Current Concepts in the Clinical Utility of Platelet Reactivity Testing

Login or register to view PDF.
Abstract

The pharmacodynamic effect of clopidogrel varies among individuals; approximately a third will have high on-treatment platelet reactivity (HTPR) to adenosine diphosphate and may benet from more intensive antiplatelet therapy. Platelet reactivity testing has an important role in monitoring the therapeutic efciency of clopidogrel and the safety of more potent drugs that confer an increased bleeding risk, because it provides a direct measure of the biological effect of these drugs. Numerous studies have demonstrated an association between HTPR and the risk of cardiac events in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). While the prognostic value of platelet reactivity testing following PCI has been demonstrated repeatedly in cohort studies and meta-analyses, randomised controlled studies investigating the clinical utility of the technique to guide treatment decisions failed to improve clinical outcomes of clopidogrel-treated patients undergoing stent implantation. Available data suggest that platelet function monitoring may be carried out in clopidogrel-treated patients with a higher risk of thrombotic events. These include patient risk factors such as body mass index (BMI), type 2 diabetes, and those prior unexpected ischemic events such as stent thrombosis, as well as procedural risk factors. As we move towards conclusively dening a therapeutic window associated with both cardiovascular (upper threshold) and bleeding risk (lower threshold) for antiplatelet agents, platelet reactivity testing will become a central tool in the practice of personalised strategies.

Disclosure
Jean-Philippe Collet has no conflicts of interest to declare.
Correspondence
Jean-Philippe Collet, Professeur des Universités-Praticien Hospitalier, Institut de Cardiologie – INSERM U 937, ACTION, Groupe Hospitalier Pitié-Salpêtrière, Paris, France. E: jean-philippe.collet@psl.aphp.fr
Support
The publication of this article was supported by Accumetrics, Inc.
Received date
08 August 2013
Accepted date
11 September 2013
Citation
Interventional Cardiology Review, 2013;8(2):100-6
DOI
http://dx.doi.org/10.15420/icr.2013.8.2.100

The role of platelets in coronary artery thrombosis is well-established.1 They also play a critical role in a number of cardiovascular conditions including stroke, peripheral vascular disease and diabetes, and may be involved in the pathology underlying atherosclerotic changes.1 Antiplatelet agents such as clopidogrel, a platelet P2Y12 receptor antagonist, and aspirin are used for the prevention of thrombotic conditions in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) or when undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).2 Dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), with the combination of aspirin (75-325 milligrams [mg] daily) and clopidogrel (75 mg daily after a loading dose of 300/600 mg) has become the widely accepted regimen for stent-placement procedures. Use of these drugs is widespread - clopidogrel is one of the largest selling drugs worldwide.3

However, despite antiplatelet therapy following PCI with stent implantation, 1-5 % of patients develop stent thrombosis (ST), a feared complication that results in myocardial infarction (MI) in 80 % and mortality in up to 40 % of cases.4,5 Individuals receiving clopidogrel exhibit a wide variability in platelet responsiveness, resulting from a variable level of P2Y12 inhibition.6,7 A significant number (up to a third) of patients have no measurable effect of the medication, often referred to as having high on-treatment platelet activity (HTPR) to adenosine diphosphate (ADP).8 The presence of HTPR has been associated with increased rates of adverse effects, including cardiovascular death, MI and ST in patients undergoing PCI.9-11 Although less common, low response to aspirin has also been observed and has been associated with adverse effects.12-14

Alternative therapeutic options, such as prasugrel and ticagrelor, have been shown to be successful for ACS patients irrespective of HTPR status.15-18 These new therapeutic options have also demonstrated superiority to clopidogrel for the prevention of ischaemic events in patients undergoing PCI for ST-elevation MI (STEMI).19 However, these therapies may confer a higher risk of bleeding and are not available everywhere due to economic constraints. Another option is increasing the dose of clopidogrel; a randomised clinical trial found that a double-dose clopidogrel regimen is associated with a reduction in cardiovascular events and ST when PCI is performed, but also an elevated risk of major bleeding.20 A 'one-size-fits-all approach' is therefore not appropriate in antiplatelet therapy and personalised strategies appear attractive, identifying those patients who would benefit most from therapeutic adjustment.

A subset of patients demonstrate low on-treatment platelet reactivity or a hyper-response to clopidogrel, which has been associated with an increased risk of haemorrhagic complications following coronary stent placement21 and after neurointerventional procedures.22-24 There is a need for larger studies to define thresholds for clopidogrel hyperresponse and examine the clinical effects of dose adjustments or treatment interruption in the setting of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in particular.

Platelet reactivity testing enables the identification of patients with an inadequate response to antiplatelet agents who might benefit from a more intense antiplatelet regimen, as well as those exhibiting hyper-responsiveness. While large studies and registries have clearly defined a threshold for hypo-response,25,26 there remains a need to definitively define a threshold for hyper-response and the clinical effects of antiplatelet dosage adjustment. This article aims to discuss advances in platelet reactivity testing and to review clinical studies investigating their use.

