<p>Evelo et al.'s recent work examines the differences between genders in how often combination evidence-based medicines (cEBMs) are prescribed after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The authors indicate that when controlling for other variables that may account for this trend, the gap between men and women lessens. However, it seems to merit further examination since the reduced unadjusted disparity (66% vs. 72.8%) continues to be a clinical gap similar to that reported in the treatment of women who have experienced an acute coronary syndrome [<span>1-3</span>].</p><p>A number of factors that are unique to women (e.g., age, comorbidities) may cloud true disparities, since eliminating those factors will allow you to understand the true difference between men and women when addressing providers' failure to deliver proper care to either gender based on factors such as biological predisposition.</p><p>In addition, the single-center design of this study reduces the extent to which the findings can be applied to the population as a whole, since it has been demonstrated multiple times through larger multi-center studies that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and invasive interventions at a variety of healthcare facilities [<span>1, 3, 4</span>].</p><p>The increased prescribing rates observed in this study may be attributed to the practices of the institution rather than a trend in the overall population. Additionally, the day after discharge (DAD) measure of cEBM did not capture any changes in medications, de-prescribing, or patient-directed discontinuation that occurred prior to discharge. Real-world adherence after an MI will have a significant impact on post-MI outcomes and limited interpretation of long-term implications. Further investigation is necessary. Women received percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and CABG less often compared to men, even though cardiology guidelines state that both processes are equally beneficial and that secondary preventive therapies for both genders are beneficial [<span>5</span>].</p><p>In Evelo et al., PCI was an independent predictor of an increased likelihood of receiving cEBM, suggesting that procedural differences may indirectly perpetuate differences in drug therapies, as well. The findings of this study, indicating a greater 6-month rate of both stroke and death for females, are consistent with the male-to-female ratio of outcomes reported in prior studies [<span>1, 6, 7</span>]. Although it is not possible to draw causal conclusions from this data, there is a need to investigate whether any of the clinically modifiable parameters, including intensity of treatment, clinician bias, or avoidance of prescribing due to perceived risk, contribute to the downstream sex disparity in outcomes.</p><p>Evelo et al. make an important first step in this area; however, there are many ways to build upon this foundation through continued research. Future studies shoul
{"title":"“Sex-Based Inequities in Post-STEMI Secondary Prevention: A Critical Appraisal and Path Forward”","authors":"Ibadullah Tahir, Hunain Shahbaz","doi":"10.1002/clc.70252","DOIUrl":"10.1002/clc.70252","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Evelo et al.'s recent work examines the differences between genders in how often combination evidence-based medicines (cEBMs) are prescribed after ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). The authors indicate that when controlling for other variables that may account for this trend, the gap between men and women lessens. However, it seems to merit further examination since the reduced unadjusted disparity (66% vs. 72.8%) continues to be a clinical gap similar to that reported in the treatment of women who have experienced an acute coronary syndrome [<span>1-3</span>].</p><p>A number of factors that are unique to women (e.g., age, comorbidities) may cloud true disparities, since eliminating those factors will allow you to understand the true difference between men and women when addressing providers' failure to deliver proper care to either gender based on factors such as biological predisposition.</p><p>In addition, the single-center design of this study reduces the extent to which the findings can be applied to the population as a whole, since it has been demonstrated multiple times through larger multi-center studies that women are less likely than men to receive guideline-recommended treatments and invasive interventions at a variety of healthcare facilities [<span>1, 3, 4</span>].</p><p>The increased prescribing rates observed in this study may be attributed to the practices of the institution rather than a trend in the overall population. Additionally, the day after discharge (DAD) measure of cEBM did not capture any changes in medications, de-prescribing, or patient-directed discontinuation that occurred prior to discharge. Real-world adherence after an MI will have a significant impact on post-MI outcomes and limited interpretation of long-term implications. Further investigation is necessary. Women received percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) and CABG less often compared to men, even though cardiology guidelines state that both processes are equally beneficial and that secondary preventive therapies for both genders are beneficial [<span>5</span>].</p><p>In Evelo et al., PCI was an independent predictor of an increased likelihood of receiving cEBM, suggesting that procedural differences may indirectly perpetuate differences in drug therapies, as well. The findings of this study, indicating a greater 6-month rate of both stroke and death for females, are consistent with the male-to-female ratio of outcomes reported in prior studies [<span>1, 6, 7</span>]. Although it is not possible to draw causal conclusions from this data, there is a need to investigate whether any of the clinically modifiable parameters, including intensity of treatment, clinician bias, or avoidance of prescribing due to perceived risk, contribute to the downstream sex disparity in outcomes.</p><p>Evelo et al. make an important first step in this area; however, there are many ways to build upon this foundation through continued research. Future studies shoul","PeriodicalId":10201,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Cardiology","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12746193/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145849014","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>While we found the article by Zhang and collaborators to be very interesting, numerous methodological limitations impair the reliability and clinical usefulness of the results and conclusions. Of particular concern is the limitation of the genetic scope to two SNPs, CYP3A4 rs2242480 and CYP3A5 rs776746. This restricts the research to only acting on two SNPs that were indicated as being involved in the pharmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics of ticagrelor and other agents that produce adverse effects.