{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022172949002217297, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0066518847006651885, 'mean_word_length': 5.873096446700508, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Clopidogrel: A multifaceted affair

Clopidogrel has been the therapy of choice, combined with aspirin, against platelet aggregation in patients at risk of suffering a vascular thrombotic event. Not all patients respond equally to clopidogrel, an observation that has led to searching for a test that, in the clinical setting, could predict patients' “resistance” to therapy. The evidence reveals a complex pharmacokinetic profile for clopidogrel, with multiple players involved, including cytochromes, characteristics of the target tissue, and accompanying clinical conditions. Despite FDA black box warnings recommending CYP2C19 genotyping before clopidogrel use, no robust evidence indicates that CYP2C19 function determines clinical response to the drug, either based on the presence of loss of function alleles or drug interactions with CYP2C19 inhibitors, like omeprazole. A tailored anti‐aggregation treatment based on ex vivo platelet reactivity also seems unlikely due to the lack of robustness of most assays. The identification of clinical conditions that are at higher risk of new cardiovascular events, such as diabetes, obesity, coronary artery disease, or specific stenting procedures, seems to be a prudent approach to tailor anti‐platelet therapy with more powerful drugs, accompanied by careful counseling to promote patient compliance.