Study Objective: To compare the clinical effectiveness of genotype-guided P2Y12 inhibitor selection following PCI in older patients (≥70 years) and younger patients (<70 years). Design and Setting: Single-center, retrospective, cohort study. Risk of major adverse cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as stent thrombosis, ischemic stroke, transient ischemic attack, non-fatal acute coronary syndrome, or cardiovascular death during 12 months after PCI, was compared across genotype and antiplatelet therapy groups by proportional hazards regression in patients ≥70 years and <70 years. Patients: 1,469 patients who underwent PCI and had CYP2C19 genotype testing at a single academic medical center.
Measurements and Main Results:The study population was comprised of 402 (27.4%) ≥70 years (older group) and 1067 (72.6%) <70 years (younger group). Alternative P2Y12 inhibitors (prasugrel or ticagrelor) were used less often in the older group than the younger group in patients with a CYP2C19 no function allele (55% vs. 67%; p = 0.02) and in patients without a no function allele (10% vs. 35%, p < 0.001). For patients treated with clopidogrel, MACCE was significantly higher in no function allele carriers compared to those without a no function allele in the older group (19.2% vs. 12.7%; adjusted HR 2.32; 95% CI 1.07-5.05; p = 0.03) and the younger group (17.4% vs. 10.4%; adjusted HR 2.01; 95% CI 1.17-3.46; p = 0.01). In patients without a no function allele, MACCE risk was similar with clopidogrel compared to prasugrel or ticagrelor in the older group (adjusted HR 0.99; 95% CI 0.44-2.21; p = 0.98) and the younger group (adjusted HR 1.12; 95% CI 0.72-1.74; p = 0.61).
Conclusion:This study suggests important clinical benefits of CYP2C19 genotypeguided antiplatelet therapy after PCI in both younger and older patients.
Objectives(1) To conduct a scoping review of postgraduate specialty training (ST) curricula for doctors within Health Education England in order to identify common themes and variations in requirements for training and assessment of research competencies. (2) To make recommendations on standardisation of training for clinical research across ST programmes.SettingHealth Education England North East and National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network (CRN)—North East and North Cumbria.MethodsAnnual Review of Competence Progression (ARCP); Certificate of Completion of Training (CCT) checklists and curricula for ST were obtained from Health Education England North East and reviewed between June and September 2015. Research competence requirements based on knowledge, skills or behaviour-based domains were identified and entered onto a spreadsheet for analysis. Common themes with levels of competence required were identified. This information was used to construct and propose a model for delivery of training in clinical research across ST programmes.ResultsSixty-two ST curricula were reviewed and seven common themes for research training were found in up to 97% of the curricula. Requirement for good clinical practice (GCP) in research training was included in 15% of curricula. One of the common themes involved knowledge-based competency, and three each of the remaining seven involved skills or behaviour-based competencies. There was less clarity and larger variation between specialties in how research competencies were assessed; and what evidence was required for ARCP and CCT to assure competence. 63% (19/30) of curricula from medical specialties had no mention of research requirements within their ARCP guidelines.ConclusionsGiven that the majority of specialty curricula contain consistent themes around core research knowledge, consideration should be given to standardising the delivery and assessment of generic research competencies within ST. Our recommendations from this review could form the basis for developing structured research training for specialty trainees involving: (1) a taught course for knowledge-based competencies; (2) clinical placements with CRN teams for practical workplace-based experience and (3) developing research tutors to help support placements and assessment of these competencies.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.