Platelet Reactivity Testing
In addition to its role in disorders associated with platelet dysfunction,27 platelet reactivity testing is a crucial component of the management of cardiovascular disease in order to identify patients at higher risk for poor clinical outcome related to their response to antiplatelet drugs. The measurement of platelet aggregation at baseline following administration of DAPT is subject to considerable variability, therefore on-treatment platelet reactivity is the preferred means of platelet reactivity testing.28 However, it is a poorly standardised process. Several studies have shown large inter-laboratory variation in platelet reactivity testing practice.29 Platelet reactivity has been historically measured with light transmittance aggregometry (LTA), but this method is technically complex, time-consuming, requires sample manipulation, and is subject to operator-induced error.30 Point-of-care tests have been developed that are more practical and facilitate the clinical management of patients. The VerifyNow® P2Y12 assay was designed to overcome the limitations of conventional optical platelet aggregation assays. It produces results in five minutes and requires no pipetting or sample preparation, reducing the risk of error.

The VerifyNow System (Accumetrics Inc, San Diego, CA, US) is a pointof- care assay that measures agonist-induced platelet aggregation by turbidimetric based optical detection, using a four-channel disposable cartridge (see Figure 1). In the channels, platelets are activated by the presence of agonists and bind to fibrinogen-coated beads, causing agglutinates to drop out of solution. The change in optical density is then measured.31 Results are reported as P2Y12 reaction units (PRU), a BASE (base PRU) value, and a percentage of inhibition calculated from the BASE and PRU. A lower PRU value corresponds to a higher degree of P2Y12 receptor inhibition and thus a decreased possibility of platelet activation and aggregation. Advantages of the VerifyNow system include simplicity, sensitivity, speed and user-friendliness.32,33 The VerifyNow assay correlates well with LTA and with other point-of-care assay devices,34,35 and has been validated in a head-to-head comparison of platelet function tests.30

Clinical Studies Involving Platelet Reactivity Testing
Testing platelet reactivity following the administration of antiplatelet agents aims to determine how the drugs affect their biological targets, which is likened to the risk for secondary ischaemic/bleeding events. It is important to evaluate the levels of platelet reactivity that may correlate with thrombotic events and to create a clinically meaningful cut-off value of platelet reactivity. According to the VerifyNow package insert, the highest combination of sensitivity and specificity for identifying a measureable effect of a P2Y12 inhibitor is a PRU of 208.36 To date, cut-off values have mainly been investigated in patients undergoing PCI. However, platelet reactivity testing has been employed in numerous clinical indications (see Table 1).

Peripheral Angioplasty Procedures
Clopidogrel resistance, defined as ≥235 PRU, significantly affected clinical outcomes after peripheral angioplasty procedures.37,38

Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery
A strategy based on pre-operative platelet reactivity testing to determine the timing of CABG surgery in clopidogrel-treated patients was associated with the same amount of bleeding observed in clopidogrel-naive patients and 50 % shorter waiting time than recommended in the current guidelines.39 These results led to an upgrade in the guidelines, to base timing of surgery on platelet function monitoring rather than the arbitrary use of a specified period of delay.40

Neurovascular Applications
Clopidogrel resistance, defined using a PRU cut-off value of 235, was associated with increased periprocedural thromboembolic complications following neurovascular stenting.41 Flow diversion with the Pipeline™ Embolization Device (PED) is an important treatment option for cerebral aneurysm, but it is associated with the risk of thromboembolic complications. A study of pre-procedure platelet reactivity testing using VerifyNow found that a PRU value of <60 or >240 was the strongest independent predictor of all major peri-operative thromboembolic and haemorrhagic complications after PED procedures.23 In defining optimal cut-off values, it is also important to distinguish between a cardiovascular and neurovascular patient - those with a history of stroke have a greater risk of haemorrhage on more potent antiplatelet therapy and may benefit from platelet reactivity within a more narrow window.42


Percutaneous Coronary Intervention
The level of platelet function inhibition as measured by a point-of-care assay is an independent predictor for the risk of major adverse cardiac events after PCI.43 A recent systematic review and meta-analysis concluded that initiating intensified antiplatelet therapy on the basis of platelet reactivity testing in patients after PCI is associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality, ST and MI (p<0.01 for all).44

A study of patients with ACS assessed the cost-effectiveness of universal clopidogrel, ticagrelor or prasugrel (given to all patients) or PRA-driven ticagrelor or prasugrel (given to patients with a PRU of >230 on the VerifyNow assay; the remainder received clopidogrel). PRA-driven ticagrelor and prasugrel were found to be cost-effective over five years compared with universal clopidogrel (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio US$40,100 and US$49,143/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively); however, universal ticagrelor and prasugrel were not cost-effective (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio US$61,651 and US$96,261/quality-adjusted life-year, respectively).45 Thus, platelet reactivity testing has the potential to decrease the healthcare costs associated with ACS.

Defining optimal cut-offs has proved challenging in clinical studies of antiplatelet therapy following PCI. A study assessed post-clopidogrel HTPR using VerifyNow following PCI with drug-eluting stent implantation and established a cut-off of ≥235 PRU.46 Stratifying patients according to HTPR based on this threshold proved strongly predictive of cardiovascular events. A recent meta-analysis of clinical outcomes after PCI confirmed this finding and found that every 10-U increase in PRU was associated ith a significantly higher rate of the primary endpoint (hazard ratio [HR] 1.04; 95 % confidence interval (CI) 1.03-1.06; p<0.0001). A PRU cut-off of 230 was the strongest predictor of death, MI or ST (p<0.001). A PRU value ÔëÑ230 was associated with a higher rate of a composite primary endpoint of death, MI or ST (HR 2.10; 95 % CI 1.62-2.73; p<0.0001), as well as the individual endpoints of death (HR 1.66; 95 % CI 1.04-2.68; p<0.04), MI (HR 2.04; 95 % CI 1.51-2.76; p<0.001) and ST (HR 3.11; 95 % CI 1.50-6.46; p<0.002) (see Figure 2).10

