INTRODUCTION
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the first cause of mortality worldwide, with all the
healthcare systems facing this very challenging issue. The World Health Organization
(WHO) estimates that 31% of deaths worldwide are due to CVD, with ∼ 17.7 million CVD-related
deaths in 2015. Approximately 7.4 million of these deaths were due to heart disease
and 6.7 million deaths were due to stroke.[1] Platelet activation plays an important role in the development of CVD. Acetylsalicylic
acid (ASA), commonly known as aspirin, is an irreversible inhibitor of platelet cyclooxygenase
(COX), which prevents the formation of thromboxane A2 by arachidonic acid and, therefore,
prevents the formation of this activating agent of platelet aggregation and vasoconstriction.[2] Aspirin is a widely used antiplatelet for primary and secondary prevention of CVD,
such as stroke and heart attacks.[3]
Nevertheless, several patients may still experience treatment failure with ASA and
an increased risk in recurrent stroke events.[4] There are several contributing factors for treatment failure including medication
adherence, drug-drug interactions, aspirin-independent thromboxane A2 synthesis and
also genetic variations.[2] Even low daily aspirin doses (in the range between 75 and 150 mg) are able to suppress
biosynthesis of thromboxane, inhibiting the accumulation of platelets, and reducing
the risk of CVD.[5] However, aspirin does not always prevent the formation of thromboxane A2 due to
failure to inhibit platelet COX.[6] Because of that, all individuals do not respond to antiplatelet therapy in a similar
way. In this sense, the genetic mutations have been related with aspirin resistance
(AR) and may cause reduction or increase in drug absorption and metabolism, contributing
to AR.[6]
[7]
Aspirin resistance can be diagnosed by clinical criteria or by laboratory tests. Clinically,
the patient has a new episode of CVD, despite the regular use of aspirin. While the
failure of aspirin to inhibit a platelet function test can be seen by Platelet Function
Analyser (PFA-100) or light transmission aggregometry (LTA), for example.[3]
The field of pharmacogenetics, which aims to implement specific pharmacological therapies
to genetic characteristics with the intention to provide greater efficiency, is a
constant target of research.[8] Therefore, several studies have been published about candidate genes associated
with the genetic predisposition of resistance to AAS, such as COX-2, GPIIIA, and P2Y1.[9] Resistance to antiplatelet therapy and the indiscriminate use of ASA can increase
rates of recurrence and mortality from cardiovascular diseases, such as stroke.[10] Hence, the aim of the present study was to perform a systematic literature review
to determine the impact of genetic variants on AR.
METHODS
The present systematic review was established according to the recommendations of
the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyzes (PRISMA) statement
published by Moher et al. (2019). Five following databases were systematically screened:
MEDLINE/PubMed,[11] Cochrane,[12] Scopus,[13] LILACS,[14] and SCIELO.[15] The research was restricted to a period of 10 years (December 2009 to December 2019)
and the following search terms were applied: Aspirin AND Resistance AND Polymorphism and Aspirin AND Resistance AND Genetic variation.
Eligibility criteria
Only articles published in English were included in this search. Also, only articles
describing the relation between AR, proven by laboratory tests or a new case of CVD,
and polymorphisms or genetic variations were included in the present systematic review.
The final articles included (n = 21) in the present review were 20 case-controls and 1 cohort.
Assessment of risk of bias
The authors, using the combined search terms and based on the inclusion criteria,
conducted the primary literature search. In that first moment, titles and abstracts
were screened. All reports that appeared in accordance with the inclusion criteria
were full-text screened. All studies that did not comply with pre-established eligibility
and inclusion requirements were excluded. In a second step, the researchers independently
evaluated whether the full-texts previously selected followed the inclusion criteria.
In case of disagreement between two authors, a third author was consulted, and a consensus
was reached by a meeting between them.
Furthermore, to assess and minimize the presence of potential biases, the Risk of
Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) method was used as a reference.[16]
Data extraction and synthesis
In the primary literature search, a total of 290 articles were found: 178 in SCOPUS,
104 in MEDLINE/Pubmed, 5 in Cochrane, 2 articles in LILACS, and 1 in SCIELO. Of those,
19 were duplicated. Hence, 271 articles were screened for reading of title and abstract,
216 of which were excluded for not meeting our inclusion criteria.
In the next step, the authors independently reviewed 65 full-text articles. Then,
44 articles were excluded for not meeting our inclusion criteria. So, in the end,
21 articles were included in the present systematic review ([Figure 1]).
Figure 1 Flowchart of selected articles.
