Platelet function, antiplatelet therapy and clinical outcomes: to test or not to test?

Variability of platelet indices and function: acquired and genetic factors

Each individual has an inherent variable risk of bleeding linked to genetic or acquired abnormal platelet number or platelet dysfunction. In contrast, it is less obvious that the variability of platelet phenotypes (number, mean platelet volume, function) may contribute to the variable individual risk of thrombosis. Interindividual variability of platelet indices or function may be either due to acquired factors, such as age, sex, metabolic variables, smoke, dietary habits, and ongoing inflammation, or due to genetic factors. Acquired variables explain a small portion of the heterogeneity of platelet parameters. Genetic factors, instead, appear to play a major role, although a consistent portion of such a genetic variance has not yet been attributed to any specific genetic factor, possibly due to the high number of DNA loci potentially involved and to the limited effect size of each individual SNP. A portion of variance remains thus unexplained, also due to variability of test performance. A major contradiction in present platelet knowledge is, indeed, the difficulty to reconcile the universally accepted importance of platelet indices or function and the lack of reliable platelet parameters in cardiovascular risk prediction models. Trials on antiplatelet drugs were generally designed to select a homogeneous sample, whose results could be applied to an "average subject," tending to exclude the deviation/extreme values. As the current indications for antiplatelet treatment in primary or secondary prevention of ischemic vascular disease still derive from the results of such clinical trials where platelet function and its variability was not investigated, we cannot at present rely upon any current platelet test to either initiate, or monitor, or modify or stop treatment with any antiplatelet drug. Evidence is, however, increasing that traditional platelet aggregometry and other more recently developed platelet function assays could be useful to optimize antiplatelet therapy and to predict major adverse cardiac events.The observation of interindividual differences in platelet response to antiplatelet drugs has enlarged the spectrum and the possible clinical relevance of the variability of platelet indices or function. The development of "personalized medicine" will benefit from the concepts discussed in this chapter.

Incomplete inhibition of platelet function as assessed by the platelet function analyzer (PFA-100) identifies a subset of cardiovascular patients with high residual platelet response while on aspirin

Sixty-six patients with a history of ischemic events (myocardial infarction, unstable angina, or stroke) on chronic aspirin therapy were studied by different platelet function tests: 37 patients had suffered a recurrent event while on aspirin and 29 were without recurrences. Based on results from light transmission aggregometry (LTA) induced by arachidonic acid (AA) and serum TxB(2) both COX-1-dependent methods, only one patient could be identified as aspirin "resistant". However, when methods only partially-dependent on platelet COX-1 activity were considered, the prevalence of aspirin non-responders ranged, according to the different tests, from 0 to 52%. No difference was observed between patients with recurrences and those without. Among patients with recurrent events, those with an incomplete inhibition of platelet function, as assessed by the PFA-100, had significantly higher residual serum TxB(2) (2.4 ± 2.4 ng/mL vs 0.4 ± 0.1 ng/mL, p = 0.03), residual LTA-AA (9.2 ± 10.6% vs 2.0 ± 1.6%, p = 0.008), LTA-Coll (49.3 ± 14.6% vs 10.2 ± 8.3%, p = 0.007) and LTA-ADP (50.9 ± 16.2% vs 34.3 ± 11.0%, p = 0.04). In conclusion, laboratory tests solely exploring the AA-mediated pathway of platelet function, while being the most appropriate to detect the effect of aspirin on its pharmacologic target (platelet COX-1), may fail to reveal the functional interactions between minimal residual TxA(2) and additional stimuli or primers potentially leading to aspirin-insensitive platelet aggregation. High residual platelet response in platelet function tests only partially dependent on COX-1 may reveal a condition of persistent platelet reactivity in a subset of aspirin-treated patients characterizing them as a subgroup at higher vascular risk.

Antiplatelet therapy in percutaneous coronary intervention: a critical review of the 2007 AHA/ACC/SCAI guidelines and beyond

Antiplatelet therapy is a mainstay in the treatment of patients who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Although the 2007 PCI treatment guidelines were published by the American College of Cardiology, the American Heart Association, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, new clinical evidence has emerged, expanding our understanding of antiplatelet use and potentially affecting the treatment guidelines. For example, clinical trial results prompted a Science Advisory to recommend that dual therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel be used for longer periods-up to 1 year in patients who receive bare metal stents and at least 1 year in patients receiving drug-eluting stents. New trial results have also emerged regarding the use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa antagonists such as abciximab, eptifibatide, and tirofiban. This article reviews the current recommendations for antiplatelet therapy in PCI patients, recent trial results, newly developed agents, ongoing clinical trials, and the future direction of antiplatelet therapy in patients who undergo PCI.

Current concepts about inhibition of platelet aggregation

One hundred twenty-seven years after Professor Giulio Bizzozero described the blood particle that has come to be known as the platelet, antiplatelet therapy has revolutionized the treatment of cardiovascular disease. Platelet function testing, introduced in 1962 with the advent of Born's aggregometer, heralded a renaissance in platelet research and provided a platelet function test to study platelet reactivity in vitro to help the diagnosis of bleeding disorders. More devices to test platelet function have emerged since, and these are now being applied mainly to assess antiplatelet drug efficacy in thrombotic disorders. Although this may be a logical use for platelet function tests, the data are replete with contradictions, and there is a lack of both consensus and standardization of the methodology. As a result, the clinical validity of platelet function results to monitor response to antiplatelet drugs has yet to be established.

Comparison of laboratory detection methods of aspirin resistance in coronary artery disease patients

Aspirin reduces the prevalence of nonfatal myocardial infarction, stroke, and death by 25.0% in high risk group of patients with cardiovascular disease. Previous studies have estimated that about 5.5-56.8% of the population are aspirin resistant. The mechanisms of aspirin resistance (AR) have not been fully understood. We compared the detection methods for AR using traditional platelet aggregometry and VerifyNow system. One hundred and seventy-two coronary artery disease patients who had taken aspirin only or combinations with aspirin and clopidogrel for over 7 days were included. Of the 55 patients with aspirin only, aggregometer detected six AR (10.9%) and VerifyNow identified 10 AR (18.2%) cases. Among 117 patients with combined therapy, none (0.0%) and 10 (8.5%) of AR were detected by aggregometer and VerifyNow, respectively. There were six (3.4%) patients of AR defined by both methods and they all received aspirin monotherapy. Although the correlation between the aggregometry and VerifyNow was low, with defined criteria both methods gave 91.9% agreement to find AR. VerifyNow showed a higher sensitivity to detect AR. Further studies are required to biologically define AR and to alter therapy based on platelet function tests.