Resistencia a la aspirina: prevalencia, mecanismos de acción y asociación con eventos tromboembólicos. Revisión narrativa

The emergent phenomenon of aspirin resistance: insights from genetic association studies

Despite the clinical benefits of aspirin, the interindividual variation in response to this antiplatelet drug is considerable. The manifestation of aspirin resistance (AR) is frequently observed, although this complex process remains poorly understood. While AR etiology is likely to be multifactorial, genetic factors appear to be preponderant. According to several genetic association studies, both genome-wide and candidate gene studies, numerous SNPs in cyclooxygenase, thromboxane and platelet receptors-related genes have been identified as capable of negatively affecting aspirin action. Thus, it is essential to understand the clinical relevance of AR-related SNPs as potential predictive and prognostic biomarkers as they may be essential to defining the AR phenotype.

The prognostic utility of tests of platelet function for the detection of 'aspirin resistance' in patients with established cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease: a systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

The use of aspirin is well established for secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. However, a proportion of patients suffer repeat cardiovascular events despite being prescribed aspirin treatment. It is uncertain whether or not this is due to an inherent inability of aspirin to sufficiently modify platelet activity. This report aims to investigate whether or not insufficient platelet function inhibition by aspirin ('aspirin resistance'), as defined using platelet function tests (PFTs), is linked to the occurrence of adverse clinical outcomes, and further, whether or not patients at risk of future adverse clinical events can be identified through PFTs.

OBJECTIVES

To review systematically the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness evidence regarding the association between PFT designation of 'aspirin resistance' and the risk of adverse clinical outcome(s) in patients prescribed aspirin therapy. To undertake exploratory model-based cost-effectiveness analysis on the use of PFTs.

DATA SOURCES

Bibliographic databases (e.g. MEDLINE from inception and EMBASE from 1980), conference proceedings and ongoing trial registries up to April 2012.

METHODS

Standard systematic review methods were used for identifying clinical and cost studies. A risk-of-bias assessment tool was adapted from checklists for prognostic and diagnostic studies. (Un)adjusted odds and hazard ratios for the association between 'aspirin resistance', for different PFTs, and clinical outcomes are presented; however, heterogeneity between studies precluded pooling of results. A speculative economic model of a PFT and change of therapy strategy was developed.

RESULTS

One hundred and eight relevant studies using a variety of PFTs, 58 in patients on aspirin monotherapy, were analysed in detail. Results indicated that some PFTs may have some prognostic utility, i.e. a trend for more clinical events to be associated with groups classified as 'aspirin resistant'. Methodological and clinical heterogeneity prevented a quantitative summary of prognostic effect. Study-level effect sizes were generally small and absolute outcome risk was not substantially different between 'aspirin resistant' and 'aspirin sensitive' designations. No studies on the cost-effectiveness of PFTs for 'aspirin resistance' were identified. Based on assumptions of PFTs being able to accurately identify patients at high risk of clinical events and such patients benefiting from treatment modification, the economic model found that a test-treat strategy was likely to be cost-effective. However, neither assumption is currently evidence based.

LIMITATIONS

Poor or incomplete reporting of studies suggests a potentially large volume of inaccessible data. Analyses were confined to studies on patients prescribed aspirin as sole antiplatelet therapy at the time of PFT. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity across studies precluded meta-analysis. Given the lack of robust data the economic modelling was speculative.

CONCLUSIONS

Although evidence indicates that some PFTs may have some prognostic value, methodological and clinical heterogeneity between studies and different approaches to analyses create confusion and inconsistency in prognostic results, and prevented a quantitative summary of their prognostic effect. Protocol-driven and adequately powered primary studies are needed, using standardised methods of measurements to evaluate the prognostic ability of each test in the same population(s), and ideally presenting individual patient data. For any PFT to inform individual risk prediction, it will likely need to be considered in combination with other prognostic factors, within a prognostic model.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO 2012:CRD42012002151.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

The Effect of Xuefuzhuyu Oral Liquid on Aspirin Resistance and Its Association with rs5911, rs5787, and rs3842788 Gene Polymorphisms

Aspirin should be continued indefinitely in patients after interventional therapy, but 10% to 40% of patients experience recurrent vascular events despite adequate aspirin therapy, a condition known as aspirin resistance (AR). Xuefuzhuyu oral liquid, derived from the classic recipe Xuefuzhuyu decoction, has been well documented to inhibit platelet aggregation and to improve hemorheology. The aims of this study were to investigate the effects of Xuefuzhuyu oral liquid on AR in patients with chronic stable angina after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and the possible genetic markers related to the drug response. 43 patients diagnosed as having aspirin resistance or semi-resistance were randomly divided into control and treatment groups after screening 207 stable CHD patients. Platelet aggregation rate was determined using turbidimetry. Three single nucleotide polymorphisms in COX-1 (rs5787, rs3842788) and GP IIb (rs5911) were genotyped in whole blood samples using ABI PRISM 7900 HT Fast Real-Time instrument and ABI PRISM 3730 DNA Sequencer. The results showed that Xuefuzhuyu oral liquid could effectively improve blood stasis syndrome and AR by inhibiting ADP-induced platelet aggregation and that patients with the rs5911 genetic variant exhibited better drug response upon treatment with Xuefuzhuyu oral liquid, which suggests Xuefuzhuyu oral liquid as a new possible drug for the prevention of AR.

Methodological issues and recommendations for systematic reviews of prognostic studies: an example from cardiovascular disease

BACKGROUND

Prognostic factors are associated with the risk of future health outcomes in individuals with a particular health condition. The prognostic ability of such factors is increasingly being assessed in both primary research and systematic reviews. Systematic review methodology in this area is continuing to evolve, reflected in variable approaches to key methodological aspects. The aim of this article was to (i) explore and compare the methodology of systematic reviews of prognostic factors undertaken for the same clinical question, (ii) to discuss implications for review findings, and (iii) to present recommendations on what might be considered to be 'good practice' approaches.

METHODS

The sample was comprised of eight systematic reviews addressing the same clinical question, namely whether 'aspirin resistance' (a potential prognostic factor) has prognostic utility relative to future vascular events in patients on aspirin therapy for secondary prevention. A detailed comparison of methods around study identification, study selection, quality assessment, approaches to analysis, and reporting of findings was undertaken and the implications discussed. These were summarised into key considerations that may be transferable to future systematic reviews of prognostic factors.

RESULTS

Across systematic reviews addressing the same clinical question, there were considerable differences in the numbers of studies identified and overlap between included studies, which could only partially be explained by different study eligibility criteria. Incomplete reporting and differences in terminology within primary studies hampered study identification and selection process across reviews. Quality assessment was highly variable and only one systematic review considered a checklist for studies of prognostic questions. There was inconsistency between reviews in approaches towards analysis, synthesis, addressing heterogeneity and reporting of results.

CONCLUSIONS

Different methodological approaches may ultimately affect the findings and interpretation of systematic reviews of prognostic research, with implications for clinical decision-making.