Clinician perspectives regarding CYP2C19 genotype testing in patients with critical limb ischemia: A Delphi approach
Authors: Regan Christopher , Scierka Lindsey E , Dardik Alan , Tonnessen Britt , Iyad Ochoa Chaar Cassius , Ionescu Costin , Aboian Edouard , Cardella Jonathan , Nassiri Naiem , Guzman Raul , Attaran Robert , Nagpal Sameer , Shah Samit , Smolderen Kim G , Mena-Hurtado Carlos 
Published: April 2024

Objectives

Antiplatelet therapy is an essential element in the management of patients with arterial vascular disease. In peripheral arterial disease (PAD), dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), primarily clopidogrel and aspirin, is routinely prescribed following intervention. There is sparse data regarding the need for DAPT, the appropriate duration, or the heterogeneity of treatment effects for antiplatelet regimens across patients, leading to potential uncertainty and heterogeneity around treatment practices. An example of heterogeneity of treatment effects is a patients’ metabolizer status for the use of clopidogrel. The aim of the study was to (1) assess clinicians’ knowledge of and attitudes toward managing patients with CYP2C19 mutations, (2) identify barriers to implementation of CYP2C19 testing and management policies, and (3) reach consensus for CYP2C19 testing and management strategies for patients with PAD who undergo peripheral vascular interventions (PVI).

Methods

A modified Delphi method was used to establish consensus amongst PAD interventionalists around CYP2C19 testing. All practicing Yale New Haven Hospital PAD interventionalists with backgrounds in interventional cardiology, vascular surgery, or interventional radiology were approached by email for participation. Round 1 included the collection of baseline demographic questions, knowledge questions, and three statements for consensus. Knowledge questions were rated on a 0–10 Likert scale with the following anchors: 0 (“Not at all”), 5 (“Neutral), and 10 (“Very Much”). Participants were asked to rate the importance of the three consensus statements on a 9-point Likert scale from 1 (“Strongly Disagree”) to 10 (“Strongly Agree”). In Round 2, participants were shown the same consensus statements, the median response of the group from the previous round, and their previous answers. Participants were instructed to revise their rating using the results from the previous round. This process was repeated for Round 3.

Results

Of the 28 experts invited to participate, 13 agreed (46%). Participants were predominantly male (92.3%) and white (61.5%) with representation from interventional cardiology (46.2%) and vascular surgery (53.8%). Most participants reported more than 10+ years in practice (61.5%). PAD interventionalists felt they would benefit from more education regarding CYP2C19 mutations (median score 8.0, interquartile range 5.0–8.5). They indicated some familiarity with CYP2C19 mutations (7.0, 6.0–9.5) but did not feel strongly that CYP2C19 was important to their practice (6.0, 5.5–7.5). In each round, the median responses for the three consensus statements were 5, 6, and 9, respectively. With each successive round the interquartile range narrowed indicative of evolving consensus but did not reach the prespecified interquartile range for consensus of 1 for any of the statements.

Conclusions

PAD interventionalists practicing at an academic health system recognize the heterogenous response of their patients to clopidogrel therapy but are unsure when to leverage genetic testing to improve outcomes for their patients. Our study identified gaps regarding PAD interventionalists’ knowledge, perceived barriers, and attitudes toward CYP2C19 testing in PAD. This information highlights the need for randomized data on genetic testing for clopidogrel responsiveness in peripheral vascular disease following intervention to help guide antiplatelet management.