As mentioned previously, according to the VerifyNow package insert, the highest combination of sensitivity and specificity for identifying a measureable effect of a P2Y12 inhibitor is a PRU of 208.36 However, among clinical studies, a consensus has not yet been reached on optimal cut-off values. One small study of patients with stable angina suggested that a cut-off of ≤15 % inhibition or >213 PRU may be optimal for the identification of patients with HTPR.47 Another study of patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) found that cut-off levels of 256 PRU and 26.5 % inhibition identified carriers of reduced-function cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19) allele on antiplatelet therapy, which is associated with a higher rate of clinical risk.48,49 As the prevalence of the CYP2C19 variant is higher in Asian population compared with the prevalence in Westerners, PRU ≥275 has predicted clinical events more accurately in this population.50,51 For low-risk patients, lower PRU values (180-210) have been used.18,52 However, the recommended cut-off of 208 was found to be significantly associated with the risk of ST at 30 days (HR 3.9, p=0.005) in the Assessment of Dual AntiPlatelet Therapy With Drug Eluting Stents (ADAPT-DES) registry study (n=8,583), which included a higher risk population (~50 % with ACS).26

A recent study found that HTPR decreases from baseline to one month, a trend that is partly influenced by genotype. The study found that HTPR at one month was the strongest predictor of adverse outcomes.53

While platelet activity appears to correlate with the risk of cardiovascular events and ST following PCI, studies investigating the use of platelet reactivity testing to guide treatment have had mixed results.18,44,54,55 The Gauging Responsiveness With A VerifyNow Assay-Impact On Thrombosis And Safety (GRAVITAS) trial investigated a strategy based on high-dose clopidogrel in patients with HTPR (defined as ≥230 PRU).25 However, this strategy of a fixed higher dose, regardless of the achieved level of platelet inhibition, did not reduce cardiovascular death, MI and ST after PCI compared with standard-dose clopidogrel.25 However, a subsequent analysis of GRAVITAS data found that achievement of <208 PRU was significantly and independently associated with a markedly lower risk of cardiovascular events at 60 days (adjusted HR 0.23; 95 % CI, 0.05-0.98; P=0.047).56 The lower cut-off may be due to the fact that this trial enrolled a relatively low-risk population. Consequently the trial showed low overall event rates. Furthermore, patients were randomised to single or double-dose clopidogrel rather than targeting to a specific inhibition level. Other studies have suggested that a triple dose may be needed in patients exhibiting variants in the CYP2C19 gene.57

The Testing Platelet Reactivity In Patients Undergoing Elective Stent Placement on Clopidogrel to Guide Alternative Therapy With Prasugrel (TRIGGER-PCI) trial, a randomised trial of prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with HTPR after PCI, was terminated early after a preliminary, blinded analysis indicated that the trial would not meet its primary endpoints. The rate of adverse ischaemic events was very low in the sample cohort, making it difficult to achieve statistical significance.54 However, the study enrolment was biased towards very low risk populations - approximately 30 % of the study population did not go on to randomisation after it was established that they had HTPR on clopidogrel.

The Assessment by a double Randomization of a Conventional antiplatelet strategy versus a monitoring-guided strategy for drug-eluting stent implantation and, of Treatment Interruption versus Continuation one year after stenting (ARCTIC) trial randomised patients scheduled for coronary stenting to platelet function monitoring with the VerifyNow and adjusting antiplatelet therapy accordingly versus no monitoring and conventional clopidogrel therapy. HTPR was defined as ≥230 PRU or a percent inhibition <15 %. In the monitoring arm, serial platelet function tests (before stent implantation and during the maintenance phase) and treatment adjustments using a predefined treatment algorithm were performed. In addition to treatment intensification due to high on-treatment platelet reactivity, patients could be switched back from prasugrel to clopidogrel after PCI if low on-treatment platelet reactivity was measured. Despite halving the rate of high platelet reactivity to adenosine diphosphate, the primary endpoint of death, MI, ST, stroke or urgent revascularisation was similar after one year with the two strategies (HR 1.13, 95 % CI 0.98-1.29; p=0.10).58 The risk level of the population, the cut-off value used to define HTPR, the heterogeneity in treatment adjustment (or lack of adjustment) in deemed non-responders, the rare use of prasugrel, which became available late after study initiation, and the lack of impact of treatment adjustment on other major determinants of platelet reactivity (such as treatment compliance) may account for the lack of benefit. However, ARCTIC is the only study that has evaluated by randomisation to the use of a platelet function test. It was appropriately powered to test the hypothesis of treatment monitoring. One-third of the randomised patients had an ACS, and one-year mortality was 2 %. Eight of 10 patients deemed non-responders were reloaded with clopidogrel and were given a glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor; 22 % of patients with high on-treatment platelet reactivity were on prasugrel at the end of the study. The rate of poor response was halved after treatment adjustment for both P2Y12 inhibition and aspirin pathway, further highlighting an aggressive approach.

