[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: High on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR), referred to as a higher than expected platelet reactivity in patients under antiplatelet therapy, could influence outcome in cerebrovascular disease (CVD), but its prevalence and its stability over time is uncertain. Platelet reactivity was assessed in 18 patients with ischemic stroke/transient ischemic attack (TIA) 7 days (D7) and 90 days (D90) after prescription of clopidogrel, using four methods: light transmission aggregometry with 5 μmol/l ADP (LTA-ADP), vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP), Verify Now P2Y12 and platelet function analyzer (PFA) P2Y. HTPR was defined as LTA-ADP more than 46%; PFA-100-P2Y closure time less than 106 s; VerifyNow P2Y12, PRU greater than 235, VASP, PRI greater than 50%. Patients displayed, both at D7 and D90, a marked inhibition of platelet reactivity towards ADP in all tests as compared with reference levels. Correlations between the results obtained with all the tests at D7 and D90 and between measurements on each day in each test were low-to-moderate. The prevalence of HTPR for all the tests was 40% at D7 and 42% at D90. There was a moderate degree of agreement (k statistic < 0.5) between tests with regard to categorizing patients as HTPR/No-HTPR (D7 and D90). The on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity phenotype, HTPR/No-HTPR, remained stable in 55-72% of patients, depending on the test. A high prevalence of HTPR is found among CVD patients treated with clopidogrel and this platelet reactivity phenotype remains over time. There is poor agreement between the different platelet function tests for categorizing the platelet reactivity phenotype in these patients. The new PFA-100 P2Y equals other platelet function assays for evaluating HTPR in CVD.
Blood coagulation & fibrinolysis: an international journal in haemostasis and thrombosis 04/2014; · 1.25 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Introduction and objectivesCYP2C19*2 and CYP2C19*17 alleles appear to contribute to heterogeneous clopidogrel metabolism. Aims: (1) to assess the phenotype-genotype relationship of CYP2C19*2 and *17 allele carriage and (2) to explore the clinical impact of those polymorphisms at 6-month follow-up of an acute event in an unselected population of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome.
Revista Espa de Cardiologia 03/2012; · 3.34 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: CYP2C19*2 and CYP2C19*17 alleles appear to contribute to heterogeneous clopidogrel metabolism. The aims of the present study were to assess the phenotype-genotype relationship of CYP2C19*2 and *17 allele carriage and to explore the clinical impact of those polymorphisms at 6-month follow-up of an acute event in an unselected population of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome.
Recruitment for the first and second objectives was 40 stable acute coronary syndrome patients under dual antiplatelet therapy at 12 months after coronary stent placement and an unselected population of 493 consecutive patients with non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome, respectively. Platelet reactivity was assessed by optical aggregometry induced by adenosine diphosphate and thrombin receptor activating peptide, and by vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation measurement using flow cytometry. Genotypes were determined with a TaqMan assay.
Only the vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein phosphorylation measurement detected significant differences in on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity between the wild-type subjects and the CYP2C19*2 (P=.020) and *17 allele carriers (P=.048). No significant difference was found between CYP2C19*2 ([HR (95%CI): 1 (0.94-1.55)], P=.984) or *17 ([HR (95%CI): 0.93 (0.61-1.43)], P=.753) allele carriage and the occurrence of adverse events at 6-month follow-up.
Even though CYP2C19 genotype is associated with variable on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity, it has no significant clinical influence. Prognosis of acute coronary syndromes may be influenced by a myriad of variables.
Revista Espanola de Cardiologia 11/2011; 65(3):219-26. · 3.34 Impact Factor