RESULTS
In the 21 final articles selected, a total of 10,873 patients were analyzed, of which
3,014 were aspirin resistant and 6,882 were aspirin sensitive (some articles brought
semiresistance values and were disregarded, and another 2 articles did not classify
their patients as sensitive and not sensitive). Of the 21 articles studied, 11 included
patients with a cerebrovascular event, totaling 4,835 patients. The other 10 articles
mostly analyzed cardiac outcomes. We also emphasize that the clinical conditions of
the evaluated patients were varied among the articles, with some articles evaluating
patients with > 1 disease: ischemic stroke (10 articles), coronary artery disease
(9), peripheral arterial disease (3), acute vascular event (1), age > 80 years old
(1), adults (1), and hypertension (1). Most of the patients in the selected articles
are from the Asian continent (9 from China, 4 from India, 2 from Turkey, and 1 from
Jordan), and regarding the other works, 3 articles are from the American continent
(all from the United States of America), 1 from the European continent (Belgium),
and 1 from the African continent (Tunisia).
Among the resistance analysis methods, 4 articles used clinical outcome and 17 used
platelet aggregation measurement. Among those who performed platelet aggregation measurement,
the most common method was LTA (8 articles), followed by PFA-100 system (3), thromboelastography
platelet mapping assay (TEG) (2), VerifyNow (2), PL-11 platelet analyzer (1), TXB2
elisa kit (1) and urinary 11-dehydro TXB2 (1), with some articles using > 1 method.
In [Table 1], we detail the following information from the 21 final articles included in the
present review: Type of article, country, clinical condition, sample number, number
of aspirin resistant patients, number of aspirin sensitive patients, gene, risk allele,
protective allele, genetic variant, p-value, Odds Ratio (OR), CI, resistance assessment
method, and daily aspirin dose.
Table 1
Compilation of the included articles
Author (year)
|
Type of article
|
Country
|
Clinical condition
|
Sample number*
|
Aspirin resistant
|
Aspirin sensitive
|
Gene
|
Protective allele
|
Risk allele
|
Genetic variation
|
p-value
|
OR
|
CI
|
Resistance assessment method
|
Aspirin dose/day
|
Patel S. et al (2019)[23]
|
Case-control
|
India
|
Ischemic stroke
|
65
|
2
|
62
|
CYP2C19
|
G
|
A
|
rs4244285 (CYP2C19*2)
|
0.171
|
NI
|
NI
|
Platelet Aggregation Measurement - LTA
|
75mg
|
ITGA2B/ITGB3
|
T
|
C
|
rs5918 (PLA1/A2)
|
0.960
|
NI
|
NI
|
Yeo et al. (2018)[35]
|
Cohort
|
USA
|
Peripheral artery disease
|
154
|
31
|
123
|
PTGS1
|
A
|
G
|
rs10306114 (A842G)
|
NI
|
NI
|
NI
|
Platelet Aggregation Measurement - VerifyNow Assay
|
300mg
|
PTGS1
|
C
|
T
|
rs3842787 (C22T)
|
NI
|
NI
|
NI
|
PTGS1
|
C
|
A
|
rs5788 (C644A)
|
NI
