ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2023
The contribution of genotype-guided selection of P2Y
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeWe aimed to explore the contribution of genotype-guided selection of P2Y
methodsTotally, 2063 patients were included. They were divided into empiric treatment group (n = 1025) and individualized treatment group (n = 1038) depending on whether taken CYP2C19 genetic testing. The incidences of clinical endpoint events were compared in two groups at 1-year follow-up. The effective endpoint events were major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs), including all-cause mortality, in-stent restenosis, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke and severe recurrent ischemia. Meanwhile, the safe endpoint was bleeding events defined by the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) criteria.
resultsFinally, 66.83% patients were diagnosed with ACS and 33.17% patients were diagnosed with CCS in empiric group. 68.11% patients were diagnosed with ACS and 31.89% patients were diagnosed with CCS in individualized group. At 1-year follow-up, individualized group showed lower MACEs rate than empiric group (19.61% vs. 10.69%, HR: 1.915; 95% CI: 1.534 to 2.392; P < 0.0001, log-rank test; adjusted HR: 1.983; 95% CI: 1.573 to 2.501; P = 0.000, cox proportional hazards regression models), while bleeding events were significantly less common in empiric group than in individualized group (7.32% vs. 10.40%, HR: 0.693; 95% CI: 0.519 to 0.926; P = 0.0132, log-rank test; adjusted HR: 0.695; 95% CI: 0.518 to 0.933; P = 0.016, cox proportional hazards regression models). It was mainly manifested in BARC class 1 bleeding, which did not warrant the interruption of antiplatelet therapy (ITA). Further, subgroup analyses illustrated that no significant difference existed in cumulative MACEs-free survival rate between all treatment arms of individualized group (P = 0.6579 by log-rank test), and CYP2C19 intermediate metabolizer (IM) genetype appeared to be significantly associated with bleeding events for patients treated with ticagrelor (clopidogrel vs. ticagrelor: 6.80% vs. 14.88%; adjusted HR:0.440; 95% CI: 0.246 to 0.787; adjusted P = 0.006).
conclusionsGenotype-guided selection of P2Y
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.