Key result
Adding cilostazol is linked to lower PRU across intermediate and poor clopidogrel metabolizers.
Why the study?
The association between CYP2C19 genotype and the additional effect of cilostazol on clopidogrel resistance in neuroendovascular therapy was unclear.
Does the addition of cilostazol improve clopidogrel resistance in patients undergoing neuroendovascular therapy irrespective of CYP2C19 genotype?
Observational (n=31)
Does the addition of cilostazol improve clopidogrel resistance in patients undergoing neuroendovascular therapy irrespective of CYP2C19 genotype?
The addition of cilostazol effectively overcomes clopidogrel resistance in neuroendovascular therapy regardless of the patient's CYP2C19 genotype.
Cilostazol addition may improve clopidogrel responsiveness irrespective of phenotype; leaves open effects on clinical events.
We investigated the association between CYP2C19 genotype and additional effect of cilostazol on clopidogrel resistance (CR) in neuroendovascular therapy. Between January 2012 and January 2016, 447 consecutive patients were administered with 75-mg cilostazol/day. The VerifyNow System was used for evaluating P2Y12 reaction units (PRU) > 230 and/or percentage inhibition of platelet function (% Inhibition) ≤ 20 as CR. Among 158 patients with CR, 31 were administered with additional 100- or 200-mg cilostazol/day and their platelet function was evaluated. According to CYP2C19 genotypes revealed using the Spartan RX and DNeasy Blood & Tissue Kit, patients were classified into three phenotypic groups: extensive metabolizer (EM, three patients), intermediate metabolizer (IM, 12 patients), and poor metabolizer (PM, 16 patients). Administration of additional cilostazol decreased PRU (EM group: 160.7 ± 85.2 after vs 278.3 ± 40.1 before, P = 0.15; IM group: 205.6 ± 74.0 vs 254.3 ± 35.0, P = 0.02; and PM group: 227.8 ± 52.2 vs 282.1 ± 30.4, P = 0.003), and increased % Inhibition (EM group: 40.0 ± 27.9 vs 9.3 ± 3.8, P = 0.25; IM group: 31.4 ± 18.0 vs 11.8 ± 8.2, P = 0.001; and PM group: 24.6 ± 15.0 vs 10.4 ± 9.3, P = 0.001). However, the rate of normalized-clopidogrel response, thromboembolic lesions, and bleeding complications were not significantly different among the three groups. Thus, the addition of cilostazol was effective on CR in terms of PRU, % Inhibition, rate of change of normalized-clopidogrel response, thromboembolic events, and bleeding complications irrespective of phenotype.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Tajima et al. (2018) conducted an observational in Clopidogrel resistance in neuroendovascular therapy (n=31). Additional cilostazol vs. Before additional cilostazol administration (baseline) was evaluated on P2Y12 reaction units (PRU). Additional cilostazol decreased P2Y12 reaction units in clopidogrel resistance across phenotypes, including intermediate (205.6 vs 254.3, P=0.02) and poor metabolizers (227.8 vs 282.1, P=0.003).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: