Statin-Induced Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction: Genetic Determinants in the Response to Rosuvastatin
Reporter: Aviva Lev-Ari, PhD, RN
Genetic Determinants of Statin-Induced Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction
The Justification for the Use of Statins in Prevention: An Intervention Trial Evaluating Rosuvastatin (JUPITER) Trial
Daniel I. Chasman, PhD, Franco Giulianini, PhD, Jean MacFadyen, BA, Bryan J. Barratt, PhD, Fredrik Nyberg, MD, PhD, MPH and Paul M Ridker, MD, MPH
Author Affiliations
From the Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention (D.I.C., F.G., J.M., P.M.R.), JUPITER Trial Coordinating Center (D.I.C., F.G., J.M., P.M.R.), Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School (D.I.C., P.M.R.), Boston, MA; Personalised Healthcare and Biomarkers, AstraZeneca Research and Development, Alderley Park, United Kingdom (B.J.B.); AstraZeneca Research and Development, Mölndal, Sweden (F.N.); and Unit of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Department of Public Health and Community Medicine, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden (F.N.).
Correspondence to Daniel I. Chasman, PhD, Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, 900 Commonwealth Ave E, Boston, MA 02215. E-mail dchasman@rics.bwh.harvard.edu
Abstract
Background—In statin trials, each 20 mg/dL reduction in cholesterol results in a 10–15% reduction of annual incidence rates for vascular events. However, interindividual variation in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) response to statins is wide and may partially be determined on a genetic basis.
Methods and Results—A genome-wide association study of LDL-C response was performed among a total of 6989 men and women of European ancestry who were randomly allocated to either rosuvastatin 20 mg daily or placebo. Single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) for genome-wide association (P<5×10−8) with LDL-C reduction on rosuvastatin were identified at ABCG2, LPA, and APOE, and a further association at PCSK9 was genome-wide significant for baseline LDL-C and locus-wide significant for LDL-C reduction. Median LDL-C reductions on rosuvastatin were 40, 48, 51, 55, 60, and 64 mg/dL, respectively, among those inheriting increasing numbers of LDL-lowering alleles for SNPs at these 4 loci (P trend=6.2×10−20), such that each allele approximately doubled the odds of percent LDL-C reduction greater than the trial median (odds ratio, 1.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.8–2.1;P=5.0×10−41). An intriguing additional association with sub–genome-wide significance (P<1×10-6) was identified for statin related LDL-C reduction at IDOL, which mediates posttranscriptional regulation of the LDL receptor in response to intracellular cholesterol levels. In candidate analysis, SNPs in SLCO1B1 and LDLRwere confirmed as associated with LDL-C lowering, and a significant interaction was observed between SNPs in PCSK9 and LDLR.
Conclusions—Inherited polymorphisms that predominantly relate to statin pharmacokinetics and endocytosis of LDL particles by the LDL receptor are common in the general population and influence individual patient response to statin therapy.
SOURCE
Circulation: Cardiovascular Genetics.2012; 5: 257-264
Published online before print February 13, 2012,
doi: 10.1161/ CIRCGENETICS.111.96114
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.