ABSTRACT
<p><b>Background</b>High platelet reactivity (HPR) during clopidogrel treatment predicts postpercutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) ischemic events strongly and independently. Tongxinluo capsules (TCs) are a traditional Chinese medicine formulation used as antiplatelet treatment. However, its efficacy against HPR is not known. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of TCs in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients with HPR.</p><p><b>Methods</b>This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study prospectively analyzed 136 ACS patients with HPR who underwent PCI. The patients were enrolled from November 2013 to May 2014 and randomized to receive placebo or TCs in addition to standard dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with aspirin and clopidogrel. The primary end points were the prevalence of HPR at 30 days and the mean change in P2Yreaction units (PRUs) between baseline and 30 days. Survival curves were constructed with Kaplan-Meier estimates and compared by log-rank tests between the two groups.</p><p><b>Results</b>Both groups had a significantly reduced prevalence of HPR at 30 days versus baseline, but the TC group, compared with the placebo group, had greater reduction (15.8% vs. 24.8%, P = 0.013), especially among patients with one cytochrome P450 2C19 loss of function (LOF) allele (χ= 2.931, P = 0.047). The TC group also had a lower prevalence of HPR (33.3% vs. 54.2%, t = 5.284, P = 0.022) and superior performance in light transmittance aggregometry and higher levels of high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP), but the composite prevalence of ischemic events did not differ significantly (χ= 1.587, P = 0.208).</p><p><b>Conclusions</b>In addition to standard DAPT with aspirin and clopidogrel, TCs further reduce PRU and hsCRP levels, especially in patients carrying only one LOF allele. The data suggest that TCs could be used in combination therapy for ACS patients with HPR undergoing PCI.</p>
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: Individuals taking aspirin but who fail to appropriately respond to the medication may remain at higher risk of thrombotic events. To provide reference for rational use of aspirin and reduce the risk of adverse reactions, clinical pharmacists need to comprehend the status of aspirin resistance. METHODS: We have reviewed, analyzed, and summarized domestic and foreign literatures published in the last five years that are related to aspirin resistance. RESULTS: The term "aspirin resistance" still has no standard accepted definition in the literature. Researchers focus on molecular insights into the mechanisms of aspirin resistance. The absolute as well as relative contributions of various factors to the phenomenon of aspirin resistance are the subject of current research. There are diverse platelet function testing methods and each has its strengths and weaknesses, which will greatly increase the difficulty of selection. CONCLUSION: In order to have a comprehensive assessment and interpretation of laboratory data, clinical pharmacists need to understand the research progress of aspirin resistance, which will promote personalized medication of aspirin.
ABSTRACT
Introducción y objetivos: A pesar de que el estudio Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration demostró una reducción del 25% de los eventos mayores con el uso de aspirina en enfermos de alto riesgo, un porcentaje de pacientes presentan eventos isquémicos recurrentes. Esto ha llevado a la descripción de la "resistencia a la aspirina" con una tasa muy variable, de 0.4% a 83%. Este estudio evaluó la variabiliad en la función plaquetaria basal, la prevalencia de la resistencia a la aspirina, y la efectividad y reproducibilidad de los estudios de función plaquetaria. Materiales y métodos: Se llevó a cabo un estudio aleatorizado y cruzado de mediciones repetidas, con sujetos saludables de entre 18 y 60 años. Luego de firmar el consentimiento informado, los pacientes fueron distribuidos en forma aleatorizada a recibir aspirina en dosis de 75 mg o 300 mg; fueron evaluados al inicio y luego de cuatro períodos de tres semanas mediante diferentes técnicas: Optical Platelet Aggregation (OPA), PFA-100™, VerifyNow™, y los niveles séricos y urinarios de tromboxano B2 (TXB2). Se obtuvo la aprobación del comité de ética local. El análisis estadístico fue realizado con el programa SPSS17. Resultados: El índice global de resistencia a la aspirina fue variable, entre 2.4% y 63.5% en función de la técnica utilizada. Se demostró una variabilidad interindividual e intraindividual significativa al inicio y con la administración de placebo en las diferentes técnicas. La sensibilidad de los ensayos varió entre 24% (OPA ADP10) y 87.8% (tromboxano sérico), y la especificidad varió entre 81% (PFA-100™) y 97.4% (tromboxano). La selección de "valores de corte" alternativos provocó tasas de prevalencia diferentes de resistencia bioquímica a la aspirina, con un mecanismo de compensación entre la sensibilidad y la especificidad. Conclusiones: La respuesta a la aspirina mostró una marcada variabilidad interensayo, interindividual y temporal. Se requieren varias evaluaciones con diferentes técnicas para diagnosticar en forma confiable la resistencia a la aspirina. La selección de valores discriminativos alternativos debería considerarse al evaluar formalmente esta entidad
Introduction: Despite the 25% reduction in major events with aspirin in high-risk patients reported by the Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration, a proportion of patients develop recurrent ischaemic events. This has led to the emergence of 'aspirin resistance' with rates between 0.4% and 83% reported. This study assessed variability in baseline platelet function, prevalence of aspirin resistance, and the performance and reproducibility of platelet function testing methods. Materials and Methods: A repeated-measures randomised crossover study was performed in healthy individuals aged 18-60 years. After informed consent, patients were randomised to aspirin dose (75 mg or 300 mg) and treatment sequence with testing at baseline and after each four 3-week treatment period via Optical Platelet Aggregation (OPA), PFA-100™, VerifyNow™, and serum and urinary thromboxane (TXB2) levels. Local ethical approval was granted. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS17. Results: The overall rate of aspirin resistance varied from 2.4% to 63.5% depending on the assay used. Significant inter- and intra-individual variability existed at baseline and on placebo testing between assays. Assay sensitivities ranged from 24.0% (OPA ADP10) to 87.8% (serum TXB2), and specificities from 81.0% (PFA-100™) to 97.4% (serum TXB2). Selection of alternative "cut-off" values resulted in differing prevalence rates of biochemical aspirin resistance with a trade-off between sensitivity and specificity. Conclusions: Response to aspirin shows marked inter-assay, inter-individual and temporal variability. Testing on multiple occasions using several assays is necessary to reliably diagnose aspirin resistance. Selection of alternative assay "cut-off" values should be considered when formally assessing aspirin response