticagrelor subjects hospitalized after an index event/hospitalization were not being reported as having a primary event compared to clopidogrel (p = 0.002 in favor of ticagrelor), (8) site-reported MI was not significantly reduced with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel, (9) an estimated 23 definite or possible cardiovascular events or deaths on ticagrelor were either not submitted for adjudication, inactivated, deleted or were downgraded to “softer” endpoints (this was not shown in the FDA review for clopidogrel), and (10) four FDA reviewers voted for non-approval of ticagrelor.

      Discussion

      The FDA report highlights what appear to be multiple serious deficiencies in the reporting of the PLATO results, which clinicians will not have gleaned from the primary publication alone. Individual clinicians may therefore wish to carefully reconsider their practice of ticagrelor prescription for this indication. Guideline bodies should also evaluate the information in its totality.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to International Journal of Cardiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Wallentin L.
        • Becker R.C.
        • Budaj A.
        • et al.
        Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes.
        N Engl J Med. 2009; 361: 1045-1057
        • Serebruany V.L.
        Viewpoint: paradoxical excess mortality in the PLATO trial should be independently verified.
        Thromb Haemost. May 2011; 105: 752-759
        • U.S. Food and Drug Administration
        Drug approval package: Brilinta (tricagrelor) tablets.
        Medical Review. 2013 ([Available from http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2011/022433Orig1s000MedR.pdf. Accessed 9 February 2013])
        • U.S. Food and Drug Administration
        Drug approval package: Brilinta (tricagrelor) tablets.
        Statistical Review. 2013 ([Available from http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2011/022433Orig1s000StatR.pdf. Accessed 9 February 2013])
      1. The FDA ticagrelor chemistry review(s).
      2. The FDA ticagrelor pharmacology review(s).
      3. The FDA ticagrelor secondary review.
      4. The FDA ticagrelor summary review.
      5. Ticagrelor NDA letter of approval.
        • Serebruany V.L.
        Ticagrelor FDA, approval issues revisited.
        Cardiology. 2012; 122: 144-147
        • Serebruany V.L.
        • DiNicolantonio J.J.
        • Can M.M.
        Mortality in the TRACER and ATLAS ACS 2 trials: two more reasons to audit vital records in PLATO.
        Cardiology. 2012; 123: 11-14
        • DiNicolantonio J.J.
        • Can M.M.
        • Serebruany V.L.
        Lost in follow-up rates in TRACER, ATLAS ACS 2, TRITON and TRA 2P trials: challenging PLATO mortality rates.
        Int J Cardiol. Apr 15, 2013; 164: 255-258
        • DiNicolantonio J.J.
        • Serebruany V.L.
        Exploring the reduction in myocardial infarction in the PLATO trial: which patients benefited on ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel?.
        Int J Cardiol. May 25, 2013; 165: 396-397
        • DiNicolantonio J.J.
        • Serebruany V.L.
        Challenging the FDA black box warning for high aspirin dose with ticagrelor in patients with diabetes.
        Diabetes. 2013; 62: 669-671
        • DiNicolantonio J.J.
        • Serebruany V.L.
        Exploring the ticagrelor-statin interplay in the PLATO trial.
        Cardiology. 2013; 124: 105-107
        • DiNicolantonio J.J.
        • Serebruany V.L.
        Comparing the safety of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel: insights from the FDA reports.
        Ther Adv Cardiovasc Dis. 2013; 7: 5-9
        • DiNicolantonio J.J.
        • Serebruany V.L.
        Comparing ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with a history of cerebrovascular disease: a net clinical harm?.
        Stroke. 2012; 43: 3409
        • Dinicolantonio J.J.
        • Biondi-Zoccai G.
        Challenging ticagrelor's claimed reduction in the rate of definite stent thrombosis versus clopidogrel: insights from the FDA reports.
        Int J Cardiol. 2013; 168: 633-635