Why the study?
Do PTGS1 regulatory variants and laboratory aspirin resistance (LAR) predict major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in cardiovascular patients treated with aspirin?
Do PTGS1 regulatory variants and laboratory aspirin resistance (LAR) predict major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) in cardiovascular patients treated with aspirin?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Although laboratory aspirin resistance and PTGS1 regulatory variants lack population-level predictive value for MACE, their divergent genetic associations link aspirin-treated cardiovascular outcomes to multicellular COX-1 actions beyond platelets.
BACKGROUND: Prostaglandin-endoperoxide synthase 1 (PTGS1) encodes cyclooxygenase-1 (COX-1). METHODS: In total, 486 cardiovascular patients, 454 on mono-antiplatelet therapy (MAPT), 32 on dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT, aspirin plus clopidogrel), had complete data including COX-1-specific platelet function and median 4.75-year follow-up. MACE comprised acute myocardial infarction, acute stroke, and ischemia-driven revascularization. Eighteen bioinformatically annotated PTGS1 regulatory variants were genotyped. RESULTS: Smoking and clopidogrel exposure significantly modified LAR. Kaplan-Meier analysis linked LAR to higher crude MACE odds in MAPT and MAPT+DAPT groups (log-rank P < 0.05). Genetic analyses clarified gene-LAR, gene-MACE, gene-LAR-MACE interrelationships. Promoter rs1330344 showed lower LAR odds, with unchanged MACE odds, consistent with mild COX-1 modulation. Intronic rs7866582 conferred higher MACE odds alone, consistent with leukocyte COX-1/proinflammatory prostaglandin elevation. 3'-untranslated region (3'-UTR) rs10306190 exhibited marginally higher LAR odds yet lower MACE odds, consistent with variant-mediated COX-1 upregulation and marked vascular COX-1/PGI CONCLUSIONS: LAR and PTGS1 variants lack population-level value for MACE prediction. This study links aspirin-treated MACE to multicellular COX-1 actions beyond platelets.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Li et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: