The Influence of Non-High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol on the Efficacy of Genotype-Guided Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Preventing Stroke Recurrence

Article information

J Stroke. 2024;26(2):231-241

Publication date (electronic) : 2024 May 30

doi : https://doi.org/10.5853/jos.2024.00367

Qin Xu ¹^,²^,³^,⁴, Xia Meng ¹^,²^,³, Hao Li ¹^,², Xuewei Xie ¹^,², Jing Jing ¹^,², Jinxi Lin ¹^,², Yong Jiang ¹^,², Yilong Wang ¹^,²^,³, Xingquan Zhao ¹^,², Zixiao Li ¹^,², Liping Liu ¹^,², Anxin Wang^,¹^,²^,³^,⁴^,^*

, Yongjun Wang^,¹^,²^,³^,⁵^,^*

¹Department of Neurology, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

²China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing, China

³Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Clinical Trial, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

⁴Beijing Municipal Key Laboratory of Clinical Epidemiology, Beijing, China

⁵Advanced Innovation Center for Human Brain Protection, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China

Correspondence: Yongjun Wang China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.119, South 4th Ring West Road, Fengtai District, 100070 Beijing, China Tel: +86-10-59975806 E-mail: yongjunwang@ncrcnd.org.cn

Co-correspondence: Anxin Wang China National Clinical Research Center for Neurological Diseases, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, No.119, South 4th Ring West Road, Fengtai District, 100070 Beijing, China Tel: +86-10-59975806 E-mail: wanganxin@bjtth.org

*These authors contributed equally as last author.

Received 2024 January 22; Revised 2024 March 7; Accepted 2024 March 8.

Abstract

Background and Purpose

Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C), which represents the total cholesterol content of all pro-atherogenic lipoproteins, has recently been included as a new target for lipid-lowering therapy in high-risk atherosclerotic patients in multiple guidelines. Herein, we aimed to explore the relationship between non-HDL-C level and the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor-aspirin versus clopidogrel-aspirin in preventing stroke recurrence.

Methods

This study comprised a post hoc analysis of the CHANCE-2 (Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients with Acute Nondisabling Cerebrovascular Events II) trial, from which 5,901 patients with complete data on non-HDL-C were included and categorized by median non-HDL-C levels, using a cutoff of 3.5 mmol/L. The primary efficacy and safety outcomes were recurrent stroke and severe or moderate bleeding within 90 days.

Results

Ticagrelor-aspirin significantly reduced the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with low non-HDL-C (71 [4.8%] vs. 119 [7.7%]; adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.54; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.40–0.74), but not in those with high non-HDL-C (107 [7.3%] vs. 108 [7.6%]; adjusted HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.67–1.16), compared with clopidogrel-aspirin (P for interaction=0.010). When analyzed as a continuous variable, the benefit of ticagrelor-aspirin for recurrent stroke decreased as non-HDL-C levels increased. No significant differences in the treatment assignments across the non-HDL-C groups were observed in terms of the rate of severe or moderate bleeding (5 [0.3%] vs. 8 [0.5%] in the low non-HDL-C group; 4 [0.3%] vs. 2 [0.1%] in the high non-HDL-C group; P for interaction=0.425).

Conclusion

CHANCE-2 participants with low non-HDL-C levels received more clinical benefit from ticagrelor-aspirin versus clopidogrel-aspirin compared to those with high non-HDL-C, following minor ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack.

Keywords: CHANCE-2; Stroke; Ticagrelor; Clopidogrel; Non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol

Introduction

Even when administered sustained dual antiplatelet therapy, patients with minor ischemic stroke or transient ischemic attack (TIA) still display a high risk of subsequent stroke within 3 months of initial symptom onset. Evidence from the CHANCE (Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients with Acute Nondisabling Cerebrovascular Events) [1-3], POINT (Platelet-Oriented Inhibition in New TIA and Minor Ischemic Stroke) [4,5], and CHANCE-2 (Ticagrelor or Clopidogrel in High-Risk Patients with Acute Nondisabling Cerebrovascular Events II) trials [6,7] have suggested that this treatment failure may be caused by patients’ variable responses to antiplatelet therapies. As such, identifying effect modifiers and exploring optimal treatment strategies are of utmost importance in this patient population.

Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (non-HDL-C) is defined as a measure of the cholesterol content of all proatherogenic lipoproteins containing apolipoprotein B, including low-density lipoprotein (LDL), lipoprotein(a), and triglyceride-rich lipoproteins (very-low-density lipoproteins and intermediate density lipoprotein). This measure has been shown to be a more accurate predictive marker of cardiovascular risk than LDL cholesterol (LDL-C), and can better capture the contribution of apolipoprotein B-containing particles to atherogenesis [8-13]. Therefore, non-HDL-C level has been included as a new therapeutic target for lipid-lowering therapy in high-risk atherosclerotic patients by multiple guidelines [14-16]. Previous studies have further indicated that atherogenic lipoproteins enhance platelet responsiveness, while elevated cholesterol concentrations can increase platelet production, activation, and aggregation [17-19]. Furthermore, studies have reported that non-HDL-C is an independent risk factor for aspirin resistance in type 2 diabetes patients [20]. Accordingly, non-HDL-C could be considered as a valuable biomarker to predict patients’ response to antiplatelet therapy. However, no study has yet addressed the association of non-HDL-C with the effectiveness of different dual antiplatelet regimens in patients following stroke.

The CHANCE-2 trial found that early and intensive antiplatelet treatment with ticagrelor-aspirin was superior to clopidogrel-aspirin in reducing the risk of recurrent stroke in patients with minor ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA carrying CYP2C19 loss-of-function (LOF) alleles. Herein, we conducted a post hoc analysis of the CHANCE-2 trial to explore the relationship between non-HDL-C and the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor-aspirin and clopidogrel-aspirin therapy in CYP2C19 LOF carriers with minor ischemic stroke or TIA.

Methods

Data availability

Data will be made available to researchers upon request to reproduce the results or replicate the procedure by directly contacting the corresponding author.

Study design and participants

A detailed description of the study design and methods of the CHANCE-2 trial have been provided elsewhere [21,22]. Briefly, this study was an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial conducted at 202 centers in China from September 23, 2019, to March 22, 2021. The inclusion criteria were: patients aged 40 years or older, with acute nondisabling ischemic stroke (National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale [NIHSS] score ≤3) or high-risk TIA (ABCD2 [age, blood pressure, clinical features, duration of TIA, and the presence or absence of diabetes mellitus] score ≥4), carrying the CYP2C19 LOF alleles, who were treated with one of the study drugs within 24 hours of symptom onset.

The trial adhered to the guidelines outlined by the Declaration of Helsinki and International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice. The trial protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Beijing Tiantan Hospital (approval number: KY2019-035-02) and each participating center. Written informed consent was obtained from all patients or their representatives before enrollment. The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (Registration URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov), under the unique identifier NCT04078737.

Randomization and treatment

A total of 6,412 eligible patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either placebo clopidogrel plus ticagrelor (180-mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 90 mg twice daily for days 2–90) or placebo ticagrelor plus clopidogrel (300-mg loading dose on day 1, followed by 75 mg twice daily for days 2–90). All patients in both arms received a 75–300 mg loading dose of aspirin, followed by doses of 75 mg administered daily for 21 days.

Measurement of non-HDL-C

Venous blood samples were obtained from fasting patients after randomization and were subsequently sent for routine laboratory tests. Serum total cholesterol (TC), HDL-C, and LDL-C levels were measured by laboratory personnel blinded to the trial group assignments. Non-HDL-C was calculated by subtracting the HDL-C value from the TC value [14]. The collection, preservation, and processing of blood samples were performed in accordance with the laboratory’s policies and procedures in each study center.

Efficacy and safety outcomes

The efficacy and safety outcomes of this analysis are consistent with those of the CHANCE-2 trial. The primary efficacy outcome was new stroke (ischemic or hemorrhagic) within 90 days. Secondary outcomes included new stroke within 30 days, composite vascular events (stroke, TIA, myocardial infarction, or vascular death), and ischemic stroke within 90 days, as well as disabling stroke (with a subsequent modified Rankin Scale score of ≥2) at day 90. The primary safety outcome was severe or moderate bleeding, as defined by the Global Utilization of Streptokinase and Tissue Plasminogen Activator for Occluded Coronary Arteries (GUSTO) criteria, within 90 days [23]. The secondary safety outcomes included any bleeding and death within 90 days of follow-up. All efficacy and safety outcomes were confirmed by an independent clinical event adjudication committee, whose members were unaware of the trial group assignments [21].

Statistical analyses

Patients included in this post hoc analysis of the CHANCE-2 trial were classified into low and high non-HDL-C groups, according to the median non-HDL-C value. In each subgroup, the baseline characteristics were compared according to the treatment assignments. Medians with interquartile ranges were used for continuous variables because of their skewed distributions. Frequencies and percentages were used as categorical variables. Baseline characteristics were compared using the nonparametric Wilcoxon test for continuous variables, and the chi-square test for categorical variables.

The main analyses were performed in the intention-to-treat population. The cumulative risks of the primary outcome of any ischemic or hemorrhagic event during the 90-day follow-up period for each non-HDL-C group were estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Differences in the rates of efficacy and safety outcomes between trial groups were assessed using a Cox proportional hazards regression model, with study centers set as a random effect after adjusting for age, sex, body mass index (BMI; weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters), Han ethnicity, medical history (hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, previous ischemic stroke, prior TIA), CYP2C19 LOF allele carriers, previous antiplatelet therapy, previous lipid-lowering therapy, and symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis. Adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were further calculated. The time to the first event was used in the model when multiple events of the same type occurred. Patient data were censored at the last follow-up assessment if a clinical event had occurred, at the end of the trial, at the time of withdrawal from the trial, or at the last visit if the primary outcome data were missing. For each model, the proportionality assumption was assessed by testing the interaction of treatment with time, and we found no violation of the assumptions. The interactions between non-HDL-C levels and treatment assignments were investigated with the addition of treatment by non-HDL-C groups using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models. Sensitivity analyses were performed in the per-protocol population, or among patients with no history of previous lipid-lowering therapy, or according to baseline LDL-C levels (<2.6 mmol/L or ≥2.6 mmol/L).

All statistical analyses were performed using the SAS statistical software (version 9.4; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). A two-sided P value <0.05 indicated statistical significance.

Results

Baseline characteristics

Of the 6,412 patients who underwent randomization in the CHANCE-2 trial, 511 without TC or HDL-C measurements were excluded. Thus, 5,901 patients were included in the final analysis (Figure 1). The baseline characteristics of the included and excluded patients were well-balanced, except that the included patients had a higher proportion of dyslipidemia, previous ischemic stroke, current smokers, and symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis (Supplementary Table 1).

Figure 1.

Flowchart of the study design. HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; TC, total cholesterol.

Among the patients included in this analysis, the median concentration of non-HDL-C was 3.5 mmol/L (interquartile range: 2.8 to 4.2 mmol/L); 2,881 (48.8%) had high non-HDL-C levels (≥3.5 mmol/L), and 3,020 (51.2%) did not (<3.5 mmol/L). The detailed characteristics of the patients with low and high non-HDL-C levels and the two treatment groups are presented in Table 1. Patients with high non-HDL-C were more likely to be younger, female, and of Han ethnicity, with a higher BMI, higher proportion of hypertension, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, symptomatic intracranial-artery stenosis, and lower proportion of previous ischemic stroke, previous TIA, previous antiplatelet therapy, and previous lipid-lowering therapy, compared with those with low non-HDL-C. The baseline characteristics between the two treatment groups were well balanced, except that, among patients with high non-HDL-C, the ticagrelor-aspirin group had a slightly higher proportion of previous lipid-lowering therapy compared with the clopidogrel-aspirin group.

Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of patients receiving different treatments stratified, by non-HDL-C levels

Efficacy outcomes

Recurrent stroke within 90 days (the primary efficacy) was observed in 405 (6.9%) patients in the current analysis. The cumulative risk of stroke recurrence among patients with low or high non-HDL-C levels by treatment assignment is shown in Figure 2. Those with low non-HDL-C who were treated with ticagrelor-aspirin experienced the lowest risk of stroke recurrence (P<0.001, log-rank test). Overall, there was a significant interaction between non-HDL-C levels and the two antiplatelet therapy groups in terms of the treatment effects on recurrent stroke after adjusting for other confounding factors (P=0.010 for interaction) (Table 2). Furthermore, ticagrelor-aspirin was found to significantly reduce the risk of recurrent stroke (adjusted HR, 0.54; 95% CI, 0.40–0.74; P<0.001) compared with clopidogrel-aspirin in patients with low non-HDL-C. However, this additional benefit of ticagrelor-aspirin dual antiplatelet treatment was not observed in patients with high non-HDL-C levels (adjusted HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.67–1.16; P=0.374). Further, when non-HDL-C was treated as a continuous variable, non-HDL-C levels also influenced the effect of ticagrelor-aspirin on the primary outcome. As non-HDL-C levels increased, the risk of stroke recurrence within 90 days also increased in patients receiving ticagreloraspirin compared with those receiving clopidogrel-aspirin (Figure 3). Similar results were observed for secondary outcomes of stroke within 30 days, composite vascular events, and ischemic stroke within 90 days of follow-up (Table 2). Per-protocol analysis yielded results similar to those identified in the intention-to-treat analysis (Supplementary Table 2). Furthermore, when an analysis was performed restricted to patients without previous lipid-lowering therapy, or with baseline LDL-C <2.6 mmol/L or ≥2.6 mmol/L, all the results were consistent with those of the main analysis (Supplementary Tables 3-5).

Figure 2.

Cumulative probability of stroke recurrence in patients at 3-month follow-up according to non-HDL-C levels and dual antiplatelet therapy. (A) Non-HDL-C and stroke. (B) Low non-HDL-C. (C) High non-HDL-C. Low non-HDL-C represents non-HDL-C <3.5 mmol/L; High non-HDL-C represents non-HDL-C ≥3.5 mmol/L. HDL-C, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; CI, confidence interval.

Table 2.

Effect of ticagrelor-aspirin versus clopidogrel-aspirin on efficacy and safety outcomes in patients stratified by non-HDL-C levels

Figure 3.

Effects of non-HDL-C as a continuous variable on the efficacy of ticagrelor-aspirin versus clopidogrel-aspirin in preventing stroke recurrence within 90 days. The shaded areas represent the 95% confidence intervals. non-HDL-C, non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol; CI, confidence interval; HR, hazard ratio.

The absent extra benefit of ticagrelor-aspirin therapy in patients with high non-HDL-C may be related to the predominant efficacy of clopidogrel-aspirin on reducing vascular events, or the weak efficacy of ticagrelor-aspirin therapy. We performed additional analyses to further illustrate this finding, finding that the rate of stroke recurrence tended to be higher in patients with high non-HDL-C levels than in those with low non-HDL-C levels (7.5% vs. 6.3%) (Figure 2). As shown in Table 3, patients with high non-HDL-C showed increased risks of recurrent stroke (adjusted HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.01–1.58), ischemic stroke (adjusted HR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.03–1.62), and disabling stroke (adjusted HR, 1.44; 95% CI, 1.02–2.04), after adjusting for confounding factors. Furthermore, subgroup analysis of patients stratified by the dual antiplatelet therapy revealed that high non-HDL-C was associated with a higher rate of recurrent stroke, stroke within 30 days, composite vascular events, ischemic stroke, and disabling stroke in patients receiving ticagrelor-aspirin, but not in patients receiving clopidogrel-aspirin.

Table 3.

Effect of high (≥3.5 mmol/L) non-HDL-C level on efficacy outcomes

Safety outcomes

There was no interaction between non-HDL-C levels and antiplatelet assignment for the risk of severe or moderate bleeding (P=0.425 for interaction) (Table 2). The rate in ticagrelor-aspirin group and clopidogrel-aspirin group was similar in patients with low non-HDL-C (0.3% vs. 0.5%; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.23–2.28), and high non-HDL-C (0.3% vs. 0.1%; HR, 2.32; 95% CI, 0.42–12.76). Ticagrelor-aspirin increased the rate of bleeding compared to clopidogrel-aspirin among patients with low and high non-HDL-C levels (Table 2). The results of the per-protocol and other sensitivity analyses were consistent with those of the intention-to-treat analysis (Supplementary Tables 2-5).

Discussion

This post hoc analysis of the CHANCE-2 trial indicated that non-HDL-C could be used to efficiently stratify patients with minor ischemic stroke or high-risk TIA carrying CYP2C19 LOF alleles according to the efficacy of ticagrelor-aspirin compared with clopidogrel-aspirin. Patients with low non-HDL-C administrated ticagrelor-aspirin achieved approximately 46% of risk reduction for recurrent stroke compared with those treated with clopidogrel-aspirin, without any increase in the risk of severe or moderate bleeding events. However, this benefit was not observed in patients with high non-HDL-C levels.

Lipids play an essential role in platelet function. Lipids can affect platelet count and characteristics, and modulate atherothrombotic risk through the megakaryocyte-platelet hemostatic axis [17]; thus, they are suggested to be related to the differences in platelet responsiveness to antiplatelet therapy for coronary artery disease or ischemic stroke [24-27]. Plasma cholesterol levels also appear to play a key role in regulating platelet activity, as hypercholesterolemia promotes platelet production and activation more potently than hypertriglyceridemia [28-30]. Non-HDL-C encompasses all plasma cholesterol levels, except HDL cholesterol. Several studies have further investigated the effects of non-HDL-C level on the human platelet activity. Results from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey involving approximately 10,000 participants indicated a positive correlation of serum non-HDL-C with platelet count and platelet-crit values [31]. The Suita study reported that collagen-induced platelet aggregability was increased in the highest quartile of non-HDL-C levels in the Japanese population [32]. Kim et al. [20] further enrolled a total of 1,045 type 2 diabetes patients from 11 hospitals in Korea, finding that only non-HDL-C was associated with aspirin resistance in obese type 2 diabetes patients. However, there was no relevant evidence to indicate the influence of non-HDL-C on the efficacy of antiplatelet agents. In this post hoc analysis of the CHANCE-2 trial, we found that ticagrelor-aspirin has apparent advantages over clopidogrel-aspirin in terms of the risk reduction of recurrent stroke and composite vascular events for patients with low non-HDL-C, but not for those with high non-HDL-C.

Lipid-lowering agents and antiplatelet drugs may act synergistically in the prevention of thrombotic vessel occlusions in atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease patients via inhibition of thromboxane-mediated autocrine and paracrine platelet functions [33]. Thus, we performed sensitivity analysis by excluding patients receiving lipid-lowering therapy, with the results of this analysis showing that the benefit of ticagrelor-aspirin in preventing vascular events persisted even in patients not receiving lipid-lowering therapy. In addition, since LDL-C is the primary goal of secondary stroke prevention in many guidelines [14-16,34], and there is a notable discordance between non-HDL-C and LDL-C levels [35], we further conducted a sensitivity analysis according to baseline LDL-C levels, using the therapeutic target of 2.6 mmol/L for high-risk individuals as the cutoff [36]. Our results further showed that patients with high non-HDL-C levels did not benefit from ticagrelor-aspirin as much as patients with low non-HDL-C levels, regardless of whether LDL-C concentrations were controlled, demonstrating the independent role of non-HDL-C in stratifying the efficacy of dual antiplatelet therapy. In light of the findings described here, it is reasonable to consider non-HDL-C as a potential biomarker for predicting the response to dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with minor stroke or TIA. However, the exact mechanisms underlying these results remains unclear. Possible mechanisms include the following: First, high non-HDL-C levels can lead to endothelial damage and exacerbation of inflammatory responses, thus stimulating platelet activation and aggregation [17-19]. Additionally, non-HDL-C has previously been shown to be associated with plaque stability [37,38], while a high non-HDL-C level has been identified as an independent risk factor for asymptomatic unstable carotid plaques [37,38]. Disruption of unstable carotid plaques can lead to thrombosis, resulting in cerebrovascular occlusion and infarction, which are correlated with the development of ischemic stroke and vascular recurrence events [39,40]. Thus, our findings illustrate that the presence of elevated non-HDL-C levels probably indicates unstable atherosclerotic plaques and severe lipid deposition, which may not be efficiently controlled by the ticagrelor-aspirin therapy, according to the CHANCE-2 protocol. Second, patients with elevated non-HDL-C in the current study had more risk factors, including hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and dyslipidemia, as well as a higher proportion of symptomatic intracranial artery stenosis; the benefit of ticagrelor-aspirin therapy may be offset by these comorbidities. Moreover, consistent with previous results [41], our study confirmed the positive association of high non-HDL-C levels with recurrent vascular events, particularly in patients receiving ticagrelor-aspirin therapy, which might attenuate its efficacy. Indeed, in patients with high non-HDL-C, these characteristics may generally reduce the efficacy of antiplatelet therapy, meaning that the superior efficacy of ticagrelor-aspirin over clopidogrel-aspirin may not be apparent in this group.

The following limitations merit consideration when interpreting our results. First, this analysis included only 5,901 patients who completed TC and HDL-C testing, representing only 92.0% of all patients of the CHANCE-2 trial. This may have caused selection bias; however, baseline characteristics were comparable between included and excluded patients, and we further adjusted for multiple confounding factors in the main analysis. The exploratory nature of this analysis could increase the risk of a type I error; thus, our results need to be verified in other studies [42]. Second, only baseline data of blood lipids were available for current analyses. Information on the dynamic changes during follow-up, particularly in patients with very high non-HDL-C concentrations, was not available, which may have provided more vulnerable information. However, results from the Framingham offspring study indicated that non-HDL-C concentrations were generally stable over the 30-year life course [43]. Third, equipment heterogeneity across 202 centers may lead to biased results; however, this effect was minimized due to strict quality control and routine practice at each hospital, and we therefore set study centers as a random effect in the models. Fourth, CYP2C19 LOF allele non-carriers were not included in the CHANCE-2 trial. The efficacy of ticagrelor-aspirin versus clopidogrel-aspirin and the effect modification of non-HDL-C among CYP2C19 fast metabolizers should therefore be investigated in future studies. Finally, the CHANCE-2 trial mainly involved Han Chinese patients, and the generalizability of our findings therefore requires further evaluation in other ethnicities.

Conclusions

This post hoc analysis of the CHANCE-2 trial suggested that baseline non-HDL-C levels may predict the effect of ticagrelor-aspirin or clopidogrel-aspirin dual antiplatelet therapy in preventing recurrent stroke within 90 days in patients with minor ischemic stroke or TIA carrying CYP2C19 LOF alleles. Patients with low non-HDL-C received more clinical benefit from ticagrelor-aspirin versus clopidogrel-aspirin after minor ischemic stroke or TIA compared to those with high non-HDL-C. Further large-scale randomized controlled clinical trials in other populations are required to confirm these findings.

Supplementary materials

Supplementary materials related to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.5853/jos.2024.00367.

Supplementary Table 1.

Baseline characteristics of included and excluded patients

jos-2024-00367-Supplementary-Table-1.pdf

Supplementary Table 2.

Effect of ticagrelor-aspirin versus clopidogrel-aspirin on efficacy and safety outcomes stratified by non-HDL-C levels in the per protocol set

jos-2024-00367-Supplementary-Table-2,3.pdf

Supplementary Table 3.

Effect of ticagrelor-aspirin versus clopidogrel-aspirin on efficacy and safety outcomes stratified by non-HDL-C levels among patients without previous lipid-lowering therapy

jos-2024-00367-Supplementary-Table-2,3.pdf

Supplementary Table 4.

Effect of ticagrelor-aspirin versus clopidogrel-aspirin on efficacy and safety outcomes stratified by non-HDL-C levels among patients with baseline LDL-C <2.6 mmol/L

jos-2024-00367-Supplementary-Table-4.pdf

Supplementary Table 5.

Effect of ticagrelor-aspirin versus clopidogrel-aspirin on efficacy and safety outcomes stratified by non-HDL-C levels among patients with baseline LDL-C ≥2.6 mmol/L

jos-2024-00367-Supplementary-Table-5.pdf

Notes

Funding statement

This work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology of the People’s Republic of China (MOST), Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission, Chinese Stroke Association (CSA), and the Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission. Grants were received from the National Science and Technology Major Project (2017ZX09304018), National Key Research and Development Program of China (2022YFC3600600), Training Fund for Open Projects at Clinical Institutes and Departments of Capital Medical University (CCMU2022ZKYXZ009), Beijing Natural Science Foundation Haidian original innovation joint fund (L222123), and Fund for Young Talents of Beijing Medical Management Center (QML20230505). Salubris contributed ticagrelor, clopidogrel, and the placebo at no cost and without restrictions. Chongqing Jingyin Bioscience Co., Ltd. provided the GMEX point-of-care genotyping system and technical support for CHANCE-2 at no cost and without restrictions.

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no financial conflicts of interest.

Author contribution

Conceptualization: QX, AW, YW (Yongjun Wang). Study design: QX, XM, HL, XX, AW, YW (Yongjun Wang). Methodology: QX, XM, HL, XX, JL, YW (Yilong Wang), AW, YW (Yongjun Wang). Data collection: JJ, JL, YJ, YW (Yilong Wang), XZ, ZL, LL. Investigation: QX, XM, XX, JJ, XZ, ZL, LL. Statistical analysis: QX, AW. Writingoriginal draft: QX. Writingreview & editing: all authors. Funding acquisition: AW, YW (Yongjun Wang). Approval of final manuscript: all authors.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank all study participants, their relatives, and members of the survey teams at the 202 centers involved the CHANCE-2 study.

References

1. Xu J, Tao Y, Li H, Gu H, Xie X, Meng X, et al. Different levels of blood pressure, different benefit from dual antiplatelet therapy in minor stroke or TIA patients. Sci Rep 2017;7:3884.

2. Li J, Wang Y, Wang D, Lin J, Wang A, Zhao X, et al. Glycated albumin predicts the effect of dual and single antiplatelet therapy on recurrent stroke. Neurology 2015;84:1330–1336.

3. Zhou Y, Pan Y, Wu Y, Zhao X, Li H, Wang D, et al. Effect of estimated glomerular filtration rate decline on the efficacy and safety of clopidogrel with aspirin in minor stroke or transient ischemic attack: CHANCE substudy (clopidogrel in high-risk patients with acute nondisabling cerebrovascular events). Stroke 2016;47:2791–2796.

4. de Havenon A, Johnston SC, Easton JD, Kim AS, Sheth KN, Lansberg M, et al. Evaluation of systolic blood pressure, use of aspirin and clopidogrel, and stroke recurrence in the plateletoriented inhibition in new TIA and minor ischemic stroke trial. JAMA Netw Open 2021;4:e2112551.

5. Mac Grory B, Piccini JP, Yaghi S, Poli S, De Havenon A, Rostanski SK, et al. Hyperglycemia, risk of subsequent stroke, and efficacy of dual antiplatelet therapy: a post hoc analysis of the point trial. J Am Heart Assoc 2022;11:e023223.

6. Wang A, Meng X, Tian X, Johnston SC, Li H, Bath PM, et al. Effect of hypertension on efficacy and safety of ticagreloraspirin versus clopidogrel-aspirin in minor stroke or transient ischemic attack. Stroke 2022;53:2799–2808.

