Vascular pharmacology · 2014
Post receptor determinants of acute platelet response to clopidogrel in patients with symptomatic myocardial ischemia.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Nooney V B, Hurst N L, Chirkov Y Y, De Caterina R, Horowitz J D
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Clopidogrel resistance is more common in patients with loss-of-function CYP2C19 genotypes. Since adenylate cyclase (AC) and soluble guanylate cyclase (sGC) pathways are variably impaired in patients with ischaemic heart disease, we tested the relevance of these determinants in patients undergoing acute loading with clopidogrel (600 mg) prior to non-emergent coronary stenting.
METHODS: Inhibitory effects of prostaglandin E1 (PGE1, an AC activator) and sodium nitroprusside (NP, a sGC activator) on platelet aggregation were determined at baseline and compared with platelet responses to clopidogrel (4 h after administration) assessed as ∆ADP, and Platelet Reactivity Index (∆PRI). Data were analysed according to CYP2C19 genotype.
RESULTS: In patients without loss of function mutations (n=18), ∆ADP but not ∆PRI, was directly correlated with baseline PGE1 responsiveness (rs=0.62, p=0.005)). NP responsiveness did not predict ∆ADP. However there was no relationship between clopidogrel responses and either PGE1 or NP responsiveness in patients with loss of function mutations. Multivariate correlates of clopidogrel response were both the genotype status (β=-0.609, p<0.001) and the baseline response to PGE1 (β=0.303, p=0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: While genetically impaired bio-activation markedly limits acute (4 h) clopidogrel response, impaired AC signalling provides an additional cause for clopidogrel resistance.
METHODS: Inhibitory effects of prostaglandin E1 (PGE1, an AC activator) and sodium nitroprusside (NP, a sGC activator) on platelet aggregation were determined at baseline and compared with platelet responses to clopidogrel (4 h after administration) assessed as ∆ADP, and Platelet Reactivity Index (∆PRI). Data were analysed according to CYP2C19 genotype.
RESULTS: In patients without loss of function mutations (n=18), ∆ADP but not ∆PRI, was directly correlated with baseline PGE1 responsiveness (rs=0.62, p=0.005)). NP responsiveness did not predict ∆ADP. However there was no relationship between clopidogrel responses and either PGE1 or NP responsiveness in patients with loss of function mutations. Multivariate correlates of clopidogrel response were both the genotype status (β=-0.609, p<0.001) and the baseline response to PGE1 (β=0.303, p=0.03).
CONCLUSIONS: While genetically impaired bio-activation markedly limits acute (4 h) clopidogrel response, impaired AC signalling provides an additional cause for clopidogrel resistance.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Adenosine DiphosphateAdenylyl CyclasesAgedAlprostadilAngina PectorisClopidogrelCytochrome P-450 CYP2C19Drug ResistanceFemaleHumansMaleNitroprussidePlatelet AggregationPlatelet Aggregation InhibitorsPlatelet Function TestsPolymorphism, Single NucleotidePurinergic P2Y Receptor AntagonistsStentsTiclopidine