Response to Rosuvastatin in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction: Hepatic Metabolism and Transporter Gene Variants Effect
Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
Hepatic Metabolism and Transporter Gene Variants Enhance Response to Rosuvastatin in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction
The GEOSTAT-1 Study
Kristian M. Bailey, MBChB, Simon P.R. Romaine, BSc, Beryl M. Jackson, RGN, Amanda J. Farrin, MSc, Maria Efthymiou, MSc, Julian H. Barth, MD, Joanne Copeland, BSc,Terry McCormack, MBBS, Andrew Whitehead, MSc, Marcus D. Flather, MBBS, Nilesh J. Samani, MD, FMedSci, Jane Nixon, PhD, Alistair S. Hall, MD, PhD, Anthony J. Balmforth, PhD and on behalf of the SPACE ROCKET Trial Group
Author Affiliations
From the Division of Cardiovascular and Diabetes Research (K.M.B., S.P.R.R., B.M.J., A.J.B.), and Division of Cardiovascular and Neuronal Remodelling (A.S.H.), Multidisciplinary Cardiovascular Research Centre, Leeds Institute of Genetics, Health and Therapeutics, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Clinical Trials Research Unit (A.J.F., M.E., J.C., J.N.), University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom; Clinical Biochemistry (J.H.B.), Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, United Kingdom; Whitby Group Practice (T.M.), Spring Vale Medical Centre, Whitby, North Yorkshire, United Kingdom; Pharmacy Department (A.W.), Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, United Kingdom; Clinical Trials and Evaluation Unit (M.D.F.), Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust and Imperial College, London, United Kingdom; and Department of Cardiovascular Sciences (N.J.S.), University of Leicester, Leicester, United Kingdom.
Correspondence to Alistair S. Hall, Clinical Cardiology, Multidisciplinary Cardiovascular Research Centre (MCRC), G Floor, Jubilee Building, Leeds General Infirmary, Leeds, LS1 3EX, United Kingdom. E-mail A.S.Hall@leeds.ac.uk
* Dr Bailey, Mr Romaine, Dr Hall, and Dr Balmforth contributed equally to this study.
Abstract
Background— Pharmacogenetics aims to maximize benefits and minimize risks of drug treatment. Our objectives were to examine the influence of common variants of hepatic metabolism and transporter genes on the lipid-lowering response to statin therapy.
Methods and Results— The Genetic Effects On STATins (GEOSTAT-1) Study was a genetic substudy of Secondary Prevention of Acute Coronary Events—Reduction of Cholesterol to Key European Targets (SPACE ROCKET) (a randomized, controlled trial comparing 40 mg of simvastatin and 10 mg of rosuvastatin) that recruited 601 patients after myocardial infarction. We genotyped the following functional single nucleotide polymorphisms in the genes coding for the cytochrome P450 (CYP) metabolic enzymes, CYP2C9*2 (430C>T), CYP2C9*3 (1075A>C), CYP2C19*2 (681G>A), CYP3A5*1 (6986A>G), and hepatic influx and efflux transporters SLCO1B1 (521T>C) and breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP; 421C>A). We assessed 3-month LDL cholesterol levels and the proportion of patients reaching the current LDL cholesterol target of <70 mg/dL (<1.81 mmol/L). An enhanced response to rosuvastatin was seen for patients with variant genotypes of either CYP3A5 (P=0.006) or BCRP (P=0.010). Furthermore, multivariate logistic-regression analysis revealed that patients with at least 1 variant CYP3A5 and/or BCRP allele (n=186) were more likely to achieve the LDL cholesterol target (odds ratio: 2.289; 95% CI: 1.157, 4.527; P=0.017; rosuvastatin 54.0% to target vs simvastatin 33.7%). There were no differences for patients with variants of CYP2C9, CYP2C19, or SLCO1B1 in comparison with their respective wild types, nor were differential effects on statin response seen for patients with the most common genotypes for CYP3A5 and BCRP (n=415; odds ratio: 1.207; 95% CI: 0.768, 1.899; P=0.415).
Conclusion— The LDL cholesterol target was achieved more frequently for the 1 in 3 patients with CYP3A5 and/or BCRP variant genotypes when prescribed rosuvastatin 10 mg, compared with simvastatin 40 mg.
Clinical Trial Registration— URL: http://isrctn.org. Unique identifier: ISRCTN 89508434.
SOURCE:
Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics.2010; 3: 276-285
Published online before print March 5, 2010,
doi: 10.1161/ CIRCGENETICS.109.898502
2012pharmaceutical
Amandeep Kaur
Aashir Awan, Phd
Abhisar Anand
Adina Hazan
Alan F. Kaul, PharmD., MS, MBA, FCCP
alexcrystal6
anamikasarkar
apreconasia
aviralvatsa
David Orchard-Webb, PhD
danutdaagmailcom
Demet Sag, Ph.D., CRA, GCP
Dror Nir
dsmolyar
Ethan Coomber
evelinacohn
Gail S Thornton
Irina Robu
jayzmit48
jdpmd
jshertok
kellyperlman
Ed Kislauskis
larryhbern
Madison Davis
marzankhan
megbaker58
ofermar2020
Dr. Pati
pkandala
Rosalind Codrington, PhD
ritusaxena
Rick Mandahl
sjwilliamspa
Srinivas Sriram
stuartlpbi
Dr. Sudipta Saha
tildabarliya
vaishnavee24
zraviv06
zs22
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.
This is very insightful. There is no doubt that there is the bias you refer to. 42 years ago, when I was postdocing in biochemistry/enzymology before completing my residency in pathology, I knew that there were very influential mambers of the faculty, who also had large programs, and attracted exceptional students. My mentor, it was said (although he was a great writer), could draft a project on toilet paper and call the NIH. It can’t be true, but it was a time in our history preceding a great explosion. It is bizarre for me to read now about eNOS and iNOS, and about CaMKII-á, â, ã, ä – isoenzymes. They were overlooked during the search for the genome, so intermediary metabolism took a back seat. But the work on protein conformation, and on the mechanism of action of enzymes and ligand and coenzyme was just out there, and became more important with the research on signaling pathways. The work on the mechanism of pyridine nucleotide isoenzymes preceded the work by Burton Sobel on the MB isoenzyme in heart. The Vietnam War cut into the funding, and it has actually declined linearly since.
A few years later, I was an Associate Professor at a new Medical School and I submitted a proposal that was reviewed by the Chairman of Pharmacology, who was a former Director of NSF. He thought it was good enough. I was a pathologist and it went to a Biochemistry Review Committee. It was approved, but not funded. The verdict was that I would not be able to carry out the studies needed, and they would have approached it differently. A thousand young investigators are out there now with similar letters. I was told that the Department Chairmen have to build up their faculty. It’s harder now than then. So I filed for and received 3 patents based on my work at the suggestion of my brother-in-law. When I took it to Boehringer-Mannheim, they were actually clueless.