ArticleInternational journal of clinical pharmacy2016
Comparison of a rapid point-of-care and two laboratory-based CYP2C19*2 genotyping assays for personalisation of antiplatelet therapy.
Article in International journal of clinical pharmacy, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Implementing pharmacogenetic testing in community pharmacy practice: a scoping review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical and cost-effectiveness of clopidogrel resistance genotype testing after ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack: a systematic review and economic model.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2024Pooled it
- Accuracy and technical characteristics of CYP2C19 point of care tests: a systematic review.Pharmacogenomics · 2024Pooled it
- Review
- Analytical validation of GMEX rapid point-of-careStroke and vascular neurology · 2021Article
- Review
- Genotyping of Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms Using Allele-Specific qPCR Producing Amplicons of Small Sizes Directly from Crude Serum Isolated from Capillary Blood by a Hand-Powered Paper Centrifuge.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Association between CYP2C19 genotype and the additional effect of cilostazol to clopidogrel resistance in neuroendovascular therapy.Nagoya journal of medical science · 2018Article
- Feasibility and implementation of CYP2C19 genotyping in patients using antiplatelet therapy.Pharmacogenomics · 2018Article
- Paper-based RNA detection and multiplexed analysis for Ebola virus diagnostics.Scientific reports · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA quick CYP2C19*2 genotyping assay can be useful in personalised antiplatelet-therapy.
objectiveTo apply a rapid point-of-care (POC) CYP2C19*2 genotyping assay for personalisation of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and to compare this POC assay to two laboratory-based CYP2C19*2 genotyping assays.
settingCardiac Catheterisation Suite and Molecular Diagnostics Unit in a general hospital.
methodsA buccal sample was collected for POC CYP2C19*2 genotyping with the Spartan™ RX system (Spartan Bioscience). A whole blood sample was collected from the same patients for laboratory-based CYP2C19*2 genotyping with a TaqMan® allelic discrimination assay (Life Technologies) using real-time quantitative PCR and with the GenID® reverse dot-blot hybridisation assay (Autoimmun Diagnostika GmbH). Each patient was genotyped as a non-carrier of CYP2C19*2 (*1/*1), a carrier of one CYP2C19*2 allele (*1/*2), or a carrier of two CYP2C19*2 alleles (*2/*2). Genotyping, interpretation and communication of genotype results (*1/*2, *2/*2) to the consultant cardiologist was undertaken by a clinical pharmacist researcher. Quantitative and qualitative comparison between the three assays was carried out.
main outcome measuresApplication of a rapid POC CYP2C19*2 genotyping assay for antiplatelet therapy individualisation; comparison of the POC CYP2C19*2 genotyping assay to two laboratory-based assays.
resultsThe total sample consisted of 34 Caucasian patients. With the POC assay, 21 patients were genotyped as non-carriers of CYP2C19*2, 12 patients as carriers of one CYP2C19*2 allele and one patient as a carrier of two CYP2C19*2 alleles. With both laboratory-based assays, the same 21 patients were genotyped as non-carriers of CYP2C19*2, however 13 patients were genotyped as carriers of one CYP2C19*2 allele and no patients were genotyped as carriers of two CYP2C19*2 alleles. Agreement in genotype results was 97 % (κ = 0.939) between the POC assay and both laboratory-based assays and 100 % (κ = 1.000) between the two laboratory-based assays.
conclusionCompared to both laboratory-based genotyping assays, the POC assay is accurate and reliable, provides rapid results, can process single samples, is portable and more operator-friendly, however the tests are more expensive.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.