Comparison of a rapid point-of-care and two laboratory-based CYP2C19*2 genotyping assays for personalisation of antiplatelet therapy

Abstract

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.

Genotype-Phenotype Association and Impact on Outcomes following Guided De-Escalation of Anti-Platelet Treatment in Acute Coronary Syndrome Patients: The TROPICAL-ACS Genotyping Substudy

“…With accurate and reliable bedside systems for rapid CYP2C19 genotyping newly and broadly available, physicians have innovative tools potentially helping with personalized therapy decisions at their disposal. 37,46,47 This study represents one of the biggest ACS populations genotyped with the Spartan RX assay so far. It confirmed feasibility of rapid genotyping for the ACS setting.…”

Feasibility and Implementation of CYP2C19 Genotyping in Patients Using Antiplatelet Therapy

“…There are also disadvantages related to POC testing. First, although confirmation studies show a good correlation between Spartan RX and laboratory-based genotyping [26,27], in one patient the Spartan test result did not match with TaqMan genotyping result, and in 8% of patients in our cohort the test result was inconclusive on the first attempt. Although this problem might be solved at least for some part with more extensive training, laboratorybased testing has to be available for backup.…”

CYP2C19 Genotype-Guided Antiplatelet Therapy: Promises and Pitfalls

“…The time window can be even longer if results are sent to an outside lab. Rapid point-of-care genetic testing is being explored at some institutions where these devices appear to return results within 1–6 h [ 55 ]. Overall, however, the need to have pharmacogenetic data available in real time is leading to a shift from reactive testing (just in time) to pre-emptive testing (just in case).…”