Perspectives
Personalised therapeutic strategies based on platelet reactivity testing have yet to improve clinical outcomes in low-risk groups, perhaps due to the already low event rates observed in this patient population. However, it has been hypothesized that the approach may be more beneficial in high-risk patient populations.8,54 In addition to responsiveness to antiplatelet medication, there are numerous risk factors for future cardiovascular (CV) events following PCI; these are summarised in Table 2. Risk factors for non-response to antiplatelet therapy include advanced age,59 type 2 diabetes,60 particularly if treated with insulin,61 overweight patients,62 genetic factors49,63-66 and concomitant medications, particularly proton pump inhibitors.67,68

The Concept of a Therapeutic Window for Antiplatelet Therapy
The concept of a therapeutic window of P2Y12 reactivity defining the upper threshold as HPTR associated with ischaemic events and lower threshold based on bleeding risk has been suggested.28 A tudy using the VerifyNow assay established a therapeutic window of 86-238 PRU at a one month time-point that minimised both ischaemic and bleeding events (see Figure 3). At the time of PCI, the suggested cut-offs were 95 PRU for hyper- and 214 for hypo-response.53

There is a need to target high-risk patients groups to optimise the clinical utility of platelet reactivity testing. Recent American and European guidelines have included Class IIb recommendations for platelet reactivity testing in high-risk patients if the results may impact on patient management.69,70 Adjusting medication based on the results of platelet reactivity testing is already being carried out in some outpatient ST clinics and hundreds of US hospitals.71 It must be stressed that this approach has not been conclusively validated, though it is logical based on the desire to observe evidence of treatment success in patients treated with antiplatelet agents.

The ongoing Assessment of a Normal versus Tailored Dose of Prasugrel after Stenting in Patients Aged >75 Years to Reduce the Composite of Bleeding, Stent Thrombosis and Ischemic Complications (ANTARCTIC) study (ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT01538446) will assess the value of platelet function testing in older ACS patients, a complex population whereby major bleeds are as frequent as ischaemic events (see Figure 4). An ongoing phase of the ARCTIC trial, ARCTIC-2, will aim to determine the most effective duration of treatment.


Switching Strategies
Prasugrel has been associated with lower platelet reactivity than clopidogrel,72 providing evidence to support the rationale for switching therapies. The PLATelet inhibition and patient Outcomes (PLATO) study found that ticagrelor improved outcomes but did not increase the risk of major bleeding compared with clopidogrel for patients with ACS for whom an early invasive strategy was planned.17 The platelet substudy of the TaRgeted platelet Inhibition to cLarify the Optimal strateGy to medicallY manage Acute Coronary Syndromes (TRILOGY ACS) trial found that among patients with ACS without ST-segment elevation who were not treated with revascularisation, prasugrel use was associated with lower platelet reactivity compared with clopidogrel, irrespective of age, weight and dose. However, no significant differences between prasugrel versus clopidogrel in the occurrence of the primary efficacy endpoint, a composite of cardiovascular death, MI or stroke, were found. There was a univariate association between platelet reactivity and ischaemic outcomes that lost significance in an extensive multivariate analysis after adjustment of several factors, including variables associated with on-treatment platelet reactivity.73 Switching strategies have proved that switching from clopidogrel to prasugrel or ticagrelor results in decreased platelet function and is well-tolerated without any major safety events.74 The Randomised, Double-Blind, Outpatient, Crossover Study of the Anti-platelet Effects of Ticagrelor Compared With Clopidogrel in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease Previously Identified as Clopidogrel Non-responders or Responders (RESPOND) study found that treatment of clopidogrel non-responders with ticagrelor in a >10 %, >30 % and >50 %, decrease in platelet aggregation from baseline in 100 %, 75 % and 13 % of patients, respectively, and its antiplatelet activity was the same in responders and non-responders. Almost all clopidogrel non-responders and responders treated with ticagrelor had platelet reactivity below the cut-points associated with ischaemic risk.75 The ADAPT-DES study demonstrated that patients with a detectable drug effect on clopidogrel (PRU <208) represent a lower risk cohort than do those with no effect, and as a result, the ischaemic benefit with the newer, more expensive P2Y12 inhibitors will be smaller than that in patients without a detectable drug effect, but will potentially expose them to a greater bleeding risk.26,76

Combining PLATelet Reactivity Testing with Point-ofcare Genetic Testing
The Spartan RX CYP2C19 assay is a point-of-care genetic test that identifies carriers of the CYP2C19 mutation. A prospective, randomised proof-of-concept trial found that the test was specific and sensitive for measuring the genotype, compared to sequencing, and could be performed at the bedside.77 Several larger clinical trials are currently investigating this technique.78-80 Combining platelet reactivity testing with point-of-care genetic testing may provide a personalised approach to guiding treatment with antiplatelet therapies.

Summary and Concluding Remarks
Platelet reactivity testing using VerifyNow has an important role in monitoring the therapeutic efficiency of clopigogrel and the safety of therapeutic escalation to more potent drugs that confer an increased bleeding risk. It has found to be predictive of clinical outcomes in numerous cardiovascular and neurovascular interventions where antiplatelet therapies are employed. However, further study is needed to fully assess its prognostic role. While the prognostic value of testing in PCI has been demonstrated repeatedly in cohort studies and meta-analyses, randomised controlled studies investigating the clinical utility of the technique to guide treatment decision have had mixed results. Reasons may include a lack of consensus on the optimal method to quantify high on-treatment platelet reactivity and the cut-off value associated with clinical risk. At present, it seems reasonable to assess platelet function in high-risk patient groups. A combination of platelet tests may be useful to further define a high-risk population, together with the assessment of demographic and genetic factors associated with high risk. Point-of-care genetic testing may also be combined with platelet reactivity testing. Clinical trials using a combined genotyping and phenotyping approach are underway to better define the role of such tests in guiding antiplatelet therapy in clinical practice.