|
NI
|
NI
|
PTGS1
|
C
|
A
|
rs5789 (C714A)
|
NI
|
NI
|
NI
|
ITGA2
|
C
|
T
|
rs1126643 (C807T)
|
NI
|
NI
|
NI
|
ITGA2
|
G
|
A
|
rs1062535 (873G/A)
|
NI
|
NI
|
NI
|
ITGA2
|
C
|
T
|
rs1126643 (C807T)
|
NI
|
NI
|
NI
|
ITGB3
|
T
|
C
|
rs5918 (PLA1/A2)
|
NI
|
NI
|
NI
|
GP6
|
C
|
T
|
rs1613662 (C13254T)
|
NI
|
NI
|
NI
|
P2RY12
|
C
|
T
|
rs1065776 (893C > T)
|
NI
|
NI
|
NI
|
F13A1
|
G
|
T
|
rs5985 (V34L)
|
NI
|
NI
|
NI
|
PON1
|
A
|
G
|
rs662 (A576G)
|
0.005
|
NI
|
NI
|
Wang et al. (2017)[28]
|
Case-control
|
China
|
Ischemic stroke
|
97
|
43
|
54
|
ITGA2
|
C
|
T
|
rs1126643 (C807T)
|
0.210
|
NI
|
NI
|
Platelet Aggregation Measurement - PL-11 platelet analyzer
|
100mg
|
PTGS2
|
G
|
C
|
rs20417 (G765C)
|
0.69
|
NI
|
NI
|
Strisciuglio et al. (2017)[36]
|
Case-control
|
Belgium
|
Stable CAD patients undergoing elective PCI
|
597
|
NI
|
NI
|
NPPA
|
T
|
C
|
rs5065 (T2238C)
|
0.7
|
NI
|
NI
|
Platelet Aggregation Measurement - VerifyNow P2Y12
|
500mg
|
Yi et al. (2017)[19]
|
Case-control
|
China
|
Ischemic stroke
|
850
|
175
|
630
|
PTGS1
|
C
|
T
|
rs1236913
|
0.99**
|
NI
|
NI
|
Platelet Aggregation Measurement - LTA
|
200mg (14 days) and follow-up with 100mg
|
PTGS1
|
C
|
T
|
rs3842787
|
0.76**
|
NI
|
NI
|
PTGS2
|
A
|
G
|
rs689466
|
0.89**
|
NI
|
NI
|
PTGS2
|
G
|
C
|
rs20417
|
0.26**
|
NI
|
NI
|
TXAS1
|
G
|
A
|
rs194149
|
0.42**
|
NI
|
NI
|
TXAS1
|
T
|
C
|
rs2267679
|
0.53**
|
NI
|
NI
|
TXAS1
|
G
|
T
|
rs41708
|
0.72**
|
NI
|
NI
|
P2RY1
|
A
|
G
|
rs701265
|
0.48**
|
NI
|
NI
|
P2RY1
|
A
|
G
|
rs1439010
|
0.32**
|
NI
|
NI
|
P2RY1
|
C
|
T
|
rs1371097
|
0.01**
|
NI
|
NI
|
P2RY12
|
C
|
T
|
rs16863323
|
0.21**
|
NI
|
NI
|
P2RY12
|
G
|
A
|
rs9859538
|
0.16**
|
NI
|
NI
|
ITGB3
|
A
|
G
|
rs2317676
|
0.24**
|
NI
|
NI
|
ITGB3
|
A
|
G
|
rs11871251
|
0.51**
|
NI
|
NI
|
Peng et al. (2016)[20]
|
Case-control
|
China
|
Ischemic stroke
|
283
|
250
|
33
|
ABCB1
|
C
|
T
|
rs1045642
|
0.021
|
0.421
|
0.233–0.759
|
Platelet Aggregation Measurement - TXB2 ELISA kit
|
100mg
|
TBXA2R
|
G
|
A
|
rs1131882
|
0.028
|
2.712
|
1.080–6.810
|
PLA2G7
|
A
|
G
|
rs1051931
|
0.023
|
8.233
|
1.590–42.638
|
PLA2G7
|
C
|
A
|
rs7756935
|
0.023
|
8.233
|
1.590–42.638
|
PEAR1
|
G
|
T
|
rs12566888
|
0.378
|
0.660
|
0.260–1.671
|
PEAR1
|
G
|
A
|
rs12566888
|
0.378
|
0.660
|
0.260–1.671
|
Yi et al. (2016)[8]
|
Case-control
|
China
|
Ischemic stroke
|
850
|
175
|
630
|
PTGS1
|
T
|
C
|
rs1236913
|
0.95**
|
NI
|
NI
|
Platelet Aggregation Measurement- LTA
|
200mg (14 days) and follow-up with 100mg
|
PTGS1
|
C
|
T
|
rs3842787
|
0.78**
|
NI
|
NI
|
PTGS2
|
T
|
C
|
rs689466
|
0.82**
|
NI
|
NI
|
PTGS2
|
G
|
C
|
rs20417
|
0.42**
|
NI
|
NI
|
Derle et al. (2016)[3]
|
Case-control
|
Turkey
|
Acute vascular event
|
208
|
67
|
141
|
ITGB3
|
T
|
C
|
rs5918 (PLA1/A2)
|
0.277
|
NI
|
NI
|
Platelet Aggregation Measurement - PFA-100 system
