4.3 Review

Do Genetic Variants of the Renin-Angiotensin System Predict Blood Pressure Response to Renin-Angiotensin System-Blocking Drugs? A Systematic Review of Pharmacogenomics in the Renin-Angiotensin System

Journal

CURRENT HYPERTENSION REPORTS
Volume 13, Issue 5, Pages 356-361

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11906-011-0212-0

Keywords

Renin; Renin-angiotensin system; RAS; Genetic variant; Polymorphism; Pharmacogenomics; Pharmacogenetics; Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor; ACEI; Angiotensin receptor blocker; ARB; Direct renin inhibitor; Blood pressure response; Responder

Funding

  1. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [22590909] Funding Source: KAKEN

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The concept of pharmacogenomics or pharmacogenetics promises to offer the ultimate in personalized medicine, and the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) is one of the most plausible candidates for the application of this approach in the area of hypertension. For the past two decades, genetic variants of the RAS have been tested for association with blood pressure response, but the results have been inconsistent. The problems have been attributed to many issues, but the most fundamental concern is thought to be the statistical power of the studies. Therefore, we have tried to put together a new systematic review using a database search including only recent reports with adequate numbers of subjects, and 11 reports were identified. From the results, we were able to draw conclusions with nearly consistent findings that the conventional genetic variants of the system (i.e., the ACE I/D, AGT M235T, AT1 A1166C, and AT2 variant) are not associated with antihypertensive effects by RAS blockade, at least by one individual SNP. By contrast, significant associations have been reported (by one report each) for AGT rs7079, AT1 haplotype, REN, and ACE2. For these variants, further evaluations and confirmation are anticipated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available