The advent of the stronger P2Y12 inhibitors such as prasugrel and ticagrelor and their increased cost and bleeding risk compared with clopidogrel, will necessitate the establishment of a therapeutic window to achieve optimal and cost-effective platelet inhibition while minimising bleeding risk.2,3 As we move towards conclusively defining a therapeutic window for antiplatelet agents, platelet reactivity testing will become a central tool in the practice of personalised antiplatelet strategies.

References
  1. Ruggeri ZM, Platelets in atherothrombosis, Nature Med, 2002;8:1227-34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Steinhubl SR, Berger PB, Mann JT 3rd, et al., Early and sustained dual oral antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention: a randomized controlled trial, JAMA, 2002;288:2411-20.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Clinton P, Mozeson M, Pharma Exec 50, 2010. Available at: http://pharmexec.ndpharma.com/pharmexec/data/ articlestandard//pharmexec/222010/671415/article.pdf (accessed 12 September 2013).
    Crossref
  4. Wenaweser P, Daemen J, Zwahlen M, et al., Incidence and correlates of drug-eluting stent thrombosis in routine clinical practice. 4-year results from a large 2-institutional cohort study, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2008;52:1134-40.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Dangas GD, Caixeta A, Mehran R, et al., Frequency and predictors of stent thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction, Circulation, 2011;123:1745-56.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Serebruany VL, Steinhubl SR, Berger PB, et al., Variability in platelet responsiveness to clopidogrel among 544 individuals, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2005;45:246-51.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Angiolillo DJ, Fernandez-Ortiz A, Bernardo E, et al., Variability in individual responsiveness to clopidogrel: clinical implications, management, and future perspectives, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2007;49:1505-16.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Bonello L, Tantry US, Marcucci R, et al., Consensus and future directions on the denition of high on-treatment platelet reactivity to adenosine diphosphate, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2010;56:919-33.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Aradi D, Komocsi A, Vorobcsuk A, et al., Prognostic signicance of high on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity after percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis, Am Heart J, 2010;160:543-51.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Brar SS, ten Berg J, Marcucci R, et al., Impact of platelet reactivity on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention. A collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2011;58:1945-54.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Matetzky S, Shenkman B, Guetta V, et al., Clopidogrel resistance is associated with increased risk of recurrent atherothrombotic events in patients with acute myocardial infarction, Circulation, 2004;109:3171-5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Gum PA, Kottke-Marchant K, Welsh PA, et al., A prospective, blinded determination of the natural history of aspirin resistance among stable patients with cardiovascular disease, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2003;41:961-5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Breet NJ, van Werkum JW, Bouman HJ, et al., High on-aspirin platelet reactivity as measured with aggregation-based, cyclooxygenase-1 inhibition sensitive platelet function tests is associated with the occurrence of atherothrombotic events, J Thromb Haemost, 2010;8:2140-8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Chen WH, Cheng X, Lee PY, et al., Aspirin resistance and adverse clinical events in patients with coronary artery disease, Am J Med, 2007;120:631-5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, et al., Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes, N Engl J Med, 2007;357:2001-15.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A, et al., Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes, N Engl J Med, 2009;361:1045-57.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Cannon CP, Harrington RA, James S, et al., Comparison of ticagrelor with clopidogrel in patients with a planned invasive strategy for acute coronary syndromes (PLATO): a randomised double-blind study, Lancet, 2010;375:283-93.
    Crossref | PubMed
  18. Valgimigli M, Campo G, de Cesare N, et al., Intensifying platelet inhibition with tiroban in poor responders to aspirin, clopidogrel, or both agents undergoing elective coronary intervention: results from the double-blind, prospective, randomized Tailoring Treatment with Tiroban in Patients Showing Resistance to Aspirin and/or Resistance to Clopidogrel study, Circulation, 2009;119:3215-22.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Montalescot G, Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, et al., Prasugrel compared with clopidogrel in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (TRITON-TIMI 38): double-blind, randomised controlled trial, Lancet, 2009;373:723-31.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Mehta SR, Tanguay JF, Eikelboom JW, et al., Double-dose versus standard-dose clopidogrel and high-dose versus low-dose aspirin in individuals undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes (CURRENT-OASIS 7): a randomised factorial trial, Lancet, 2010;376:1233-43.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. Sibbing D, Schulz S, Braun S, et al., Antiplatelet effects of clopidogrel and bleeding in patients undergoing coronary stent placement, J Thromb Haemost, 2010;8:250-6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Goh C, Churilov L, Mitchell P, et al., Clopidogrel hyperresponse and bleeding risk in neurointerventional procedures, AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2013;34:721-6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Delgado Almandoz JE, Crandall BM, Scholz JM, et al., Preprocedure P2Y12 reaction units value predicts perioperative thromboembolic and hemorrhagic complications in patients with cerebral aneurysms treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device, J Neurointerv Surg, 2013 [Epub ahead of print].