|
100–300mg
|
Wang et al. (2014)[24]
|
Case-control
|
China
|
> 80 years old
|
450
|
236
|
214
|
ITGB3
|
T
|
C
|
rs5918 (PLA1/A2)
|
0.002
|
NI
|
NI
|
Platelet Aggregation Measurement - LTA
|
100mg
|
Al-Azzam et al. (2013)[27]
|
Case-control
|
Jordan
|
Adults
|
584
|
92
|
492
|
ITGA2
|
C
|
T
|
rs1126643 (C807T)
|
0.116
|
NI
|
NI
|
Platelet Aggregation Measurement - Multiplate Analyzer system
|
100mg
|
GP1BA
|
T
|
C
|
rs2243093
|
0.003
|
NI
|
NI
|
PTGS2
|
G
|
C
|
rs20417
|
0.485
|
NI
|
NI
|
Li et al. (2012)[29]
|
Case-control
|
China
|
CAD, stroke, and peripheral artery disease
|
431
|
36
|
231
|
PTGS1
|
C
|
T
|
rs1888943
|
0.92
|
NI
|
NI
|
Platelet Aggregation Measurement - LTA
|
75–160mg
|
PTGS1
|
A
|
G
|
rs1330344
|
0.1
|
NI
|
NI
|
PTGS1
|
C
|
T
|
rs3842787
|
0.92
|
NI
|
NI
|
PTGS1
|
G
|
A
|
rs5787
|
0.92
|
NI
|
NI
|
PTGS1
|
C
|
A
|
rs5789
|
1
|
NI
|
NI
|
PTGS1
|
G
|
A
|
rs5794
|
1
|
NI
|
NI
|
PTGS2
|
G
|
C
|
rs20417
|
1
|
NI
|
NI
|
PTGS2
|
C
|
G
|
rs5277
|
0.24
|
NI
|
NI
|
HO1
|
A
|
T
|
rs2071746
|
0.04
|
NI
|
NI
|
Wang et al. (2013)[21]
|
Case-control
|
China
|
Patientsunderwent primary OPCAB
|
210
|
62
|
148
|
TBXA2R
|
T
|
C
|
rs4523 (T924C)
|
0.001
|
4.479
|
1.811–11.077
|
Platelet Aggregation Measurement - LTA
|
100mg
|
ITGB3
|
T
|
C
|
rs5918 (PLA1/A2)
|
NI
|
NI
|
NI
|
P2RY1
|
A
|
G
|
rs701265 (A1622G)
|
0.724
|
1.178
|
0.473–2.934
|
GP1BA
|
C
|
T
|
rs6065 (C1018T)
|
NI
|
NI
|
NI
|
Sharma et al. (2013)[32]
|
Case-control
|
India
|
Ischemic stroke
|
450
|
217
|
233
|
PTGS2
|
G
|
C
|
rs20417 (-765G/C)
|
CC: p = 0.016 GC:p = 0.02
|
CC:OR-3.157 GC: OR-1.745
|
CC: 1.241–8.033GC: 1.059–2.875
|
Clinical outcome
|
75–325mg
|
Sharma et al. (2013)[17]
|
Case-control
|
India
|
Ischemic stroke
|
610
|
307
|
303
|
ALOX5AP
|
T
|
A
|
rs9315042 (SG13S114T/A)
|
<0.001
|
2.983
|
1.884–4.723
|
Clinical outcome
|
75–325mg
|
Fan et al. (2012)
|
Case-control
|
China
|
CAD, hypertension, peripheral artery disease and stroke
|
431
|
38
|
393
|
PTGS1
|
A
|
G
|
rs1330344
|
0.01
|
1.82
|
1.13–2.92
|
Platelet Aggregation Measurement - LTA and TEG Platelet Mapping Assay
|
75–100 mg
|
PTGS1
|
C
|
T
|
rs1888943
|
0.59
|
NI
|
NI
|
PTGS1
|
C
|
T
|
rs3842787
|
0.66
|
NI
|
NI
|
PTGS1
|
G
|
A
|
rs5787
|
0.49
|
NI
|
NI
|
PTGS1
|
C
|
A
|
rs5789
|
1
|
NI
|
NI
|
PTGS1
|
G
|
A
|
rs5794
|
1
|
NI
|
NI
|
Sharma et al. (2012)[33]
|
Case-control
|
India
|
Ischemic stroke
|
560
|
338
|
222
|
ABCB1
|
C
|
T
|
rs1045642
|
0.012
|
1.85
|
1.142–3.017
|
Clinical outcome
|
75–325 mg/dia
|
Gao et al. (2011)[22]
|
Case-control
|
China
|
Patients underwent primary OPCAB
|
262
|
23
|
239
|
GP1BA
|
C
|
T
|
rs6065 (C1018T)
|
1
|
NI
|
NI
|
Platelet Aggregation Measurement - LTA
|
100mg
|
ITGB3
|
T
|
C
|
rs5918 (P1A1/A2)
|
1
|
NI
|
NI
|
P2RY1
|
A
|
G
|
rs701265 (A1622G)
|
0.991
|
NI
|
NI
|
TBXA2R
|
T
|
C
|
rs4523 (T924C)
|
0.01
|
NI
|
NI
|
Chakroun et al. (2011)[31]
|
Case-control
|
Tunisia
|
Stable CAD
|
125
|
NI
|
NI
|
PTGS1
|
C
|
T
|
rs3842787 (C50T)
|
Urinary TxB2: 0.1PFA-100: 0.43
|
NI
|
NI
|
Platelet Aggregation Measurement - PFA-100 system and Urinary 11-dehydro-TXB2
|
250mg
|
Voora et al. (2011)[26]
|
Case-control
|
USA
|
Coronary stenosis ≥ 75%
|
3449
|
865
|
2584
|
GNB3
|
C
|
T
|
rs5443 (C825T)
|
> 0.05
|
Black: 1.15 White: 0.93
|
Black: 0.71–1.87 White: 0.82–1.07
|
Clinical Outcome
|
Two groups: < 81mg and > 81mg
|
ITGA2
|
C
|
T
|
rs1126643 (C807T)
|
Black: 1.10 White: 0.99
|
Black: 0.82–1.46 White: 0.87–1.14
|
ITGB3
|
T
|
C
|
rs5918
|
Black: 1.03 White: 0.98
|
Black: 0.71–1.50 White: 0.85–1.13
|
GP6
|
A
|
G
|
rs1613662
|
Black: 0.89 White: 0.99
|
Black: 0.66–1.20 White: 0.86–1.15
|
GP1BA
|
T
|
C
|
rs2243093
|
Black: 0.84 White: 1.01
|
Black: 0.62–1.14 White: 0.86–1.18
|
PEAR1
|
A
|
C
|
rs2768759
|
Black: 1.05 White: 0.95
|
Black: 0.46–2.41 White: 0.83–1.09
|
VAV3
|
A
|
C
|
rs6583047
|
Black: 1.06 White: 1.02
|
Black: 0.80–1.42 White: 0.89–1.16
|
F2R
|
A
|
T
|
rs168753
|
Black: 0.96 White: 1.06
|
Black: 0.60–1.54 White: 0.91–1.23
|
THBS1
|
A
|
G
|
rs2228262
|
Black: 0.68 White: 1.03
|
Black: 0.34–1.36 White: 0.88–1.21
|
PTGS1
|
C
|
T
|
rs3842787
|
Black: 1.29 White: 1.06
|
Black: 0.94–1.77 White: 0.88–1.29
|
ADRA2A
|
G
|
C
|
rs1800544
|
Black: 0.98 White: 0.97
|
Black: 0.63–1.51 White: 0.85–1.10
|
Pamukcu et al. (2010)[25]
|
Case-control
|
Turkey
|
Stable CAD
|
126
|
30
|
96
|
F5
|
G
|
A
|
rs6025 (G1691A)
|
0.302
|
NI
|
NI
|
Platelet Aggregation Measurement - PFA-100 system
|
NI (The p-value for the difference between the resistant and sensitive groups was 0.681)
|
F5
|
A
|
G
|
rs1800595 (A4070G - H1299R)
|
0.191
|
F2
|
G
|
A
|
rs1799963 (G20210A)
|
0.644
|
F13A1
|
G
|
T
|
rs5985 (V34L)
|
0.480
|
FGB
|
G
|
A
|
rs1800790 (G455A)
|
0.814
|
SERPINE1
|
A
|
G
|
rs1799889 (4G/5G)
|
0.656
|
ITGB3
|
T
|
C
|
rs5918 (HPA1a/b)
|
0.623
|
MTHFR
|
C
|
T
|
rs1801133 (C677T)
|
0.362
|
MTHFR
|
A
|
C
|
rs1801131 (A1298C)
|
0.421
|
ACE
|
Ins
|
Del
|
rs1799752 (ACE I/D)
|
0.713
|
APOB
|
G
|
A
|
rs5742904 (R3500Q)
|
1
|
APOE
|
T
|
C
|
rs429358 (C112R)
|
0.695
|
APOE
|
T
|
C
|
rs429358 (C158A)
|
0.695
|
Carroll et al. (2010)[34]
|
Case-control
|
USA
|
Candidates for interventional cardiology on aspirin therapy
|
81
|
27
|
54
|
ALOX12
|
A
|
G
|
rs434473
|
0.043
|
NI
|
NI
|
Platelet Aggregation Measurement - TEG Platelet mapping
|
Not uniform
|
ALOX15B
|
G
|
A
|
rs4792147
|
0.440
|
ALOX12
|
G
|
A
|
rs1126667
|
0.580
|
ALOX15
|
G
|
A
|
rs3892408
|
NI
|
Abbreviations: CAD, coronary artery disease; CI, confidence interval; LTA, light transmission
aggregometry; NI, not informed; OPCAB, off-pump coronary artery bypass; PCI, percutaneous
coronary intervention; TxB2, thromboxane B2.