7. Wang A, Xie X, Tian X, Johnston SC, Li H, Bath PM, et al. Ticagrelor-aspirin versus clopidogrel-aspirin among CYP2C19 loss-of-function carriers with minor stroke or transient ischemic attack in relation to renal function: a post hoc analysis of the CHANCE-2 trial. Ann Intern Med 2022;175:1534–1542.

8. Helgadottir A, Thorleifsson G, Snaebjarnarson A, Stefansdottir L, Sveinbjornsson G, Tragante V, et al. Cholesterol not particle concentration mediates the atherogenic risk conferred by apolipoprotein B particles: a Mendelian randomization analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2022;29:2374–2385.

9. Ridker PM, Rifai N, Cook NR, Bradwin G, Buring JE. Non-HDL cholesterol, apolipoproteins A-I and B100, standard lipid measures, lipid ratios, and CRP as risk factors for cardiovascular disease in women. JAMA 2005;294:326–333.

10. Pischon T, Girman CJ, Sacks FM, Rifai N, Stampfer MJ, Rimm EB. Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and apolipoprotein B in the prediction of coronary heart disease in men. Circulation 2005;112:3375–3383.

11. Brunner FJ, Waldeyer C, Ojeda F, Salomaa V, Kee F, Sans S, et al. Application of non-HDL cholesterol for population-based cardiovascular risk stratification: results from the Multinational Cardiovascular Risk Consortium. Lancet 2019;394:2173–2183.

12. Johannesen CDL, Mortensen MB, Langsted A, Nordestgaard BG. Apolipoprotein B and non-HDL cholesterol better reflect residual risk than LDL cholesterol in statin-treated patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 2021;77:1439–1450.

13. Kastelein JJ, van der Steeg WA, Holme I, Gaffney M, Cater NB, Barter P, et al. Lipids, apolipoproteins, and their ratios in relation to cardiovascular events with statin treatment. Circulation 2008;117:3002–3009.

14. Grundy SM, Stone NJ, Bailey AL, Beam C, Birtcher KK, Blumenthal RS, et al. 2018 AHA/ACC/AACVPR/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/ADA/AGS/APhA/ASPC/NLA/PCNA guideline on the management of blood cholesterol: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on clinical practice guidelines. Circulation 2019;139:e1082–e1143.

15. Mach F, Baigent C, Catapano AL, Koskinas KC, Casula M, Badimon L, et al. 2019 ESC/EAS guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. Eur Heart J 2020;41:111–188.

16. Pearson GJ, Thanassoulis G, Anderson TJ, Barry AR, Couture P, Dayan N, et al. 2021 Canadian Cardiovascular Society guidelines for the management of dyslipidemia for the prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults. Can J Cardiol 2021;37:1129–1150.

17. Đukanovic´ N, Obradovic´ S, Zdravkovic´ M, Đuraševic´ S, Stojkovic´ M, Tosti T, et al. Lipids and antiplatelet therapy: important considerations and future perspectives. Int J Mol Sci 2021;22:3180.

18. Scioli MG, Storti G, D’Amico F, Rodríguez Guzmán R, Centofanti F, Doldo E, et al. Oxidative stress and new pathogenetic mechanisms in endothelial dysfunction: potential diagnostic biomarkers and therapeutic targets. J Clin Med 2020;9:1995.

19. Yang M, Kholmukhamedov A. Platelet reactivity in dyslipidemia: atherothrombotic signaling and therapeutic implications. Rev Cardiovasc Med 2021;22:67–81.

20. Kim JD, Park CY, Ahn KJ, Cho JH, Choi KM, Kang JG, et al. Non-HDL cholesterol is an independent risk factor for aspirin resistance in obese patients with type 2 diabetes. Atherosclerosis 2014;234:146–151.

21. Wang Y, Meng X, Wang A, Xie X, Pan Y, Johnston SC, et al. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in CYP2C19 loss-of-function carriers with stroke or TIA. N Engl J Med 2021;385:2520–2530.

22. Wang Y, Johnston C, Bath PM, Meng X, Jing J, Xie X, et al. Clopidogrel with aspirin in high-risk patients with acute nondisabling cerebrovascular events II (CHANCE-2): rationale and design of a multicentre randomised trial. Stroke Vasc Neurol 2021;6:280–285.

23. GUSTO investigators. An international randomized trial comparing four thrombolytic strategies for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 1993;329:673–682.

24. Shen H, Herzog W, Drolet M, Pakyz R, Newcomer S, Sack P, et al. Aspirin resistance in healthy drug-naive men versus women (from the heredity and phenotype intervention heart study). Am J Cardiol 2009;104:606–612.

25. Bobescu E, Covaciu A, Rus H, Rogozea LM, Badea M, Marceanu LG. Low response to clopidogrel in coronary artery disease. Am J Ther 2020;27:e133–e141.

26. Bornstein NM, Karepov VG, Aronovich BD, Gorbulev AY, Treves TA, Korczyn AD. Failure of aspirin treatment after stroke. Stroke 1994;25:275–277.

27. Jäger B, Piackova E, Haller PM, Andric T, Kahl B, Christ G, et al. Increased platelet reactivity in dyslipidemic patients with coronary artery disease on dual anti-platelet therapy. Arch Med Sci 2019;15:65–71.

28. Carvalho AC, Colman RW, Lees RS. Platelet function in hyperlipoproteinemia. N Engl J Med 1974;290:434–438.

29. Harmon JT, Tandon NN, Hoeg JM, Jamieson GA. Thrombin binding and response in platelets from patients with dyslipoproteinemias: increased stimulus-response coupling in type II hyperlipoproteinemia. Blood 1986;68:498–505.

30. Wang N, Tall AR. Cholesterol in platelet biogenesis and activation. Blood 2016;127:1949–1953.

31. Fessler MB, Rose K, Zhang Y, Jaramillo R, Zeldin DC. Relationship between serum cholesterol and indices of erythrocytes and platelets in the US population. J Lipid Res 2013;54:3177–3188.

32. Kameda S, Sakata T, Kokubo Y, Mitsuguro M, Okamoto A, Sano M, et al. Association of platelet aggregation with lipid levels in the Japanese population: the Suita study. J Atheroscler Thromb 2011;18:560–567.

33. Schrör K, Verheugt FWA, Trenk D. Drug-drug interaction between antiplatelet therapy and lipid-lowering agents (statins and PCSK9 inhibitors). Thromb Haemost 2023;123:166–176.

34. Kleindorfer DO, Towfighi A, Chaturvedi S, Cockroft KM, Gutierrez J, Lombardi-Hill D, et al. 2021 guideline for the prevention of stroke in patients with stroke and transient ischemic attack: a guideline from the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association. Stroke 2021;52:e364–e467.

35. Elshazly MB, Martin SS, Blaha MJ, Joshi PH, Toth PP, McEvoy JW, et al. Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, guideline targets, and population percentiles for secondary prevention in 1.3 million adults: the VLDL-2 study (very large database of lipids). J Am Coll Cardiol 2013;62:1960–1965.

36. Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults. Executive summary of the third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) expert panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood cholesterol in adults (adult treatment panel III). JAMA 2001;285:2486–2497.

37. Wu J, Zhang J, Wang A, Chen S, Wu S, Zhao X. Association between non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and asymptomatic vulnerable carotid atherosclerotic plaques. Eur J Neurol 2019;26:1433–1438.

38. Zhao Z, Wang H, Hou Q, Zhou Y, Zhang Y. Non-traditional lipid parameters as potential predictors of carotid plaque vulnerability and stenosis in patients with acute ischemic stroke. Neurol Sci 2023;44:835–843.

39. Kamtchum-Tatuene J, Noubiap JJ, Wilman AH, Saqqur M, Shuaib A, Jickling GC. Prevalence of high-risk plaques and risk of stroke in patients with asymptomatic carotid stenosis: a meta-analysis. JAMA Neurol 2020;77:1524–1535.

40. Marnane M, Prendeville S, McDonnell C, Noone I, Barry M, Crowe M, et al. Plaque inflammation and unstable morphology are associated with early stroke recurrence in symptomatic carotid stenosis. Stroke 2014;45:801–806.

41. Wang G, Jing J, Wang A, Zhang X, Zhao X, Li Z, et al. Non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol predicts adverse outcomes in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 2021;52:2035–2042.

42. VanderWeele TJ, Knol MJ. Interpretation of subgroup analyses in randomized trials: heterogeneity versus secondary interventions. Ann Intern Med 2011;154:680–683.

43. Pencina KM, Thanassoulis G, Wilkins JT, Vasan RS, Navar AM, Peterson ED, et al. Trajectories of non-HDL cholesterol across midlife: implications for cardiovascular prevention. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019;74:70–79.

Article information Continued

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Characteristics	Non-HDL-C <3.5 mmol/L				Non-HDL-C ≥3.5 mmol/L				P^§
Characteristics	Total (n=3,020)	Ticagrelor-aspirin (n=1,483)	Clopidogrel-aspirin (n=1,537)	P	Total (n=2,881)	Ticagrelor-aspirin (n=1,465)	Clopidogrel-aspirin (n=1,416)	P	P^§
Age (yr)	65.4 (57.4–72.2)	65.5 (57.5–72.1)	65.3 (57.3–72.2)	0.620	63.9 (56.6–70.4)	63.9 (56.5–70.6)	63.9 (56.6–70.3)	0.683	<0.001
Female sex	853 (28.3)	397 (26.8)	456 (29.7)	0.077	1,126 (39.1)	587 (40.1)	539 (38.1)	0.271	<0.001
Han ethnicity	2,944 (97.5)	1,445 (97.4)	1,499 (97.5)	0.874	2,840 (98.6)	1,449 (98.9)	1,391 (98.2)	0.127	0.003
BMI (kg/m²)	24.2 (22.5–26.4)	24.2 (22.5–26.6)	24.2 (22.5–26.2)	0.306	24.7 (22.9–26.7)	24.8 (22.9–26.8)	24.5 (22.9–26.7)	0.093	<0.001
Medical history
Hypertension	2,187 (72.4)	1,058 (71.3)	1,129 (73.5)	0.194	2,170 (75.3)	1,105 (75.4)	1,065 (75.2)	0.894	0.011
Diabetes mellitus	897 (29.7)	443 (29.9)	454 (29.5)	0.841	980 (34.0)	506 (34.5)	474 (33.5)	0.547	<0.001
Dyslipidemia	469 (15.5)	216 (14.6)	253 (16.5)	0.151	1,223 (42.5)	631 (43.1)	592 (41.8)	0.493	<0.001
Previous ischemic stroke	786 (26.0)	381 (25.7)	405 (26.4)	0.680	475 (16.5)	243 (16.6)	232 (16.4)	0.883	<0.001
Previous TIA	50 (1.7)	28 (1.9)	22 (1.4)	0.326	30 (1.0)	14 (1.0)	16 (1.1)	0.645	0.041
Myocardial infarction	46 (1.5)	22 (1.5)	24 (1.6)	0.861	38 (1.3)	24 (1.6)	14 (1.0)	0.127	0.508
Current smoking	960 (31.8)	483 (32.6)	477 (31.0)	0.365	890 (30.9)	455 (31.1)	435 (30.7)	0.844	0.458
CYP2C19 LOF allele carriers				0.952				0.458	0.066
Intermediate metabolizers	2,386 (79.0)	1,171 (79.0)	1,215 (79.1)		2,219 (77.0)	1,120 (76.5)	1,099 (77.6)
Poor metabolizers	634 (21.0)	312 (21.0)	322 (21.0)		662 (23.0)	345 (23.6)	317 (22.4)
Time to randomization (h)	14.0 (9.0–20.5)	13.7 (9.3–20.1)	14.3 (8.8–20.8)	0.680	14.0 (8.9–20.7)	13.4 (8.7–20.5)	14.5 (9.2–20.7)	0.055	0.727
Qualifying event				0.762				0.905	0.849
Ischemic stroke	2,426 (80.3)	1,188 (80.1)	1,238 (80.6)		2,320 (80.5)	1,181 (80.6)	1,139 (80.4)
TIA	594 (19.7)	295 (19.9)	299 (19.5)		561 (19.5)	284 (19.4)	277 (19.6)
NIHSS score in patients with qualifying ischemic stroke^*	2 (1–3)	2 (1–3)	2 (1–3)	0.792	2 (1–3)	2 (1–3)	2 (1–3)	0.110	0.873
ABCD² score in patients with qualifying TIA^†	4 (4–5)	5 (4–5)	4 (4–5)	0.462	4 (4–5)	4 (4–5)	5 (4–5)	0.591	0.809
Previous antiplatelet therapy^‡	459 (15.2)	221 (14.9)	238 (15.5)	0.656	229 (8.0)	130 (8.9)	99 (7.0)	0.062	<0.001
Previous lipid-lowering therapy^‡	343 (11.4)	164 (11.1)	179 (11.7)	0.611	113 (3.9)	69 (4.7)	44 (3.1)	0.027	<0.001
Symptomatic intracranial-artery stenosis	738 (26.5)	365 (26.6)	373 (26.4)	0.911	801 (29.8)	426 (31.1)	375 (28.4)	0.125	0.007
Symptomatic extracranial-artery stenosis	115 (4.1)	64 (4.7)	51 (3.6)	0.163	140 (5.2)	71 (5.2)	69 (5.2)	0.962	0.059

