Personalised Approaches to Improving the Effect of Anti-platelet Agents: Where Do We Stand?

Register or Login to View PDF Permissions
Permissions× For commercial reprint enquiries please contact Springer Healthcare:

For permissions and non-commercial reprint enquiries, please visit to start a request.

For author reprints, please email
Information image
Average (ratings)
No ratings
Your rating



Published online:

Correspondence Details:Michael Farkouh, Peter Munk Cardiac Centre, 585 University Avenue – 4N474, Toronto, Ontario, M5G 2N2, Canada. E:

Open Access:

This work is open access under the CC-BY-NC 4.0 License which allows users to copy, redistribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes, provided the original work is cited correctly.

Clopidogrel is the most widely prescribed P2Y12 inhibitor in the world despite the development of newer and more potent agents.1,2 Clopidogrel is administered as a pro-drug and needs to be metabolised by the cytochrome P450 enzymes (particularly by CYP2C19) in order to have biological activity.3

Patients with loss of function (LOF) variants of the CYP2C19 gene have decreased serum levels of clopidogrel after oral administration. Consequently, platelet reactivity in these patients remain higher, when compared to patients with wild-type CYP2C19. With a less-potent platelet inhibition, clot formation would continue to occur and these patients would remain more vulnerable to recurrent ischaemic events.4 Test for both platelet reactivity and the CYP2C19 genetic variant are currently available, and have the theoretical potential to help clinicians to better choose the anti-platelet agent to be used, but the clinical evidence behind their use is still limited, preventing guidelines from routinely recommending these tests.5

The utility of evaluating platelet reactivity to tailor antiplatelet strategies has been widely studied, with disappointing findings. In the Gauging Responsiveness with A VerifyNow assay – Impact on Thrombosis And Safety (GRAVITAS) trial, patients with high platelet reactivity were randomised to receive clopidogrel 150 mg or 75 mg after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Although the higher dose of clopidogrel reduced platelet reactivity significantly (by 22%), no difference in the composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal MI or stent thrombosis was found.6

Similarly, in 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 (ARTIC) trial, a platelet-function monitoring strategy, coupled with adequate anti-platelet therapy adjustments, led to lower platelet reactivity, without any significant difference in clinical endpoints.7

In the recently published Testing Responsiveness to Platelet Inhibition on Chronic Antiplatelet Treatment for Acute Coronary Syndromes (TROPICAL-ACS) trial, a guided de-escalation strategy from prasugrel to clopidogrel after an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), monitored by a platelet reactivity test, was non-inferior to conventional strategy with prasugrel.8 Given the uncertainty of evidence and the high cost of the alternative agents to clopidogrel and the cost of the platelet reactivity tests, local cost–effectiveness analyses are necessary before widely adopting these strategies. In the current edition of European Cardiology Review, a simulated analysis of DAPT post-ACS driven by testing for platelet reactivity gives some hope that a personalised approach to anti-platelet therapy is still worth exploring.9 We believe that the randomised trial evidence mentioned above is too convincing to resurrect this approach.

Pharmacogenomic testing for mutations affecting clopidogrel metabolism has not been widely evaluated to date. A 2010 meta-analysis highlighted that carriers of one or two LOFs for the CYP2C19 allele had higher rates of cardiovascular death, MI and stroke (HR 1.55; 95% CI [1.11–2.17]; p=0.01 for one LOF, and HR 1.76; 95% CI [1.24–2.50]; p=0.002 for the presence of two LOF alleles).10

In the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) genetic sub-study, which included slightly more than half of the 18,624 patients from the original trial, a trend was observed for reduced cardiovascular outcomes in patients with a CYP2C19 LOF allele treated with ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel, although no formal interaction was observed in this subgroup (p for interaction 0.46).11

In a multicentre non-randomised study published last year, patients with a LOF CYP2C19 allele prescribed clopidogrel had a higher risk of cardiovascular events compared to patients treated with other agents (HR 2.26%; 95% CI [1.18 to 4.32]; p=0.013).12

Additionally, the Pharmacogenetics of Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes (PHARMCLO) trial was stopped recently due to issues concerning the certification of the genotyping test in use. Despite being prone to bias, the partial results for approximately one-quarter of the original trial population were promising, with a marked reduction in the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke and major bleeding in patients randomised to the pharmacogenomic arm compared to standard of care arm at 12 months (15.9% versus 25.9%, HR 0.58; 95% CI [0.43 to 0.78]; p<0.001).13

The results of the Tailored Antiplatelet Therapy Following PCI (TAILOR-PCI; NCT01742117) are awaited.14 TAILOR-PCI is a multicentre, prospective, randomised clinical trial comparing a prospectively genotyping guided anti-platelet therapy versus conventional treatment with clopidogrel in post-PCI patients. In the pharmacogenomics arm, patients with CYP2C19 LOF will be treated with ticagrelor, while those with wild type alleles will be prescribed clopidogrel. The primary outcome is the composite of cardiovascular death, MI, stroke, stent thrombosis and severe recurrent ischaemia, to be assessed at 12 months. Results are expected in 2020.

Until then, we are resigned to treating patients with guideline-driven strategies that discourage a personalised approach. The story around pharmacogenomics approaches has not yet been written.


  1. Karve AM, Seth M, Sharma M, et al. Contemporary use of ticagrelor in interventional practice (from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium). Am J Cardiol 2015;115:1502–6.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Goodman SG, Nicolau JC, Requena G, et al. Longer-term oral antiplatelet use in stable post-myocardial infarction patients: Insights from the long Term rIsk, clinical manaGement and healthcare Resource utilization of stable coronary artery dISease (TIGRIS) observational study. Int J Cardiol 2017;236:54–60.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Yousuf O, Bhatt DL. The evolution of antiplatelet therapy in cardiovascular disease. Nat Rev Cardiol 2011;8:547–59.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Valgimigli M, Bueno H, Byrne RA, et al. 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS: The Task Force for dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 2018;39:213–60.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Levine GN, Bates ER, Bittl JA, et al. 2016 ACC/AHA guideline focused update on duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines: an update of the 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention, 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery, 2012 ACC/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease, 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction, 2014 AHA/ACC Guideline for the Management of Patients With Non-ST-Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes, and 2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Management of Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery. Circulation 2016;134:e123–55.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Price MJ, Berger PB, Teirstein PS, et al. Standard- vs high-dose clopidogrel based on platelet function testing after percutaneous coronary intervention: the GRAVITAS randomized trial. JAMA 2011;305:1097–105.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. 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
  8. Sibbing D, Aradi D, Jacobshagen C, et al. Guided de-escalation of antiplatelet treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (TROPICAL-ACS): a randomised, open-label, multicentre trial. Lancet 2017;390:1747–57.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Lomakin N, Rudakova A, Buryachkovskay L, Serebruany V. Cost-effectiveness of platelet function guided strategy with clopidogrel or ticagrelor. Eur Cardiol 2019;14(3):175–8.
  10. Mega JL, Simon T, Collet JP, et al. Reduced-function CYP2C19 genotype and risk of adverse clinical outcomes among patients treated with clopidogrel predominantly for PCI: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2010;304:1821–30.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Wallentin L, James S, Storey RF, et al. Effect of CYP2C19 and ABCB1 single nucleotide polymorphisms on outcomes of treatment with ticagrelor versus clopidogrel for acute coronary syndromes: a genetic substudy of the PLATO trial. Lancet 2010;376:1320–8.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Cavallari LH, Lee CR, Beitelshees AL, et al. Multisite investigation of outcomes with implementation of CYP2C19 genotype-guided antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2018;11:181–91.
    Crossref | PubMed
  13. Notarangelo FM, Maglietta G, Bevilacqua P, et al. Pharmacogenomic approach to selecting antiplatelet therapy in patients with acute coronary syndromes: the PHARMCLO Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018;71:1869–77.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Pereira NL, Sargent DJ, Farkouh ME, Rihal CS. Genotype-based clinical trials in cardiovascular disease. Nat Rev Cardiol 2015;12:475–87.
    Crossref | PubMed