Notes: *The number of semiresistants is not included.
**These p-values are the result of comparing the Aspirin Semiresistance + spirin Resistance
group with the Aspirin Sensitive group. There is no individual comparison between
aspirin resistance X aspirin sensitivity.
In addition, we have highlighted in a separate table the genetic variants with relevant
results for AR ([Table 2]). As for relevance, of the 64 genetic variants evaluated by the articles, 14 had
statistical significance (p < 0.05; 95%CI). Among them, the following polymorphisms have had concordant results
so far: rs1371097 (P2RY1), rs1045642 (MDR1), rs1051931 and rs7756935 (PLA2G7), rs2071746 (HO1), rs1131882 and rs4523 (TBXA2R), rs434473 (ALOX12), rs9315042 (ALOX5AP), and rs662 (PON1). In turn, these genetic variants differ in real interference in AR: rs5918 (ITGB3), rs2243093 (GP1BA), rs1330344 (PTGS1), and rs20417 (PTGS2).
Table 2
Genetic variants with relevant results for aspirin resistance
Biomarker (Pharmacogene)
|
Alleles
|
Refs.
|
PON1
|
rs662
|
[35]
|
P2RY1
|
rs1371097
|
[19]
|
ABCB1
|
rs1045642
|
[20]
[33]
|
TBXA2R
|
rs1131882, rs 4523
|
[20]
[21]
|
PLA2G7
|
rs1051931, rs7756935
|
[20]
|
ITGB3
|
rs5918
|
[24]
|
GP1BA
|
rs2243093
|
[27]
|
HO1
|
rs2071746
|
[29]
|
PTGS2
|
rs20417
|
[17]
|
ALOX5AP
|
rs9315042
|
[17]
|
PTGS1
|
rs1330344
|
[29]
[30]
|
ALOX12
|
rs434473
|
[34]
|
DISCUSSION
To study the relationship between polymorphisms and AR, it is necessary to consider
the resistance analysis mode, which can be performed in two ways: clinical or laboratory.
In the first, the patient is considered resistant if there is a negative outcome (death
or stroke for example).[17] In the second, several types of tests can be used, such as PFA-100, VerifyNow Aspirin,
TEG, PL-11 platelet analyzer, serum and urinary TXB2, LTA, and multiplate analyzer.
However, it is important to highlight that the measurement of platelet response to
aspirin is highly variable, likely due to differing dependence of the arachidonic
acid pathway between techniques. In our research, the most used laboratory method
was the LTA, which is considered the gold standard for testing platelet function.[18]
The relationship between polymorphisms and AR has been described by Yi et al. This
study assessed the interaction with PTGS1 (rs1236913 and rs3842787), PTGS2 (rs689466 and rs20417), TXAS1 (rs194149, rs2267679, and rs41708), P2RY1 (rs701265, rs1439010, and rs1371097), P2RY12 (rs16863323 and rs9859538), and ITGB3 (rs2317676 and rs11871251) gene variants. In the laboratory analysis, only rs1371097
of the P2RY1 gene, comparison CC x TT + CT, obtained statistical relevance (p = 0.01), even after adjusting for other covariates (p = 0.002; OR = 2.35; 95%CI: 1.87–6.86). In addition, using the generalized multifactor
dimensionality reduction (GMDR) method, the following 3 sets of gene-gene interactions
were significantly associated with AR: rs20417CC/rs1371097TT/rs2317676GG (p = 0.004; OR = 2.72; 95%CI: 1.18–6.86); rs20417CC/rs1371097TT/rs2317676GG/AG (p = 0.034; OR = 1.91; 95%CI: 1.07–3.84); rs20417CC/rs1371097CT/rs2317676AG (p = 0.0025; OR = 2.28; 95%CI: 1.13–5.33). These high-risk interactive genotypes were
also associated with a bigger chance of early neurological deterioration (p < 0.001; Hazard Ratio [HR] = 2.47; 95%CI: 1.42–7.84).[19]
Peng et al. (2016) also assessed genes related to thromboxane and others. The analyzed
polymorphisms were ABCB1 (rs1045642), TBXA2R (rs1131882), PLA2G7 (rs1051931 and rs7756935) and PEAR1 (rs12041331–rs1256888). There was statistical significance for 3 of them: rs1045642
(p = 0.021; OR = 0.421; 95%CI: 0.233–0.759), rs1131882 (p = 0.028; OR = 2.712; 95%CI: 1.080–6.810) and rs1051931–rs7756935 (p = 0.023; OR = 8.233; 95%CI: 1.590–42.638),[20] while Wang Z. et al (2013) researched the association with TBXA2R (rs4523), ITGB3 (rs5918), P2RY1 (rs701265), and GP1BA (rs6065) polymorphisms. The only polymorphism significantly associated with AR was