    Crossref
  24. Delgado Almandoz JE, Crandall BM, Scholz JM, et al., Last- Recorded P2Y12 Reaction Units Value Is Strongly Associated with Thromboembolic and Hemorrhagic Complications Occurring Up to 6 Months after Treatment in Patients with Cerebral Aneurysms Treated with the Pipeline Embolization Device, AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2013 [Epub ahead of print].
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Price MJ, Berger PB, Angiolillo DJ, et al., Evaluation of individualized clopidogrel therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with high residual platelet reactivity: design and rationale of the GRAVITAS trial, Am Heart J, 2009;157:818-24, 24 e1.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Stone GW, Witzenbichler B, Weisz G, et al., Platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES): a prospective multicentre registry study, Lancet, 2013;382:614-23.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Bolton-Maggs PH, Chalmers EA, Collins PW, et al., A review of inherited platelet disorders with guidelines for their management on behalf of the UKHCDO, Br J Haematol, 2006;135:603-33.
    Crossref | PubMed
  28. Gurbel Pa, Tantry US, The Role of Platelet Function Testing in Risk Stratication and Clinical Decision-Making, Intervent Cardiol Clin, 2013 [in press].
    Crossref
  29. Cattaneo M, Hayward CP, Moffat KA, et al., Results of a worldwide survey on the assessment of platelet function by light transmission aggregometry: a report from the platelet physiology subcommittee of the SSC of the ISTH, J Thromb Haemost, 2009;7:1029.
    Crossref | PubMed
  30. Breet NJ, van Werkum JW, Bouman HJ, et al., Comparison of platelet function tests in predicting clinical outcome in patients undergoing coronary stent implantation, JAMA, 2010;303:754-62.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. van Werkum JW, van der Stelt CA, Seesing TH, et al., A head-to-head comparison between the Verify Now P2Y12 assay and light transmittance aggregometry for monitoring the individual platelet response to clopidogrel in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention, J Thromb Haemost, 2006;4:2516-8.
    Crossref
  32. Malinin A, Pokov A, Swaim L, et al., Validation of a VerifyNow- P2Y12 cartridge for monitoring platelet inhibition with clopidogrel, Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol, 2006;28:315-22.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Malinin A, Pokov A, Spergling M, et al., Monitoring platelet inhibition after clopidogrel with the VerifyNow-P2Y12(R) rapid analyzer: the VERIfy Thrombosis risk ASsessment (VERITAS) study, Thromb Res, 2007;119:277-84.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. v an Werkum JW, Harmsze AM, Elsenberg EH, et al., The use of the VerifyNow system to monitor antiplatelet therapy: a review of the current evidence, Platelets, 2008;19:479-88.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Varenhorst C, James S, Erlinge D, et al., Assessment of P2Y(12) inhibition with the point-of-care device VerifyNow P2Y12 in patients treated with prasugrel or clopidogrel coadministered with aspirin, Am Heart J, 2009;157:562 e1-9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. Accumentrics, VerifyNow P2Y12 Platelet Reactivity Test, package insert. Available at: Link is http://www.accumetrics. com/dmdocuments/P2Y12/14464C-VN-P2Y12_Test-PI_EN.pdf (accessed 17 September 2013).
  37. Spiliopoulos S, Pastromas G, Katsanos K, et al., Platelet Responsiveness to Clopidogrel Treatment After Peripheral Endovascular Procedures: The PRECLOP Study: Clinical Impact and Optimal Cutoff Value of On-Treatment High Platelet Reactivity, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2013;61:2428-34.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Pastromas G, Spiliopoulos S, Katsanos K, et al., Clopidogrel Responsiveness in Patients Undergoing Peripheral Angioplasty, Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol, 2013 [Epub ahead of print].
    Crossref | PubMed
  39. Mahla E, Suarez TA, Bliden KP, et al., Platelet function measurement-based strategy to reduce bleeding and waiting time in clopidogrel-treated patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: the timing based on platelet function strategy to reduce clopidogrel-associated bleeding related to CABG (TARGET-CABG) study, Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 2012;5:261-9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Ferraris VA, Saha SP, Oestreich JH, et al., 2012 update to the Society of Thoracic Surgeons guideline on use of antiplatelet drugs in patients having cardiac and noncardiac operations, Ann Thorac Surg, 2012;94:1761-81.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Fi JT, Brockington C, Narang J, et al., Clopidogrel resistance is associated with thromboembolic complications in patients undergoing neurovascular stenting, AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2013;34:716-20.
    Crossref | PubMed
  42. Diener HC, Bogousslavsky J, Brass LM, et al., Aspirin and clopidogrel compared with clopidogrel alone after recent ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack in high-risk patients (MATCH): randomised, double-blind, placebocontrolled trial, Lancet, 2004;364:331-7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. Steinhubl SR, Talley JD, Braden GA, et al., Point-of-care measured platelet inhibition correlates with a reduced risk of an adverse cardiac event after percutaneous coronary intervention: results of the GOLD (AU-Assessing Ultegra) multicenter study, Circulation, 2001;103:2572-8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Aradi D, Kom├│csi A, Price MJ, et al., Efcacy and safety of intensied antiplatelet therapy on the basis of platelet reactivity testing in patients after percutaneous coronary intervention: Systematic review and meta-analysis, Int J Cardiol, 2013;167(5):2140-8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Coleman CI, Limone BL, Cost-Effectiveness of Universal and Platelet Reactivity Assay-Driven Antiplatelet Therapy in Acute Coronary Syndrome, Am J Cardiol, 2013;112(3):355-62.
