Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Aug 22;9(16):1667-76.
doi: 10.1016/j.jcin.2016.05.031.

Phosphate- or Citrate-Buffered Tirofiban Versus Unfractionated Heparin and its Impact on Thrombocytopenia and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Post Hoc Analysis From the PRISM Trial

Affiliations
Free article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Phosphate- or Citrate-Buffered Tirofiban Versus Unfractionated Heparin and its Impact on Thrombocytopenia and Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Post Hoc Analysis From the PRISM Trial

Marianna Adamo et al. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. .
Free article

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to investigate whether the 2 tirofiban formulations tested in the early and late phases of the PRISM (Platelet Receptor Inhibitor in Ischemic Syndrome Management) trial might differ with respect to risk for thrombocytopenia and clinical outcomes compared with unfractionated heparin (UFH).

Background: Citrate-buffered tirofiban is currently marketed as brand-name drug. However, tirofiban has recently been promoted in some countries as a generic drug with different formulations, such as phosphate-buffered product.

Methods: In the PRISM trial 3,232 patients were randomly assigned to receive tirofiban or UFH. In the early phase, 879 patients were allocated to phosphate-buffered tirofiban and 874 patients to UFH group. After a protocol amendment due to a study drug instability report, citrate-buffered tirofiban replaced the phosphate-buffered formulation. Therefore, in the late phase, 737 and 742 patients were treated with citrate-buffered tirofiban and UFH, respectively.

Results: The relative risk for thrombocytopenia (nadir <90,000/mm(3) or <100,000/mm(3)) was increased in patients treated with phosphate-buffered tirofiban in the early phase (odds ratio [OR]: 3.51; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15 to 10.73; p = 0.027; and OR: 2.83; 95% CI: 1.11 to 7.22; p = 0.029, respectively) but not in patients treated with citrate-buffered tirofiban in the late phase (OR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.20 to 5.05; p = 0.987; and OR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.26 to 3.45; p = 0.991, respectively). Using a combined definition of thrombocytopenia (nadir <150,000/mm(3) or a decrease ≥50%), the randomization period significantly modified the effect of the treatment (tirofiban vs. UFH) on platelet decrease (p for interaction = 0.024). Thrombocytopenia was associated with a 5- to 10-fold increased risk for TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) bleeding and a 2-fold increased risk for net adverse cardiovascular events.

Conclusions: Phosphate-buffered tirofiban, currently marketed as a generic drug, is associated with a higher rate of thrombocytopenia with a potentially increased risk for adverse clinical outcomes compared with citrate-buffered tirofiban.

Keywords: buffers; non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome; thrombocytopenia; tirofiban.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources