{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01821668264621285, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.251497005988024, '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}}
Using Pharmacogenetic Testing or Platelet Reactivity Testing to Tailor Antiplatelet Therapy: Are Asians different from Caucasians?

All studies to date involving platelet reactivity and gene testing document singular interventions and their associations with outcomes. The East Asian paradox has been well documented - Asians who have had a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at a lower risk of ischaemic events even though they have a higher platelet reactivity. Asians who have had a PCI also have a higher risk of bleeding. This article covers the differences in outcomes between Caucasians and Asians, and explores the impact of outcomes, highlighting differences between the two patient populations. Given the high prevalence of loss-of-function alleles in Asia, treatment strategies will differ for different populations. It is plausible that both platelet reactivity and gene testing should be used to inform holistic decision-making for all patients - Caucasian or Asian - with acute coronary syndrome who are undergoing PCI.