Key result
Clopidogrel is linked to ~114% higher MACCE risk than ticagrelor in ACS patients with CYP2C19 loss-of-function.
Why the study?
The clinical impact of implementing CYP2C19 gene-guided pharmacotherapy was unclear, especially among the Chinese population.
Does CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy (using ticagrelor for LOF carriers) reduce MACCE in adult ACS patients after percutaneous coronary intervention?
Cohort (n=1,361)
No
Does CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy (using ticagrelor for LOF carriers) reduce MACCE in adult ACS patients after percutaneous coronary intervention?
Effect estimate: HR 2.138 (95% CI 1.300-3.515)
Absolute Event Rate: 4% vs 7.8%
p-value: p=0.029
In a real-world Chinese cohort, CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy effectively identified LOF carriers who derived a significant reduction in MACCE when treated with ticagrelor compared to clopidogrel, without an increase in significant bleeding.
May support ticagrelor preference in CYP2C19 LOF carriers post-ACS PCI; extends observational data but leaves open need for RCT confirmation.
Background: CYP2C19 loss-of-function (LOF) alleles reduce the effectiveness of clopidogrel in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndrome. However, the clinical impact of implementing CYP2C19 gene-guided pharmacotherapy is unclear, especially among the Chinese population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate P2Y12 receptor inhibitor selection and clinical outcomes upon implementation of CYP2C19 genotype-guided pharmacotherapy in current clinical practice. Methods: This was a single-center observational cohort study. Adult percutaneous coronary intervention patients who received CYP2C19 genetic testing (*2, *3, *17 alleles) were included. Ticagrelor was recommended for patients with a LOF allele. Factors related to P2Y12 inhibitor selection were determined by logistic regression. The primary endpoint was major cardiac or cerebrovascular adverse events (MACCE) within 12 months. MACCE and clinically significant bleeding events (BARC ≥2) in the LOF-clopidogrel group, non-LOF-clopidogrel group, and non-LOF-ticagrelor group were compared with those in the LOF-ticagrelor group. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was adjusted in a Cox regression analysis to eliminate confounding factors. Results: Among 1,361 patients, 826 (60.7%) had a LOF allele. Patients with a LOF allele were more likely to be prescribed ticagrelor (multivariate-adjusted OR 1.349; 95% CI 1.040 to 1.751; p = 0.024). The MACCE rate was higher in the LOF-clopidogrel group than in the LOF-ticagrelor group (7.8 vs. 4.0%; log-rank p = 0.029; IPTW-adjusted HR 2.138; 95% CI 1.300–3.515). Compared with the LOF-ticagrelor group, the non-LOF-clopidogrel group showed no significant difference in MACCE rate (5.8 vs. 4.0%; log-rank p = 0.272; IPTW-adjusted HR 1.531; 95% CI 0.864–2.714). Among the patients treated with ticagrelor, there was no significant difference in the MACCE rate between the LOF group and non-LOF group (4.3 vs. 4.0%; log-rank p = 0.846; IPTW-adjusted HR 1.184; 95% CI 0.582–2.410). There was no significant difference in the incidence of clinically significant bleeding events among the four groups. Conclusion: This study confirms that efficiently returned CYP2C19 genotype results did partially guide cardiologists to prescribe ticagrelor for patients with a LOF allele, and that clopidogrel had a higher risk of MACCE than ticagrelor in these patients, which provides support for the implementation of CYP2C19 gene-guided antiplatelet therapy in clinical practice.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Acute Coronary Syndrome (ACS) after Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI) (n=1,361). Ticagrelor (in CYP2C19 LOF carriers) vs. Clopidogrel (in CYP2C19 LOF carriers) was evaluated on Major cardiac or cerebrovascular adverse events (MACCE) within 12 months (HR 2.138, 95% CI 1.300-3.515, p=0.029). In ACS patients with a CYP2C19 loss-of-function allele, clopidogrel was associated with a significantly higher risk of major cardiac or cerebrovascular adverse events compared to ticagrelor (7.8% vs 4.0%, HR 2.138).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: