Genotyping and phenotyping CYP3A4\CYP3A5: no association with antiplatelet effect of clopidogrel

  • K. B. MirzaevEmail author
  • K. I. Samsonova
  • P. P. Potapov
  • D. A. Andreev
  • E. A. Grishina
  • K. A. Ryzhikova
  • D. A. Sychev
Original Article


The objective of this study was to determine the impact of polymorphism of CYP3A subfamily isoenzymes (allelic variants of CYP3A4*22 and CYP3A5*3) on the efficacy clopidogrel in patients with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS), who have undergone percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). Platelet activity was determined on a VerifyNow P2Y12 test system in 81 patients with ACS aged 37–91 who had PCI. The activity of CYP3A4/5 was expressed as the ratio of the concentrations of cortisol and 6β-hydroxycortisol was performed by using high performance liquid chromatography. Genotyping was performed by using real-time polymerase real-time chain reaction. The frequencies for the CYP3A5 gene, rs 776746, were identified as follows: 77 (95.1%)—CC, 4 (4.9%)—CT; the allele frequencies by loci for the CYP3A4, rs rs35599367, were as follows: 78 (96.3%)—GG, 3 (3.7%)—AG. There was no statistically significant genotype-dependent difference between the presence of a minor T and G alleles and the presence of clopidogrel resistance (OR 3.53; 95% CI 0.46–26.94; p = 0.233 and p = 0.443, respectively). The average level of the metabolic relationship (6β-hydroxycortisol/cortisol) between the clopidogrel-resistant group and the normal platelet reactivity group was not statistically significantly different: 3.3 ± 2.8 versus 3.2 ± 3.2; p = 0.947. So, the activity of CYP3A4/5 was not related to platelet aggregation rates in this model. Genotyping and phenotyping CYP3A4\CYP3A5 does not predict the antiplatelet effect of clopidogrel. More extensive research is required to establish their clinical relevance.


Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) Clopidogrel Pharmacogenetics CYP3A4*22 CYP3A5*3 Resistance High residual platelet reactivity (HRPR) 



This study has been supported by the Grant Council of the President of the Russian Federation for state support of young Russian scientists (grant of the President of the Russian Federation for state support of young Russian scientists of candidates of Sciences—no. MK-2617.2018.7).

Author contributions

Moreover, the funding organizations played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication. K.B., E.A., K.A., P.P. carried out the molecular genetic stadies; K.B. and K.I. wrote the manuscript; D.A. and D.A supervised the project.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All of the authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Gracianskij N (2006) Lechenie ostrogo koronarnogo sindroma bez stojkogo pod”ema segmenta ST na EHKG. Kardiovaskulyarnaya terapiya i profilaktika 8:411–440Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Amsterdam EA et al (2014) 2014 AHA/ACC guideline for the management of patients with non–ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 64:e139–e228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ibanez B et al (2018) 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation. Kardiol Pol 76:229–313CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    O’gara PT et al (2013) 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of ST-elevation myocardial infarction: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 61:485–510CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roffi M et al (2016) 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). G Ital Cardiol (Rome) 17:831–872Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhatt DL et al (2006) Clopidogrel and aspirin versus aspirin alone for the prevention of atherothrombotic events. N Engl J Med 354:1706–1717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dangas GD et al (2011) Frequency and predictors of stent thrombosis after percutaneous coronary intervention in acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 123:1745–1756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yusuf S et al (2001) Effects of clopidogrel in addition to aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndromes without ST-segment elevation. N Engl J Med 345:494–502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mehta SR, Yusuf S (2000) The Clopidogrel in Unstable angina to prevent Recurrent Events (CURE) trial programme; rationale, design and baseline characteristics including a meta-analysis of the effects of thienopyridines in vascular disease. Eur Heart J 21:2033–2041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mallouk N et al (2012) Prevalence of poor biological response to clopidogrel: a systematic review. Thromb Haemost 107:494–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Stone GW et al (2013) Platelet reactivity and clinical outcomes after coronary artery implantation of drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES): a prospective multicentre registry study. Lancet 382:614–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lewis JP et al (2013) The functional G143E variant of carboxylesterase 1 is associated with increased clopidogrel active metabolite levels and greater clopidogrel response. Pharmacogenet Genomics 23:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sorich MJ, Rowland A, McKinnon RA, Wiese MD (2014) CYP2C19 genotype has a greater effect on adverse cardiovascular outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention and in Asian populations treated with clopidogrel: a meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Genet 7:895–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kazui M et al (2010) Identification of the human cytochrome P450 enzymes involved in the two oxidative steps in the bioactivation of clopidogrel to its pharmacologically active metabolite. Drug Metab Dispos 38:92–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Angiolillo DJ et al (2006) Contribution of gene sequence variations of the hepatic cytochrome P450 3A4 enzyme to variability in individual responsiveness to clopidogrel. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 26:1895–1900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brackbill ML, Kidd RS, Abdoo AD, Warner JG, Harralson AF (2009) Frequency of CYP3A4, CYP3A5, CYP2C9, and CYP2C19 variant alleles in patients receiving clopidogrel that experience repeat acute coronary syndrome. Heart Vessels 24:73–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lau WC et al (2004) Contribution of hepatic cytochrome P450 3A4 metabolic activity to the phenomenon of clopidogrel resistance. Circulation 109:166–171CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zanger UM, Schwab M (2013) Cytochrome P450 enzymes in drug metabolism: regulation of gene expression, enzyme activities, and impact of genetic variation. Pharmacol Ther 138:103–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zhang HZ, Kim MH, Guo LZ, Serebruany V (2017) CYP2C19 but not CYP2B6, CYP3A4, CYP3A5, ABCB1, PON1 or P2Y12 genetic polymorphism impacts antiplatelet response after clopidogrel in Koreans. Blood Coagul Fibrinolysis 28:56–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hu GX et al (2017) Systematic screening for CYP3A4 genetic polymorphisms in a Han Chinese population. Pharmacogenomics 18:369–379CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Werk AN, Cascorbi I (2014) Functional gene variants of CYP3A4. Clin Pharmacol Ther 96:340–348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang D, Sadee W (2016) CYP3A4 intronic SNP rs35599367 (CYP3A4*22) alters RNA splicing. Pharmacogenet Genomics 26:40–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    V. V. Smirnov, MMA im Sechenova, Moscow (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Björkhem-Bergman L et al (2013) Comparison of endogenous 4β-hydroxycholesterol with midazolam as markers for CYP3A4 induction by rifampicin. Drug Metab Dispos 41:1488–1493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kreutz RP et al (2013) Cytochrome P450 3A4*22, PPAR-α, and ARNT polymorphisms and clopidogrel response. Clin Pharmacol 5:185–192Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lu Y et al (2014) CYP3A5 genotype impacts maraviroc concentrations in healthy volunteers. Drug Metab Dispos 42(11):1796–1802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chen Y-Y (2017) Correlations of CYP2C9∗3/CYP2D6∗10/CYP3A5∗3 gene polymorphisms with efficacy of etanercept treatment for patients with ankylosing spondylitis. Medicine (Baltimore) 96(9):e5993CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yoo H-D et al (2010) Population pharmacokinetic analysis of cilostazol in healthy subjects with genetic polymorphisms of CYP3A5, CYP2C19 and ABCB1. Br J Clin Pharmacol 69(1):27–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Further Professional Education “Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education”, Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian FederationMoscowRussia
  2. 2.Lomonosov Moscow State UniversityMoscowRussia
  3. 3.First Moscow State Medical University (Sechenov University) Ministry of Healthcare of the Russian FederationMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations