| Title |
Comparison of a rapid point-of-care and two laboratory-based CYP2C19*2 genotyping assays for personalisation of antiplatelet therapy
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, March 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11096-016-0269-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Francesca Wirth, Graziella Zahra, Robert G. Xuereb, Christopher Barbara, Albert Fenech, Lilian M. Azzopardi |
| Abstract |
Background A quick CYP2C19*2 genotyping assay can be useful in personalised antiplatelet-therapy. Objective To apply a rapid point-of-care (POC) CYP2C19*2 genotyping assay for personalisation of antiplatelet therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and to compare this POC assay to two laboratory-based CYP2C19*2 genotyping assays. Setting Cardiac Catheterisation Suite and Molecular Diagnostics Unit in a general hospital. Methods A buccal sample was collected for POC CYP2C19*2 genotyping with the Spartan™ RX system (Spartan Bioscience). A whole blood sample was collected from the same patients for laboratory-based CYP2C19*2 genotyping with a TaqMan(®) allelic discrimination assay (Life Technologies) using real-time quantitative PCR and with the GenID(®) reverse dot-blot hybridisation assay (Autoimmun Diagnostika GmbH). Each patient was genotyped as a non-carrier of CYP2C19*2 (*1/*1), a carrier of one CYP2C19*2 allele (*1/*2), or a carrier of two CYP2C19*2 alleles (*2/*2). Genotyping, interpretation and communication of genotype results (*1/*2, *2/*2) to the consultant cardiologist was undertaken by a clinical pharmacist researcher. Quantitative and qualitative comparison between the three assays was carried out. Main outcome measures Application of a rapid POC CYP2C19*2 genotyping assay for antiplatelet therapy individualisation; comparison of the POC CYP2C19*2 genotyping assay to two laboratory-based assays. Results The total sample consisted of 34 Caucasian patients. With the POC assay, 21 patients were genotyped as non-carriers of CYP2C19*2, 12 patients as carriers of one CYP2C19*2 allele and one patient as a carrier of two CYP2C19*2 alleles. With both laboratory-based assays, the same 21 patients were genotyped as non-carriers of CYP2C19*2, however 13 patients were genotyped as carriers of one CYP2C19*2 allele and no patients were genotyped as carriers of two CYP2C19*2 alleles. Agreement in genotype results was 97 % (κ = 0.939) between the POC assay and both laboratory-based assays and 100 % (κ = 1.000) between the two laboratory-based assays. Conclusion Compared to both laboratory-based genotyping assays, the POC assay is accurate and reliable, provides rapid results, can process single samples, is portable and more operator-friendly, however the tests are more expensive. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 30 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 20% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 17% |
| Researcher | 5 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 10% |
| Unknown | 7 | 23% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 6 | 20% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 5 | 17% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 3 | 10% |
| Engineering | 2 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 7% |
| Other | 4 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 March 2016.
All research outputs
#20,315,221
of 22,856,968 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#1,014
of 1,083 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#253,212
of 299,392 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy
#21
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,856,968 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,083 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 299,392 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.