Association of platelet response to cilostazol with clinical outcome and CYP genotype in patients with cerebral infarction

INTRODUCTION

Cilostazol, an anti-platelet drug that inhibits phosphodiesterase 3, is beneficial for patients with atherothrombosis. In contrast to other anti-platelet drugs such as aspirin and thienopyridines, little information is available on the relationship between platelet responses to cilostazol and clinical outcomes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We conducted a prospective study on patients with cerebral infarction who were treated with cilostazol. The platelet response to cilostazol was assessed with our new assay for the phosphorylation of vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) subsequent to the pharmacological action of cilostazol. Patients were followed up for 2 years and the relationship between VASP assay results and the recurrence of thrombotic events was examined. We also investigated the effects of CYP3A5 and CYP2C19 genotypes involved in the metabolism of cilostazol on the platelet response to cilostazol.

RESULTS

Among the 142 patients enrolled, 130 completed the 2-year follow-up and the recurrence of thrombotic events was noted in 8 (6.2%). VASP phosphorylation levels were significantly lower in patients with than in those without recurrence. The combined genotype of CYP3A5*1/*3 and CYP2C19*1/*1 was associated with a low level of VASP phosphorylation, while either genotype was not. A multivariate analysis showed that high residual platelet reactivity during the cilostazol treatment, which was defined by a low response of platelet VASP phosphorylation to cilostazol, was an independent risk factor for the recurrence of thrombotic events.

CONCLUSION

A low platelet response to cilostazol determined by a new platelet assay was associated with the recurrence of thrombotic events in patients with cerebral infarction.

Prevalence of poor biological response to clopidogrel

The existence of poor biological response to clopidogrel has been shown in some patients. Despite the increasing number of studies, this phenomenon remains difficult to quantify. We performed a systematic review to estimate the prevalence of poor biological response to clopidogrel and investigate the factors known to modulate this. An exhaustive search was performed. Altogether 171 publications were identified, providing data for a total of 45,664 subjects. The estimated prevalence of poor biological response to clopidogrel ranged from 15.9% to 49.5% according to the platelet function assay employed. The assays most frequently used were light transmittance aggregometry (LTA), the vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP) assay and the Verify -now® assay. For all these assays, higher cut-off values were associated with a lower prevalence of poor biological response to clopidogrel. However, when choosing a fixed cut-off point for each assay, the prevalence of poor biological response to clopidogrel was highly variable suggesting that other factors could modulate poor biological response to clopidogrel. Finally, none of the studied factors could apparently explain the variability of poor biological response to clopidogrel. This meta-analysis shows that the prevalence of poor biological response depends on the assay employed, the cut-off value and on various unidentified additional factors.

Comparison of On-Treatment Platelet Reactivity Between Triple Antiplatelet Therapy With Cilostazol and Standard Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients Undergoing Coronary Interventions

Background:

The recent literature has shown that triple antiplatelet therapy with cilostazol in addition to the standard dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel may reduce platelet reactivity and improve clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to compare the efficacy of triple antiplatelet therapy and dual antiplatelet therapy in regard to on-treatment platelet reactivity.

Methods:

Nine studies (n = 2179) comparing on-treatment platelet reactivity between dual antiplatelet therapy (n = 1193) and triple antiplatelet therapy (n = 986) in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention were included. Primary end points were P2Y12 reaction unit (PRU) and platelet reactivity index (PRI). Secondary end points were platelet aggregation with adenosine diphosphate (ADP) 5 and 20 µmol/L and P2Y12% inhibition. Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were computed and 2-sided α error <.05 was considered as a level of significance.

Results:

Compared to dual antiplatelet therapy, triple antiplatelet therapy had significantly lower maximum platelet aggregation with ADP 5 µmol/L (MD: −14.4, CI: −21.6 to −7.2, P < .001) and 20 µmol/L (MD: −14.9, CI: −22.9 to −6.8, P < .001), significantly lower PRUs (MD: −45, CI: −59.4 to −30.6, P < .001) and PRI (MD: −26, CI: −36.8 to −15.2, P < .001), and significantly higher P2Y12% inhibition (MD: 18.5, CI: 2.3 to 34.6, P = .025).

Conclusion:

Addition of cilostazol to conventional dual antiplatelet therapy significantly lowers platelet reactivity and may explain a decrease in thromboembolic events following coronary intervention; however, additional studies evaluating clinical outcomes will be helpful to determine the benefit of triple antiplatelet therapy.