Jean-Philippe Collet1, Jean-Sébastien Hulot1, Thomas Cuisset2, Grégoire Rangé3, Guillaume Cayla4, Eric Van Belle5, Simon Elhadad6, Hélène Rousseau7,8, Pierre Sabouret1, Stephen A O'Connor1, Jérémie Abtan1, Mathieu Kerneis1, Christophe Saint-Etienne9, Olivier Barthélémy1, Farzin Beygui10, Johanne Silvain1, Eric Vicaut7,8, Gilles Montalescot11. 1. ACTION Study Group, Institut de Cardiologie, INSERM_UMRS 1166, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital (APHP), Sorbonne Universités UPMC (Paris 6), Paris, France. 2. Département de Cardiologie, CHU La Timone, Marseille, France. 3. Les Hôpitaux de Chartres, Le Coudray, France. 4. ACTION study group, Cardiologie, CHU Carémeau, Nîmes, France. 5. Department of Cardiology, Lille University Hospital, INSERM UMR 1011, University Lille 2, Lille, France. 6. Cardiologie, CH de Lagny-Marne la Vallée, Lagny-sur-Marne, France. 7. ACTION Study Group, Unité de Recherche Clinique-Hôpital Lariboisière (APHP), Paris, France. 8. Université Denis Diderot, Paris, France. 9. CHU Trousseau, Tours, France. 10. ACTION study Group, CHU Caen, Caen, France. 11. ACTION Study Group, Institut de Cardiologie, INSERM_UMRS 1166, Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital (APHP), Sorbonne Universités UPMC (Paris 6), Paris, France. gilles.montalescot@aphp.fr.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The ARCTIC study randomized 2440 patients scheduled for stent implantation to a strategy of platelet function monitoring with drug adjustment in patients who had a poor response to antiplatelet therapy or to a conventional strategy without monitoring and drug adjustment. No significant improvement in clinical outcomes with platelet function monitoring was observed. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess the relationships between CYP2C19 genotypes, clopidogrel pharmacodynamic response, and clinical outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the ARCTIC-GENE study, 1394 patients were genotyped for loss- and gain-of-functionCYP2C19 alleles. Randomization of treatment strategy was well balanced. Slow metabolizers identified as carriers of at least one loss-of-function allele CYP2C19*2 (n = 459) were more likely poor responders at randomization (41.6 vs. 31.6%, p = 0.0112) and 14 days later (23.8 vs. 10.4%, p < 0.0001) and more frequently on prasugrel (11.5 vs. 8.1%, p = 0.039) as compared with rapid metabolizers (n = 935). Intensification of antiplatelet treatment did not differ between slow and rapid metabolizers according to the study algorithm based on platelet function only. The primary study outcome defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization 1 year after stent implantation did not differ between slow and rapid metabolizers (HR 0.988, 95% CI [0.812;1.202], p = 0.90). Likewise, the primary safety outcome did not differ between rapid and slow metabolizer phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: The genetic clopidogrel profile was a good marker of platelet function response on clopidogrel but was not related to clinical outcome suggesting that the genetic added little to the pharmacodynamic information used in the study to adjust antiplatelet therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00827411.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: The ARCTIC study randomized 2440 patients scheduled for stent implantation to a strategy of platelet function monitoring with drug adjustment in patients who had a poor response to antiplatelet therapy or to a conventional strategy without monitoring and drug adjustment. No significant improvement in clinical outcomes with platelet function monitoring was observed. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to assess the relationships between CYP2C19 genotypes, clopidogrel pharmacodynamic response, and clinical outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: In the ARCTIC-GENE study, 1394 patients were genotyped for loss- and gain-of-function CYP2C19 alleles. Randomization of treatment strategy was well balanced. Slow metabolizers identified as carriers of at least one loss-of-function allele CYP2C19*2 (n = 459) were more likely poor responders at randomization (41.6 vs. 31.6%, p = 0.0112) and 14 days later (23.8 vs. 10.4%, p < 0.0001) and more frequently on prasugrel (11.5 vs. 8.1%, p = 0.039) as compared with rapid metabolizers (n = 935). Intensification of antiplatelet treatment did not differ between slow and rapid metabolizers according to the study algorithm based on platelet function only. The primary study outcome defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction, stent thrombosis, stroke, or urgent revascularization 1 year after stent implantation did not differ between slow and rapid metabolizers (HR 0.988, 95% CI [0.812;1.202], p = 0.90). Likewise, the primary safety outcome did not differ between rapid and slow metabolizer phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: The genetic clopidogrel profile was a good marker of platelet function response on clopidogrel but was not related to clinical outcome suggesting that the genetic added little to the pharmacodynamic information used in the study to adjust antiplatelet therapy. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00827411.
