2013Cardiology in ReviewRequires access

Treatment Options for Patients With Poor Clopidogrel Response

Daniela I. Roberts, James J. Nawarskas

Open publisher page 10 citations

Abstract

A significant percentage of patients demonstrate a poor antiplatelet response to clopidogrel. With the emergence of testing for genetic variations in drug-metabolizing enzyme function and testing for platelet function, it is becoming more common to identify patients as poor responders to clopidogrel. This leaves the clinician in a difficult situation when confronted with a patient deemed to be a poor clopidogrel responder as there is no clear therapeutic strategy for treating these patients. In this situation, a number of alternatives to conventional dosing of clopidogrel have been investigated, including increasing the dosage of clopidogrel, switching from clopidogrel to either prasugrel or ticagrelor, or adding cilostazol to clopidogrel therapy. All of these options have demonstrated pharmacologic benefit in terms of greater antiplatelet effects compared with standard clopidogrel dosing in patients with high on-treatment platelet reactivity or a genetic loss-of-function variant of CYP2C19, the main enzyme responsible for clopidogrel activation. However, the impact of each of these alternative therapies on clinical outcomes is poorly understood. Early studies have not shown a clinical benefit by increasing the clopidogrel dosage or switching to prasugrel although there is still much to be discovered in this area. Of the alternatives to standard dosing of clopidogrel, switching to either prasugrel or ticagrelor has the most potential benefit, but again, there is limited evidence to support this practice in patients who demonstrate high on-treatment platelet reactivity while on clopidogrel although the evidence is somewhat more supportive in patients who have a CYP2C19 loss-of-function variant allele. The evidence for increasing the dosage of clopidogrel or adding cilostazol is the least supportive, making these alternatives difficult to justify. Given the limited evidence to support switching treatments, some providers may simply opt to continue standard dosing of clopidogrel pending the results of ongoing trials. Much research is needed and is currently underway in this area, which will be helpful in establishing future treatment protocols for patients with poor clopidogrel response.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

A significant percentage of patients demonstrate a poor antiplatelet response to clopidogrel. With the emergence of testing for genetic variations in drug-metabolizing enzyme function and testing for platelet function, it is becoming more common to identify patients as poor responders to clopidogrel. This leaves the clinician in a difficult situation when confronted with a patient deemed to be a poor clopidogrel responder as there is no clear therapeutic strategy for treating these patients. In this situation, a number of alternatives to conventional dosing of clopidogrel have been investigated, including increasing the dosage of clopidogrel, switching from clopidogrel to either prasugrel or ticagrelor, or adding cilostazol to clopidogrel therapy. All of these options have demonstrated pharmacologic benefit in terms of greater antiplatelet effects compared with standard clopidogrel dosing in patients with high on-treatment platelet reactivity or a genetic loss-of-function variant of CYP2C19, the main enzyme responsible for clopidogrel activation. However, the impact of each of these alternative therapies on clinical outcomes is poorly understood. Early studies have not shown a clinical benefit by increasing the clopidogrel dosage or switching to prasugrel although there is still much to be discovered in this area. Of the alternatives to standard dosing of clopidogrel, switching to either prasugrel or ticagrelor has the most potential benefit, but again, there is limited evidence to support this practice in patients who demonstrate high on-treatment platelet reactivity while on clopidogrel although the evidence is somewhat more supportive in patients who have a CYP2C19 loss-of-function variant allele. The evidence for increasing the dosage of clopidogrel or adding cilostazol is the least supportive, making these alternatives difficult to justify. Given the limited evidence to support switching treatments, some providers may simply opt to continue standard dosing of clopidogrel pending the results of ongoing trials. Much research is needed and is currently underway in this area, which will be helpful in establishing future treatment protocols for patients with poor clopidogrel response.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 10 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

A significant percentage of patients demonstrate a poor antiplatelet response to clopidogrel. With the emergence of testing for genetic variations in drug-metabolizing enzyme function and testing for platelet function, it is becoming more common to identify patients as poor responders to clopidogrel. This leaves the clinician in a difficult situation when confronted with a patient deemed to be a poor clopidogrel responder as there is no clear therapeutic strategy for treating these patients. In this situation, a number of alternatives to conventional dosing of clopidogrel have been investigated, including increasing the dosage of clopidogrel, switching from clopidogrel to either prasugrel or ticagrelor, or adding cilostazol to clopidogrel therapy. All of these options have demonstrated pharmacologic benefit in terms of greater antiplatelet effects compared with standard clopidogrel dosing in patients with high on-treatment platelet reactivity or a genetic loss-of-function variant of CYP2C19, the main enzyme responsible for clopidogrel activation. However, the impact of each of these alternative therapies on clinical outcomes is poorly understood. Early studies have not shown a clinical benefit by increasing the clopidogrel dosage or switching to prasugrel although there is still much to be discovered in this area. Of the alternatives to standard dosing of clopidogrel, switching to either prasugrel or ticagrelor has the most potential benefit, but again, there is limited evidence to support this practice in patients who demonstrate high on-treatment platelet reactivity while on clopidogrel although the evidence is somewhat more supportive in patients who have a CYP2C19 loss-of-function variant allele. The evidence for increasing the dosage of clopidogrel or adding cilostazol is the least supportive, making these alternatives difficult to justify. Given the limited evidence to support switching treatments, some providers may simply opt to continue standard dosing of clopidogrel pending the results of ongoing trials. Much research is needed and is currently underway in this area, which will be helpful in establishing future treatment protocols for patients with poor clopidogrel response.

Key concepts: Clopidogrel, Prasugrel, Medicine, Ticagrelor, Dosing, CYP2C19, Intensive care medicine, Internal medicine

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Treatment Options for Patients With Poor Clopidogrel Response — Research Paper | ScholarLens