4.6 Article

ABCB1 C3435T Polymorphism and Response to Clopidogrel Treatment in Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) Patients: A Meta-Analysis

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 7, 期 10, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0046366

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A number of investigators have evaluated the association between the ABCB1 polymorphism and clopidogrel responding, but the results have been inconclusive. To examine the risk of high platelet activity and poor clinical outcomes associated with the ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism in CAD patients on clopidogrel, all available studies were included in the present meta-analysis. Methods: We performed a systematic search of PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane library database for eligible studies. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were comprehensively reviewed, and the available data were accumulated by the meta-analysis. Results: It was demonstrated that the ABCB1 C3435T variation was associated with the risk of early major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (T vs. C OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.62; P = 0.003; TT vs. CC: OR, 1.77; 95% CI, 1.19 to 2.63; P = 0.005; CT + TT vs. CC: OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.06 to 2.06; P = 0.02) and the polymorphism was also associated with the risk of the long-term MACE in patients on clopidogrel LD 300 mg (T vs. C: OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.48; P = 0.001; TT vs. CC: OR, 1.59; 95% CI, 1.19 to 2.13; P = 0.002; CT + TT vs. CC: OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.08 to 1.79; P = 0.01). The comparison of TT vs. CC was associated with a reduction in the outcome of bleeding (TT vs. CC: OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.66; P<0.00001). However, the association between ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism and platelet activity and other risk of poor clinical outcomes was not significant. Conclusions: The evidence from our meta-analysis indicated that the ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism might be a risk factor for the MACE in patients on clopidogrel LD 300 mg, and that TT homozygotes decreased the outcome of bleeding compared with CC homozygotes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据