rs4523 (p = 0.001; OR = 4.479; 95%CI = 1.811–11.077).[21]
Another study that assessed the TBXA2 and glycoprotein genes was done by Gao et al. GP1BA (rs6065), ITGB3 (rs5918), P2RY1 (rs701265), and TBXA2R (rs4523) genetic variations were researched, but only TBXA2R (rs4523) polymorphism was related (p = 0.01).[22] In addition, Patel et al. also studied the ITGA2B/ITGB3 polymorphisms. They analyzed the relationship with CYP2C19 (rs4244285) and ITGA2B/ITGB3 (rs5918) polymorphisms. However, no association was observed (p = 0.171 and p = 0.960, respectively).[23]
Moreover, still in the scope of glycoprotein genes, Derle et al. conducted a study
with 208 patients with vascular risk factors. ITGB3 (rs5918) polymorphism was screened, and the results showed that there was no significant
difference in the presence of the C allele between the groups (p = 0.277). In addition, in the relationship between the presence of the C allele and
atherothrombotic stroke, no significant difference was found (p = 0.184).[3]
A study by Wang B et al. also analyzed the rs5918 (PLA1/A2) polymorphism of the ITGB3 gene. All 214 patients in the aspirin sensitive group had the PLA1/A1 genotype and no patients with PLA2/A2 were found. However, of the 236 patients in the AR group, 12 had PLA1/A2 heterozygous genotype (p = 0.002), finding a statistically significant differenc.[24]
In the study by Pamukcu et al., 13 polymorphisms of 10 different genes were tested,
including ITGB3. The genes F5 (rs6025, rs1800595), F2 (rs1799963), F13A1 (rs5985), FGB (rs1800790), SERPINE1 (rs1799889), ITGB3 (rs5918), MTHFR (rs1801133, rs1801131), ACE (rs1799752 - Ins/Del), APOB (rs5742904), and APOE (rs429358 - C112R and C158A) were evaluated. However, there was no significant result
for any polymorphism (p > 0.05).[25] Furthermore, in the case-control study by Voora et al, 11 polymorphisms of 11 different
genes were assessed: GNB3 (rs5443), ITGA2 (rs1126643), ITGB3 (rs5918), GP6 (rs1613662), GP1BA (rs2243093), PEAR1 (rs2768759), VAV3 (rs6583047), F2R (rs168753), THBS1 (rs2228262), PTGS1 (rs3842787), and ADRA2A (rs1800544). When comparing the groups, there was no relationship (p > 0.05).[26]
Another research that studied some of the same genes was conducted by Al-Azzam et
al.: GP1BA (rs1126643), ITGA2 (rs2243093) and PTGS2 (rs20417). Of these, only the GP1BA (rs2243093) gene was related (p = 0.003), analyzing the presence of the C allele.[27] Additionally, Wang et al. (2017) conducted a study about the following polymorphisms:
ITGA2 polymorphism gene at rs1126643 and PTGS2 polymorphism gene at rs20417. The authors found no association: p = 0.21 for rs126643 and p = 0.69 for rs20417.[28]
Moreover, Yi et al. used Matrix-Assisted Laser Desorption/Ionization-Time Of Flight
(MALDI-TOF) to link PTGS1 (rs1236913 and rs3842787) and PTGS2 (rs689466, and rs20417) with AR. The analysis showed that there was no statistical
relevance for the relationship. Only when the gene-gene interaction (rs3842787 and
rs20417) was evaluated, there was statistical significance: rs3842787/CT + rs20417/CC
(p = 0.016; OR = 2.36; 95%CI: 1.12–6.86), rs3842787/TT, CT + rs20417/CC (p = 0.078; OR = 1.36; 95% CI: 0.82–2.01), and rs3842787/CT + rs20417/GC (p = 0.034; OR = 1.78; 95%CI: 1.04–4.58). Highlighting the fact that, for the second
combination, there is an invalid CI.[19]
Another study that investigated polymorphisms of the PTGS1 (rs1888943, rs1330344, rs3842787, rs5787, rs5789, rs5794) and PTGS2 (rs20417, rs5277) genes was conducted by Li et al.; in addition to these two genes,
a genetic variant of the HO1 gene (rs2071746) was also tested. As a result, only two genetic variations were associated
