Individual variation in in vitro efficacy of antiplatelet medication - aspirin and clopidogrel

Antiplatelet medication is known to decrease adverse effects in patients with atherothrombotic disease. However, despite ongoing antiplatelet medication considerable number of patients suffer from atherothrombotic events. The aims of the study were 1) to evaluate the individual variability in platelet functions and compare the usability of different methods in detecting it, 2) to assess variability in efficacy of antiplatelet medication with aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) or the combination of aspirin and clopidogrel and 3) to investigate the main genetic and clinical variables as well as potential underlying mechanisms of variability in efficacy of antiplatelet medication. In comparisons of different platelet function tests in 19 healthy individuals PFA-100® correlated with traditional methods of measuring platelet function and was thus considered appropriate for testing individual variability in platelet activity. Efficacy of ongoing 100mg aspirin daily was studied in 101 patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Aspirin response was measured with arachidonic acid (AA)-induced platelet aggregation, which reflects cyclo-oxygenase (COX)-1 dependent thromboxane (Tx) A2 formation, and PFA-100®, which evaluates platelet activation under high shear stress in the presence of collagen and epinephrine. Five percent of patients failed to show inhibition of AA-aggregation and 21% of patients had normal PFA-100® results despite aspirin and were thus considered non-responders to aspirin. Interestingly, the two methods of assessing aspirin efficacy, platelet aggregation and PFA-100®, detected different populations as being aspirin non-responders. It could be postulated that PFA-100® actually measures enhanced platelet function, which is not directly associated with TxA2 inhibition exerted by aspirin. Clopidogrel efficacy was assessed in 50 patients who received a 300mg loading dose of clopidogrel 2.5 h prior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and in 51 patients who were given a loading dose of 300mg combined with a five day treatment of 75mg clopidogrel daily mimicking ongoing treatment. Clopidogrel response was assessed with ADP-induced aggregations, due to its mechanism of action as an inhibitor of ADP-induced activation. When patients received only a loading dose of clopidogrel prior to PCI, 40% did not gain measurable inhibition of their ADP-induced platelet activity (inhibition of 10% or less). Prolongation of treatment so that all patients had reached a plateau of inhibition exerted by clopidogrel, decreased the incidence of non-responders to 20%. Polymorphisms of COX-1 and GP VI, as well as diabetes and female gender, were associated with decreased in vitro aspirin efficacy. Diabetes also impaired the in vitro efficacy of short-term clopidogrel. Decreased response to clopidogrel was associated with limited inhibition by ARMX, an antagonist of P2Y12-receptor, suggesting the reason for clopidogrel resistance to be receptor-dependent. Conclusions: Considerable numbers of CAD patients were non-responders either to aspirin, clopidogrel or both. In the future, platelet function tests may be helpful to individually select effective and safe antiplatelet medication for these patients.