4.6 Review

Comparison of current platelet functional tests for the assessment of aspirin and clopidogrel response A review of the literature

Journal

THROMBOSIS AND HAEMOSTASIS
Volume 116, Issue 4, Pages 638-650

Publisher

GEORG THIEME VERLAG KG
DOI: 10.1160/TH15-11-0870

Keywords

Antiplatelet agents; aspirin resistance; clopidogrel resistance; platelet function test; aggregometry

Funding

  1. Baxter
  2. Biogen Idec/SOBI
  3. CSL Behring
  4. LFB
  5. NovoNordisk
  6. Pfizer
  7. Bayer
  8. Inspiration
  9. Octapharma

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The two most widely used antiplatelet drugs in the world are aspirin and clopidogrel. However, some patients on aspirin and/or clopidogrel therapy do not respond appropriately to either aspirin or clopidogrel. This phenomenon is usually called aspirin/clopidogrel resistance. Several platelet function tests have been used in various studies for the assessment of aspirin and clopidogrel resistance in healthy individuals and patients admitted in cardiology departments. An accurate assessment of platelet response to aspirin/clopidogrel could benefit patients by proposing tailored-antiplatelet therapy based on test results. However, there is a clear lack of standardisation of such techniques and their analytical variability may induce misinterpretation. After a quick report of the mechanisms responsible for aspirin/clopidogrel resistance, we describe the pre-analytical aspects and the analytical performances of current platelet function tests (Light-transmission aggregometry, whole-blood aggregometry, VerifyNow (R), Platelet Function Analyzer (R), thromboelastography, VASP assay) that are used for the assessment of aspirin/clopidogrel resistance in clinical studies. Considering the different variables that have to be taken into account with each of the platelet function tests, a particular attention should be paid when interpreting results.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available