Mahn-Won Park1, Sung Ho Her1, Chan Joon Kim1, Jung SunCho1, Gyung-Min Park1, Tae-Seok Kim1, Yun-Seok Choi2, Chul-Soo Park2, Yoon-Seok Koh3, Hun-Jun Park3, Pum-Joon Kim3, Wook-Sung Chung3, Ki-Bae Seung3, Ho-Sook Kim4,5, Jae-Gook Shin4,5, Kiyuk Chang3. 1. Department of Cardiology, Daejeon St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. Department of Cardiology, Yeouido St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 3. Department of Cardiology, Seoul St. Mary's Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Republic of Korea. 4. Department of Pharmacology and PharmacoGenomics Research Center, Inje University College of Medicine, Gimhae, Korea. 5. Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Inje University Busan Paik Hospital, Gimhae, Korea.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We evaluated the incremental prognostic value of combining the CYP2C19 poor metabolizer (PM) and ABCB1 3435 TT for adverse clinical outcomes over conventional risk factors in a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) cohort. METHODS: We enrolled 2,188 patients. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke during 1-year follow-up. The population was stratified into the following four groups: CYP2C19 EM/IM+ABCB1 3435 CC/CT, CYP2C19 EM/IM+ABCB1 3435 TT, CYP2C19 PM+ABCB1 3435 CC/CT, and CYP2C19 PM+ABCB1 3435 TT. RESULTS: A total of 87 (3.97%) primary end-point events occurred (64 deaths, 8 non-fatal MIs and 15 strokes). Multivariate Cox analysis indicated that CYP2C19 PM+ABCB1 3435 TT status was a significant predictor of the primary end point (hazard ratio = 4.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.92-10.58). However, addition of combined genetic status to the clinical risk model did not improve the model discrimination (C-statistic = 0.786 (95% CI = 0.734-0.837) to 0.785 (95% CI = 0.733-0.838)) or risk reclassification (categorical net reclassification improvement (0.040, P = 0.32), integrated discrimination improvement (0.021, P = 0.026)). CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world East Asian PCI population taking clopidogrel, although the concurrent presence of CYP2C19 PM and ABCB1 TT is a strong independent predictor of adverse outcomes, the combined status of two at-risk variants does not have an incremental prognostic value beyond that of the conventional clinical risk factors.Genet Med 18 8, 833-841.
PURPOSE: We evaluated the incremental prognostic value of combining the CYP2C19 poor metabolizer (PM) and ABCB1 3435 TT for adverse clinical outcomes over conventional risk factors in a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) cohort. METHODS: We enrolled 2,188 patients. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI), and stroke during 1-year follow-up. The population was stratified into the following four groups: CYP2C19 EM/IM+ABCB1 3435 CC/CT, CYP2C19 EM/IM+ABCB1 3435 TT, CYP2C19 PM+ABCB1 3435 CC/CT, and CYP2C19 PM+ABCB1 3435 TT. RESULTS: A total of 87 (3.97%) primary end-point events occurred (64 deaths, 8 non-fatal MIs and 15 strokes). Multivariate Cox analysis indicated that CYP2C19 PM+ABCB1 3435 TT status was a significant predictor of the primary end point (hazard ratio = 4.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.92-10.58). However, addition of combined genetic status to the clinical risk model did not improve the model discrimination (C-statistic = 0.786 (95% CI = 0.734-0.837) to 0.785 (95% CI = 0.733-0.838)) or risk reclassification (categorical net reclassification improvement (0.040, P = 0.32), integrated discrimination improvement (0.021, P = 0.026)). CONCLUSIONS: In a real-world East Asian PCI population taking clopidogrel, although the concurrent presence of CYP2C19 PM and ABCB1 TT is a strong independent predictor of adverse outcomes, the combined status of two at-risk variants does not have an incremental prognostic value beyond that of the conventional clinical risk factors.Genet Med 18 8, 833-841.
Authors: Michael J Pencina; Ralph B D'Agostino; Karol M Pencina; A Cecile J W Janssens; Philip Greenland Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2012-08-08 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Alan R Shuldiner; Jeffrey R O'Connell; Kevin P Bliden; Amish Gandhi; Kathleen Ryan; Richard B Horenstein; Coleen M Damcott; Ruth Pakyz; Udaya S Tantry; Quince Gibson; Toni I Pollin; Wendy Post; Afshin Parsa; Braxton D Mitchell; Nauder Faraday; William Herzog; Paul A Gurbel Journal: JAMA Date: 2009-08-26 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Dietmar Trenk; Willibald Hochholzer; Martin F Fromm; Ligia-Emilia Chialda; Andreas Pahl; Christian M Valina; Christian Stratz; Peter Schmiebusch; Hans-Peter Bestehorn; Heinz Joachim Büttner; Franz-Josef Neumann Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2008-05-20 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Koon-Hou Mak; Deepak L Bhatt; Mingyuan Shao; Graeme J Hankey; J Donald Easton; Keith A A Fox; Eric J Topol Journal: Am Heart J Date: 2008-11-06 Impact factor: 4.749
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