Outcome	Non-HDL-C <3.5 mmol/L				Non-HDL-C ≥3.5 mmol/L				P for interaction
Outcome	Ticagrelor-aspirin	Clopidogrel-aspirin	Adjusted HR (95% CI)^*	P	Ticagrelor-aspirin	Clopidogrel-aspirin	Adjusted HR (95% CI)^*	P	P for interaction
Primary outcome
Stroke	71 (4.8)	119 (7.7)	0.54 (0.40–0.74)	<0.001	107 (7.3)	108 (7.6)	0.88 (0.67–1.16)	0.374	0.010
Secondary outcome
Stroke within 30 days	55 (3.7)	99 (6.4)	0.51 (0.36–0.71)	<0.001	89 (6.1)	93 (6.6)	0.85 (0.63–1.14)	0.274	0.022
Composite vascular events^†	93 (6.3)	146 (9.5)	0.59 (0.45–0.77)	<0.001	120 (8.2)	126 (8.9)	0.86 (0.66–1.11)	0.237	0.020
Ischemic stroke	70 (4.7)	116 (7.6)	0.55 (0.40–0.75)	<0.001	106 (7.2)	106 (7.5)	0.89 (0.68–1.17)	0.409	0.010
Disabling stroke^‡	33 (2.2)	43 (2.8)	0.71 (0.44–1.14)	0.151	59 (4.0)	43 (3.0)	1.20 (0.80–1.80)	0.378	0.039
Primary safety outcome
Severe or moderate bleeding^§	5 (0.3)	8 (0.5)	0.72 (0.23–2.28)	0.578	4 (0.3)	2 (0.1)	2.32 (0.42–12.76)	0.334	0.425
Intracranial hemorrhage	1 (0.1)	4 (0.3)	0.24 (0.03–2.12)	0.197	2 (0.1)	2 (0.1)	1.11 (0.16–7.96)	0.914	0.545
Secondary safety outcome
Any bleeding	84 (5.7)	44 (2.9)	1.97 (1.35–2.87)	<0.001	74 (5.1)	32 (2.3)	2.33 (1.53–3.56)	<0.001	0.627
Mortality	4 (0.3)	10 (0.7)	0.31 (0.09–1.14)	0.079	4 (0.3)	4 (0.3)	0.84 (0.21–3.42)	0.813	0.290

Outcome	Overall		Ticagrelor-aspirin group		Clopidogrel-aspirin group
Outcome	Adjusted HR (95% CI)^*	P	Adjusted HR (95% CI)^*	P	Adjusted HR (95% CI)^*	P
Primary outcome
Stroke	1.27 (1.01–1.58)	0.039	1.88 (1.32–2.69)	<0.001	1.01 (0.75–1.36)	0.944
Secondary outcome
Stroke within 30 days	1.26 (0.98–1.61)	0.069	1.86 (1.25–2.78)	0.002	1.02 (0.74–1.41)	0.904
Composite vascular events^†	1.13 (0.92–1.39)	0.239	1.55 (1.12–2.13)	0.008	0.94 (0.71–1.24)	0.658
Ischemic stroke	1.29 (1.03–1.62)	0.027	1.91 (1.33–2.73)	<0.001	1.02 (0.76–1.39)	0.880
Disabling stroke^‡	1.44 (1.02–2.04)	0.037	2.07 (1.24–3.45)	0.005	1.02 (0.62–1.68)	0.936