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Price MJ, Endemann S, Gollapudi RR, et al., Prognostic signicance of post-clopidogrel platelet reactivity assessed by a point-of-care assay on thrombotic events after drugeluting stent implantation, Eur Heart J, 2008;29:992-1000.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Godino C, Mendolicchio L, Figini F, et al., Comparison of VerifyNow-P2Y12 test and Flow Cytometry for monitoring individual platelet response to clopidogrel. What is the cutoff value for identifying patients who are low responders to clopidogrel therapy?, Thromb J, 2009;7:4.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Ono T, Kaikita K, Hokimoto S, et al., Determination of cutoff levels for on-clopidogrel platelet aggregation based on functional CYP2C19 gene variants in patients undergoing elective percutaneous coronary intervention, Thromb Res, 2011;128:e130-6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Collet JP, Hulot JS, Pena A, et al., Cytochrome P450 2C19 polymorphism in young patients treated with clopidogrel after myocardial infarction: a cohort study, Lancet, 2009;373:309-17.
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. Park K, Genetic determinants of clopidogrel response variability as measured by verify-now p2y12 assay in Koreans, Presented at: The Korean Society of Interventional Cardiology; 6th Winter Symposium and 11th Korea-Japan Intervention Symposium, Jeju, Korea, 15-16 January 2011.
  51. Kim BJ, Lee SW, Park SW, et al., Insufcient platelet inhibition is related to silent embolic cerebral infarctions after coronary angiography, Stroke, 2012;43:727-32.
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Campo G, Fileti L, de Cesare N, et al., Long-term clinical outcome based on aspirin and clopidogrel responsiveness status after elective percutaneous coronary intervention: a 3T/2R (tailoring treatment with tiroban in patients showing resistance to aspirin and/or resistance to clopidogrel) trial substudy, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2010;56:1447-55.
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. Campo G, Parrinello G, Ferraresi P, et al., Prospective evaluation of on-clopidogrel platelet reactivity over time in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention relationship with gene polymorphisms and clinical outcome, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2011;57:2474-83.
    Crossref | PubMed
  54. Trenk D, Stone GW, Gawaz M, et al., A randomized trial of prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with high platelet reactivity on clopidogrel after elective percutaneous coronary intervention with implantation of drug-eluting stents: results of the TRIGGER-PCI (Testing Platelet Reactivity In Patients Undergoing Elective Stent Placement on Clopidogrel to Guide Alternative Therapy With Prasugrel) study, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2012;59:2159-64.
    Crossref | PubMed
  55. Cuisset T, Frere C, Quilici J, et al., Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors improve outcome after coronary stenting in clopidogrel nonresponders: a prospective, randomized study, JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2008;1:649-53.
    Crossref | PubMed
  56. Price MJ, Angiolillo DJ, Teirstein PS, et al., Platelet reactivity and cardiovascular outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention: a time-dependent analysis of the Gauging Responsiveness with a VerifyNow P2Y12 assay: Impact on Thrombosis and Safety (GRAVITAS) trial, Circulation, 2011;124:1132-7.
    Crossref | PubMed
  57. Mega JL, Hochholzer W, Frelinger AL 3rd, et al., Dosing clopidogrel based on CYP2C19 genotype and the effect on platelet reactivity in patients with stable cardiovascular disease, JAMA, 2011;306:2221-8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  58. Collet JP, Cuisset T, Range G, et al., Bedside monitoring to adjust antiplatelet therapy for coronary stenting, N Engl J Med, 2012;367:2100-9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  59. Silvain J, Cayla G, Hulot JS, et al., High on-thienopyridine platelet reactivity in elderly coronary patients: the SENIOR-PLATELET study, Eur Heart J, 2012;33:1241-9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  60. Angiolillo DJ, Fernandez-Ortiz A, Bernardo E, et al., Platelet function proles in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease on combined aspirin and clopidogrel treatment, Diabetes, 2005;54:2430-5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  61. Angiolillo DJ, Bernardo E, Ramirez C, et al., Insulin therapy is associated with platelet dysfunction in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus on dual oral antiplatelet treatment, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2006;48:298-304.
    Crossref | PubMed
  62. Angiolillo DJ, Fernandez-Ortiz A, Bernardo E, et al., Platelet aggregation according to body mass index in patients undergoing coronary stenting: should clopidogrel loading-dose be weight adjusted?, J Invasive Cardiol, 2004;16:169-74.
    PubMed
  63. Sibbing D, Stegherr J, Latz W, et al., Cytochrome P450 2C19 loss-of-function polymorphism and stent thrombosis following percutaneous coronary intervention, Eur Heart J, 2009;30:916-22.
    Crossref | PubMed
  64. Giusti B, Gori AM, Marcucci R, et al., Relation of cytochrome P450 2C19 loss-of-function polymorphism to occurrence of drug-eluting coronary stent thrombosis, Am J Cardiol, 2009;103:806-11.
    Crossref | PubMed
