<i>CYP2C19</i> Metabolizer Status and Clopidogrel Efficacy in the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes (SPS3) Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The role of the CYP2C19 genotype on clopidogrel efficacy has been studied widely, with data suggesting reduced clopidogrel efficacy in loss-of-function variant carriers taking clopidogrel after percutaneous coronary intervention; however, data are limited regarding the association between CYP2C19 genetic variants and outcomes in stroke patients. We investigated whether CYP2C19 metabolizer status affects the risk of recurrent stroke or major bleeding in subcortical stroke patients taking dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel. METHODS AND RESULTS: CYP2C19*2 and CYP2C19*17 were genotyped in 522 patients treated with dual antiplatelet therapy from the Secondary Prevention of Small Subcortical Strokes (SPS3) study. CYP2C19 metabolizer status was inferred from genotype, and associations with the risk of recurrent stroke and major bleeding were assessed in the overall cohort and by race/ethnic group with logistic regression modeling. In the overall cohort, there were no differences in outcomes by CYP2C19 metabolizer status (recurrent stroke, odds ratio 1.81 [95% CI 0.76 to 4.30]; major bleeding, odds ratio 0.67 [95% CI 0.22 to 2.03]). In white participants, those with CYP2C19 intermediate or poor metabolizer status had higher odds of recurrent stroke (odds ratio 5.19 [95% CI 1.08 to 24.90]) than those with extensive or ultrarapid metabolizer status, but there was no evidence of difference in major bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: There were significant differences in recurrent stroke by CYP2C19 genotype-inferred metabolizer status in white subcortical stroke patients receiving dual antiplatelet therapy with aspirin and clopidogrel, consistent with cardiovascular studies on CYP2C19 and clopidogrel; however, the bleeding risk that led to early termination of the antiplatelet arm of the SPS3 trial does not appear to be explained by CYP2C19 genotype. This study was relatively underpowered; therefore, these findings should be interpreted with caution and warrant replication. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00059306.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".