Authors: Gilles Montalescot; Udo Sechtem; Stephan Achenbach; Felicita Andreotti; Chris Arden; Andrzej Budaj; Raffaele Bugiardini; Filippo Crea; Thomas Cuisset; Carlo Di Mario; J Rafael Ferreira; Bernard J Gersh; Anselm K Gitt; Jean-Sebastien Hulot; Nikolaus Marx; Lionel H Opie; Matthias Pfisterer; Eva Prescott; Frank Ruschitzka; Manel Sabaté; Roxy Senior; David Paul Taggart; Ernst E van der Wall; Christiaan J M Vrints; Jose Luis Zamorano; Stephan Achenbach; Helmut Baumgartner; Jeroen J Bax; Héctor Bueno; Veronica Dean; Christi Deaton; Cetin Erol; Robert Fagard; Roberto Ferrari; David Hasdai; Arno W Hoes; Paulus Kirchhof; Juhani Knuuti; Philippe Kolh; Patrizio Lancellotti; Ales Linhart; Petros Nihoyannopoulos; Massimo F Piepoli; Piotr Ponikowski; Per Anton Sirnes; Juan Luis Tamargo; Michal Tendera; Adam Torbicki; William Wijns; Stephan Windecker; Juhani Knuuti; Marco Valgimigli; Héctor Bueno; Marc J Claeys; Norbert Donner-Banzhoff; Cetin Erol; Herbert Frank; Christian Funck-Brentano; Oliver Gaemperli; José R Gonzalez-Juanatey; Michalis Hamilos; David Hasdai; Steen Husted; Stefan K James; Kari Kervinen; Philippe Kolh; Steen Dalby Kristensen; Patrizio Lancellotti; Aldo Pietro Maggioni; Massimo F Piepoli; Axel R Pries; Francesco Romeo; Lars Rydén; Maarten L Simoons; Per Anton Sirnes; Ph Gabriel Steg; Adam Timmis; William Wijns; Stephan Windecker; Aylin Yildirir; Jose Luis Zamorano Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2013-08-30 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Udaya S Tantry; Laurent Bonello; Daniel Aradi; Matthew J Price; Young-Hoon Jeong; Dominick J Angiolillo; Gregg W Stone; Nick Curzen; Tobias Geisler; Jurrien Ten Berg; Ajay Kirtane; Jolanta Siller-Matula; Elisabeth Mahla; Richard C Becker; Deepak L Bhatt; Ron Waksman; Sunil V Rao; Dimitrios Alexopoulos; Rossella Marcucci; Jean-Luc Reny; Dietmar Trenk; Dirk Sibbing; Paul A Gurbel Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2013-09-27 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Deepak L Bhatt; Guillaume Paré; John W Eikelboom; Katy L Simonsen; Eileen S Emison; Keith A A Fox; Ph Gabriel Steg; Gilles Montalescot; Nihar Bhakta; Werner Hacke; Marcus D Flather; Koon-Hou Mak; Patrice Cacoub; Mark A Creager; Peter B Berger; Steven R Steinhubl; Gurunathan Murugesan; Shamir R Mehta; Kandice Kottke-Marchant; A Michael Lincoff; Eric J Topol Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2012-03-26 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: Dominick J Angiolillo; Antonio Fernandez-Ortiz; Esther Bernardo; Fernando Alfonso; Carlos Macaya; Theodore A Bass; Marco A Costa Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2007-03-26 Impact factor: 24.094