  65. Simon T, Verstuyft C, Mary-Krause M, et al., Genetic determinants of response to clopidogrel and cardiovascular events, N Engl J Med, 2009;360:363-75.
    Crossref | PubMed
  66. Spertus JA, Kettelkamp R, Vance C, et al., Prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of premature discontinuation of thienopyridine therapy after drug-eluting stent placement: results from the PREMIER registry, Circulation, 2006;113:2803-9.
    Crossref | PubMed
  67. Gaglia MA Jr, Torguson R, Hanna N, et al., Relation of proton pump inhibitor use after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents to outcomes, Am J Cardiol, 2010;105:833-8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  68. Gupta E, Bansal D, Sotos J, et al., Risk of adverse clinical outcomes with concomitant use of clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors following percutaneous coronary intervention, Dig Dis Sci, 2010;55:1964-8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  69. Hamm CW, Bassand JP, Agewall S, et al., ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), Eur Heart J, 2011;32:2999-3054.
    Crossref | PubMed
  70. Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al., 2011 ACCF/AHA/ SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention. A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/ American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2011;58:e44-122.
    Crossref | PubMed
  71. Godschalk TC, Hackeng CM, Ten Berg JM, Towards personalized medicine based on platelet function testing for stent thrombosis patients, Thrombosis, 2012;2012:617098.
    Crossref | PubMed
  72. Montalescot G, Sideris G, Cohen R, et al., Prasugrel compared with high-dose clopidogrel in acute coronary syndrome. The randomised, double-blind ACAPULCO study, Thromb Haemost, 2010;103:213-23.
    Crossref | PubMed
  73. Gurbel PA, Erlinge D, Ohman EM, et al., Platelet function during extended prasugrel and clopidogrel therapy for patients with ACS treated without revascularization: the TRILOGY ACS platelet function substudy, JAMA, 2012;308:1785-94.
    Crossref | PubMed
  74. Angiolillo DJ, Saucedo JF, Deraad R, et al., Increased platelet inhibition after switching from maintenance clopidogrel to prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes: results of the SWAP (SWitching Anti Platelet) study, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2010;56:1017-23.
    Crossref | PubMed
  75. Gurbel PA, Bliden KP, Butler K, et al., Response to ticagrelor in clopidogrel nonresponders and responders and effect of switching therapies: the RESPOND study, Circulation, 2010;121:1188-99.
    Crossref | PubMed
  76. Price MJ, Platelet reactivity after coronary stenting, Lancet, 2013;382:583-4.
    Crossref | PubMed
  77. Roberts JD, Wells GA, Le May MR, et al., Point-of-care genetic testing for personalisation of antiplatelet treatment (RAPID GENE): a prospective, randomised, proof-of-concept trial, Lancet, 2012;379:1705-11.
    Crossref | PubMed
  78. ClinicalTrials.gov, Pharmacogenetic Approach to Antiplatelet Therapy for the Treatment of ST-segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction (STEMI) (RAPID STEMI), 2013. Available at: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01452139 (accessed 12 September 2013).
    Crossref
  79. ClinicalTrials.gov, Tailored Antiplatelet Therapy Following PCI (TAILOR-PCI), 2013. Available at: www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/ show/NCT01742117 (accessed 12 September 2013).
  80. ClinicalTrials.gov, Customized Choice of Oral P2Y12 Receptor Blocker (PRU-MATRIX), 2013. Available at: www.clinicaltrials. gov/ct2/show/NCT01477775 (accessed 12 September 2013).
    Crossref
  81. Chen WH, Lee PY, Ng W, et al., Aspirin resistance is associated with a high incidence of myonecrosis after non-urgent percutaneous coronary intervention despite clopidogrel pretreatment, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2004;43:1122-6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  82. Urban P, Gershlick AH, Guagliumi G, et al., Safety of coronary sirolimus-eluting stents in daily clinical practice: one-year follow-up of the e-Cypher registry, Circulation, 2006;113:1434-41.
    Crossref | PubMed
  83. Ergelen M, Uyarel H, Osmonov D, et al., Early stent thrombosis in patients undergoing primary coronary stenting for acute myocardial infarction: incidence, a simple risk score, and prognosis, Clin Appl Thromb Hemost, 2010;16:33-41.
    Crossref | PubMed
  84. Baran KW, Lasala JM, Cox DA, et al., A clinical risk score for prediction of stent thrombosis, Am J Cardiol, 2008;102:541-5.
    Crossref | PubMed
  85. Bezerra H, Perin E, Berger P, et al., Outcomes of unselected recipients of sirolimus-eluting stents: the Cypher stent U.S. post-marketing surveillance registry, J Invasive Cardiol, 2010;22:48-55.
    PubMed
  86. Madan P, Elayda MA, Lee VV, et al., Predicting major adverse cardiac events after percutaneous coronary intervention: the Texas Heart Institute risk score, Am Heart J, 2008;155:1068-74.
    Crossref | PubMed
  87. Lasala JM, Cox DA, Dobies D, et al., Drug-eluting stent thrombosis in routine clinical practice: two-year outcomes and predictors from the TAXUS ARRIVE registries, Circ Cardiovasc Interv, 2009;2:285-93.
    Crossref | PubMed
  88. Costa JR Jr, Sousa A, Moreira AC, et al., Incidence and predictors of very late (>or=4 years) major cardiac adverse events in the DESIRE (Drug-Eluting Stents in the Real World)- Late registry, JACC Cardiovasc Interv, 2010;3:12-8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  89. van Werkum JW, Heestermans AA, Zomer AC, et al., Predictors of coronary stent thrombosis: the Dutch Stent Thrombosis Registry, J Am Coll Cardiol, 2009;53:1399-409.
    Crossref | PubMed
  90. Rinaldi MJ, Kirtane AJ, Piana RN, et al., Clinical, procedural, and pharmacologic correlates of acute and subacute stent thrombosis: results of a multicenter case-control study with 145 thrombosis events, Am Heart J, 2008;155:654-60.
    Crossref | PubMed