
CO-EXISTENCE OF CYP2C19*1/*2 AND ABCB1C.3435 CT GENOTYPE HAS A POTENTIAL IMPACT ON CLINICAL OUTCOME IN CAD PATIENTS TREATED WITH CLOPIDOGREL Nestorovska KA, Naumovska Z, Staninova Stojovska M, Sterjev Z, Dimovski A, Suturkova Lj *Corresponding Author: Aleksandra Kapedanovska Nestorovska, PhD, Faculty of Pharmacy, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University in Skopje, Skopje, RN Macedonia, Mother Theresa str 47, 1000 Skopje, R. North Macedonia, Email address: alka@ff.ukim.edu.mk page: 35
|
DISSCUSION
The main goal of optimal antiplatelet therapy for
patients with acute coronary disease and/or undergoing
percutaneous coronary intervention is to reduce the inci-
dence of cardiovascular events. The clinical outcome of
clopidogrel, as a well-established antiplatelet therapy, has
high inter-individual variability within patients
Although recent studies present contradictory data,
our results support the association between the presence of
the CYP2C19 *2, alone or in combination with the ABCB1
C and an increased risk for adverse cardiovascular events
compared to the carriers of the alternative alleles. The con-
comitant inheritance of the genotype CYP2C19*1/*2 and
ABCB1 CT have shown a significant trend toward increased
risk for MACE. These finding are line with data presented
in the studies conducted on a larger sample size. (16-18).
According to another study ABCB1 C3435T and
CYP2C19 *2 polymorphisms are recognized as signifi-
cant, independent predictors for the primary endpoint of
cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction or stroke. The
presented results indicate that the risk for MACE is higher
in patients, either as carriers of a CYP2C19 or ABCB1
reduced-function allele, or both (19). In our study it was
also demonstrated that patients with normal CYP2C19
genetic status and presence of the ABCB1 CT/CC geno-
type have a higher incidence of MACE, indicating that
the presence of the ABCB1 C allele could be a potential
negative predictor for disease outcome in patients treated
with clopidogrel.
In a large cohort, conducted on 2208 patients with an
acute myocardial infarction receiving clopidogrel therapy, Simon et al., presented no significant association between
the ABCB1 and CYP2C19 polymorphisms and the clini-
cal outcome, but the presence of two CYP2C19-deficient
alleles and either one or two ABCB1 variant alleles was
associated with rate of events five times higher when com-
pared to patients with the wild-type (20). Another study
also supports the evidence that patients who are poor me-
tabolizers are at greater risk of thrombotic events when
treated with clopidogrel (17, 21).
Several studies including the TRITON TIMI study
evaluated the contribution of ABCB1 variants in patient
carrying the risk allele CYP2C19*2 and confirmed that
clopidogrel response depends on the complex mecha-
nisms of action, including hepatic activation and also that
variable response can occur due to other factors such as
polymorphisms in other genes involved in clopidogrel
pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.
Since this study was conducted on a small sample
size, limitations should be considered when interpreting
the results. This was the first conducted study in Macedonia
to evaluate the concomitant influence of the ABCB13435
CT and CYP2C19*1/*2 genotypes on clinical cardiovas-
cular outcomes in coronary artery disease patients on
clopidogrel treatment. The evaluation was based on oc-
curred major adverse cardiovascular events and plasma
concentrations of clopidogrel, and its active metabolites
were not monitored during the follow up. Moreover, we
cannot completely exclude the probability that other risk
factors, such as BMI, smoking status, lifestyle, diet etc.,
influence the clinical cardiovascular outcome. However,
the main limitation of this study was the small number of
patients included, leading to restricted statistical signifi-
cance for some of the results. Additional, larger studies
will be of great importance to further evaluate the relation
between concomitant inheritance of the ABCB1 C3435T
and CYP2C19*2 polymorphisms and clopidogrel treat-
ment outcomes.
|
|
|
|



 |
Number 27 VOL. 27 (2), 2024 |
Number 27 VOL. 27 (1), 2024 |
Number 26 Number 26 VOL. 26(2), 2023 All in one |
Number 26 VOL. 26(2), 2023 |
Number 26 VOL. 26, 2023 Supplement |
Number 26 VOL. 26(1), 2023 |
Number 25 VOL. 25(2), 2022 |
Number 25 VOL. 25 (1), 2022 |
Number 24 VOL. 24(2), 2021 |
Number 24 VOL. 24(1), 2021 |
Number 23 VOL. 23(2), 2020 |
Number 22 VOL. 22(2), 2019 |
Number 22 VOL. 22(1), 2019 |
Number 22 VOL. 22, 2019 Supplement |
Number 21 VOL. 21(2), 2018 |
Number 21 VOL. 21 (1), 2018 |
Number 21 VOL. 21, 2018 Supplement |
Number 20 VOL. 20 (2), 2017 |
Number 20 VOL. 20 (1), 2017 |
Number 19 VOL. 19 (2), 2016 |
Number 19 VOL. 19 (1), 2016 |
Number 18 VOL. 18 (2), 2015 |
Number 18 VOL. 18 (1), 2015 |
Number 17 VOL. 17 (2), 2014 |
Number 17 VOL. 17 (1), 2014 |
Number 16 VOL. 16 (2), 2013 |
Number 16 VOL. 16 (1), 2013 |
Number 15 VOL. 15 (2), 2012 |
Number 15 VOL. 15, 2012 Supplement |
Number 15 Vol. 15 (1), 2012 |
Number 14 14 - Vol. 14 (2), 2011 |
Number 14 The 9th Balkan Congress of Medical Genetics |
Number 14 14 - Vol. 14 (1), 2011 |
Number 13 Vol. 13 (2), 2010 |
Number 13 Vol.13 (1), 2010 |
Number 12 Vol.12 (2), 2009 |
Number 12 Vol.12 (1), 2009 |
Number 11 Vol.11 (2),2008 |
Number 11 Vol.11 (1),2008 |
Number 10 Vol.10 (2), 2007 |
Number 10 10 (1),2007 |
Number 9 1&2, 2006 |
Number 9 3&4, 2006 |
Number 8 1&2, 2005 |
Number 8 3&4, 2004 |
Number 7 1&2, 2004 |
Number 6 3&4, 2003 |
Number 6 1&2, 2003 |
Number 5 3&4, 2002 |
Number 5 1&2, 2002 |
Number 4 Vol.3 (4), 2000 |
Number 4 Vol.2 (4), 1999 |
Number 4 Vol.1 (4), 1998 |
Number 4 3&4, 2001 |
Number 4 1&2, 2001 |
Number 3 Vol.3 (3), 2000 |
Number 3 Vol.2 (3), 1999 |
Number 3 Vol.1 (3), 1998 |
Number 2 Vol.3(2), 2000 |
Number 2 Vol.1 (2), 1998 |
Number 2 Vol.2 (2), 1999 |
Number 1 Vol.3 (1), 2000 |
Number 1 Vol.2 (1), 1999 |
Number 1 Vol.1 (1), 1998 |
|
|