A double-blind, randomized, multicenter phase 2 study of prasugrel versus placebo in adult patients with sickle cell disease

58Citations
Citations of this article
71Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Platelet activation has been implicated in the pathogenesis of sickle cell disease (SCD) suggesting antiplatelet agents may be therapeutic. To evaluate the safety of prasugrel, a thienopyridine antiplatelet agent, in adult patients with SCD, we conducted a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study. Methods. The primary endpoint, safety, was measured by hemorrhagic events requiring medical intervention. Patients were randomized to prasugrel 5 mg daily (n = 41) or placebo (n = 21) for 30 days. Platelet function by VerifyNow® P2Y12 and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein assays at days 10 and 30 were significantly inhibited in prasugrel- compared with placebo-treated SCD patients. Results: There were no hemorrhagic events requiring medical intervention in either study arm. Mean pain rate (percentage of days with pain) and intensity in the prasugrel arm were decreased compared with placebo. However, these decreases did not reach statistical significance. Platelet surface P-selectin and plasma soluble P-selectin, biomarkers of in vivo platelet activation, were significantly reduced in SCD patients receiving prasugrel compared with placebo. In sum, prasugrel was well tolerated and not associated with serious hemorrhagic events. Conclusions: Despite the small size and short duration of this study, there was a decrease in platelet activation biomarkers and a trend toward decreased pain. © 2013 Wun et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wun, T., Soulieres, D., Frelinger, A. L., Krishnamurti, L., Novelli, E. M., Kutlar, A., … Winters, K. J. (2013). A double-blind, randomized, multicenter phase 2 study of prasugrel versus placebo in adult patients with sickle cell disease. Journal of Hematology and Oncology, 6(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-8722-6-17

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free