with AR. The rs2071746 polymorphism (HO1 gene) had statistical significance to genotype TT (p = 0.04; OR = 1.40; 95%CI = 0.59–3.30) and T allele (p = 0.04; OR = 1.70; 95%CI =1.02–2.79), while rs1330344 (PTGS1 gene) had significant results only when G was the risk allele and analyzed separately
(p = 0.02; OR = 1.77; 95%CI = 1.07–2.92).[29]
Still on the PTGS1 gene, Fan et al. investigated several polymorphisms of the PTGS1 gene (rs1888943, rs1330344, rs3842787, rs5787, rs5789, and rs5794), but rs1330344
was the only significantly related to AR (p = 0.01; OR = 1.82; 95%CI = 1.13–2.92; allele value) just in LTA + TEG analysis.[30] Moreover, another case-control study by Chakroun et al. investigated the relationship
between rs3842787 polymorphism of the PTGS1 gene and AR. Patients with the allele had no statistically significant difference
using CEPI-CT (p = 0.1) and uTxB2 (p = 0.43).[31]
Sharma et al. evaluated 3 polymorphisms of 3 different genes, PTGS2 (rs20417), ALOX5AP (rs9315042) and ABCB1 (rs1045642), to assess their role in AR. The research was performed in 3 different
studies and all studies obtained statistical relevance for the CC allele of rs20417
(p = 0.016; OR = 3.157; 95%CI: 1.241–8.033), the GC allele of rs20417 (p < 0.001; OR = 2.983; 95%CI: 1,884–4,723) and for the rs9315042 variant (p < 0.001; OR = 2.983; 95%CI: 1.884–4.723). For the variant rs1045642, 2 comparisons
were made, one comparing cases and controls, for the TT x CC alleles (p < 0.001; OR = 2.27; 95%CI: 1.64–3.168), and for the TT x CT + CC alleles (p < 0.001; OR = 1.72; 95%CI: 1.335–2.239) and other comparing AR and sensitive participants
(p = 0.012; OR = 1.85; 95%CI: 1.142–3.017).[17]
[32]
[33]
Another study that tested the ALOX gene was done by Carroll et al. The study tested 4 genetic variants: rs434473 and
rs1126667 of the ALOX12 gene, rs4792147 of the ALOX15B gene and rs3892408 of the ALOX15 gene. Only the rs434473 polymorphism obtained a significant p-value (p = 0.043).[34]
Furthermore, Yeo et al. analyzed some variants of PTGS1 (rs10306114, rs3842787, rs5788, and rs5789), ITGA2 (rs1126643, rs1062535, and rs1126643), ITGB3 (rs5918), GP6 (rs1613662), P2RY12 (rs1065776), and F13A1 (rs5985) genes, but only rs662 (A576G) of PON1 gene was significantly relevant (p = 0.005) to AR.[35]
Lastly, a study by Strisciuglio et al. included 450 noncarriers of the T2238C polymorphism
(rs5065, NPPA gene) and 147 carriers. The authors concluded that there was no statistical difference
when comparing the groups, neither in overall CAD patients (p = 0.7) nor in the diabetic group (p = 0.6).[36]
As limitations of the present study, we highlight the nonuniform methodologies of
the analyzed articles, as well as population differences. These divergences made it
difficult to compare the results of the articles. Among the studies, there was a great
difference among the clinical conditions, as well as in the way of analysis of the
resistance and in the dosage of aspirin. Unfortunately, meta-analysis was not performed
due to such high clinical and methodological heterogeneity of the findings.
Despite the heterogeneity of the findings in terms of methodology and results, it
is clear that some polymorphisms are more studied than others. Among them, rs1126643
(ITGA2), rs3842787 (PTGS1), rs20417 (PTGS2), and rs 5918 (ITGB3) were the most studied.
In conclusion, pharmacogenetics is an expanding area that promises a therapy aimed
at the individualities of each patient, personalized medicine, for better control
of diseases, including cardiovascular diseases, such as stroke.
Finally, further studies are needed to better understand the association between genetic
variants and AR and, therefore, the practical application of the findings.