</p><p>Prior studies have firmly established the roles of SLCO1B1, ABCB1, UGT2B7, and P2Y12 allele variations in influencing ticagrelor bioavailability and dyspnea risk [<span>1-3</span>]. If the current study does not account for these genes, it may result in a large-scale shortage of genetic information to assess and incorrectly attribute the effects of other genes and environmental variables to just one SNP. It is also very disconcerting that key clinical outcomes are clearly underpowered. Low rates of ticagrelor-associated bleeding/revascularization events were recorded; a prior pharmacogenomic study indicated that to detect the genetic modality of rare events, one must conduct studies with large, multi-institutional cohorts [<span>4</span>].</p><p>The evidence of significantly low statistical power regarding major clinical outcomes evaluated is equally alarming. The frequency of ticagrelor-related occurrence of bleeding and revascularization is low, and previous pharmacogenomic studies identified that large, multicenter studies have the necessary statistical power to detect the effects of genetic variations on these rare clinical outcomes [<span>4</span>]. The small number of occurrences reported by Zhang et al. (e.g., 13 bleeding events) severely limited statistical power, resulting in an increased possibility of producing false negative results, thus making their conclusion of “no association” highly questionable.</p><p>The results of this study show a higher training accuracy but a significantly lower testing accuracy than what was found in other studies, indicating an unstable model. The authors, however, interpret this result as having biological meaning; a more cautious approach would take into account the risk of overfitting that GMDR has when using a large number of training sets [<span>5</span>]. In addition to the lack of confounding variables for the evaluation of dyspnea, there are multiple reasons why patients taking ticagrelor may experience dyspnea due to conditions other than the drug itself, for example, baseline pulmonary condition, vagal sensitivity, renal function, and other prescriptive medications, including β-blockers and ACE inhibitors [<span>3-6</span>].</p><p>Studies have shown that renal dysfunction and platelet reactivity are independent predictors of the severity of dyspnea [<span>3-7</span>]. The paper by Zhang et al. excluded several cardiopulmonary disorders; however, they did not rectify for the residual varia
{"title":"“Reconsidering CYP3A4/5 Genotyping for Ticagrelor Safety: Critical Appraisal of a Narrow Genetic Framework”","authors":"Ibadullah Tahir, Hunain Shahbaz","doi":"10.1002/clc.70251","DOIUrl":"10.1002/clc.70251","url":null,"abstract":"<p>While we found the article by Zhang and collaborators to be very interesting, numerous methodological limitations impair the reliability and clinical usefulness of the results and conclusions. Of particular concern is the limitation of the genetic scope to two SNPs, CYP3A4 rs2242480 and CYP3A5 rs776746. This restricts the research to only acting on two SNPs that were indicated as being involved in the pharmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics of ticagrelor and other agents that produce adverse effects.</p><p>Prior studies have firmly established the roles of SLCO1B1, ABCB1, UGT2B7, and P2Y12 allele variations in influencing ticagrelor bioavailability and dyspnea risk [<span>1-3</span>]. If the current study does not account for these genes, it may result in a large-scale shortage of genetic information to assess and incorrectly attribute the effects of other genes and environmental variables to just one SNP. It is also very disconcerting that key clinical outcomes are clearly underpowered. Low rates of ticagrelor-associated bleeding/revascularization events were recorded; a prior pharmacogenomic study indicated that to detect the genetic modality of rare events, one must conduct studies with large, multi-institutional cohorts [<span>4</span>].</p><p>The evidence of significantly low statistical power regarding major clinical outcomes evaluated is equally alarming. The frequency of ticagrelor-related occurrence of bleeding and revascularization is low, and previous pharmacogenomic studies identified that large, multicenter studies have the necessary statistical power to detect the effects of genetic variations on these rare clinical outcomes [<span>4</span>]. The small number of occurrences reported by Zhang et al. (e.g., 13 bleeding events) severely limited statistical power, resulting in an increased possibility of producing false negative results, thus making their conclusion of “no association” highly questionable.</p><p>The results of this study show a higher training accuracy but a significantly lower testing accuracy than what was found in other studies, indicating an unstable model. The authors, however, interpret this result as having biological meaning; a more cautious approach would take into account the risk of overfitting that GMDR has when using a large number of training sets [<span>5</span>]. In addition to the lack of confounding variables for the evaluation of dyspnea, there are multiple reasons why patients taking ticagrelor may experience dyspnea due to conditions other than the drug itself, for example, baseline pulmonary condition, vagal sensitivity, renal function, and other prescriptive medications, including β-blockers and ACE inhibitors [<span>3-6</span>].</p><p>Studies have shown that renal dysfunction and platelet reactivity are independent predictors of the severity of dyspnea [<span>3-7</span>]. The paper by Zhang et al. excluded several cardiopulmonary disorders; however, they did not rectify for the residual varia","PeriodicalId":10201,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Cardiology","volume":"49 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3,"publicationDate":"2025-12-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12746343/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145848991","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Yasin Özen, Mustafa Bilal Ozbay, Zahin Shahriar, Hüseyin Tezcan, Tugay Dedebali, Abdullah Tunçez, Muhammed Ulvi Yalçin, Kadri Murat Gürses, Bülent Özbay