4.5 Article

ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism and the lipid-lowering response in hypercholesterolemic patients on statins: a meta-analysis

期刊

LIPIDS IN HEALTH AND DISEASE
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12944-015-0114-2

关键词

ABCB1; Polymorphism; Statin; Serum lipid level; Myopathy; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. Scientific Research Fund of Zhejiang Provincial Education Department [Y201224146]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: A number of researches have evaluated the association between the ABCB1 polymorphism and the lipid-lowering response of statins, but the results have been inconclusive. To examine the lipid-lowering efficacy and safety associated with the ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism in hypercholesterolemic patients receiving statin, all available studies were included in this meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic search for eligible studies in the Cochrane library database, Scopus and PubMed was performed. Articles meeting the inclusion criteria were comprehensively reviewed, and the available data were accumulated by the meta-analysis. Results: The results indicated that the comparisons of CC+CT vs. TT were associated with a significant elevation of the serum HDL-C levels after statin treatment (CC+CT vs. TT: MD, 2.46; 95 % CI, 0.36 to 4.55; P = 0.02), and the ABCB1 C3435T variant in homozygotes was correlated with decreases in LDL-C (CC vs. TT: MD, 2.29; 95 % CI, 0.37 to 4.20; P = 0.02) as well as TC (CC vs. TT: MD, 3.05; 95 % CI, 0.58 to 5.53; P = 0.02) in patients treated with statin. However, we did not observe a significant association in the TG group or an association between other genetic models serum lipid parameters. In addition, statin treatment more than 5 months led to a higher risk of muscle toxicity. Conclusions: The evidence from the meta-analysis demonstrated that the ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism may represent a pharmacogenomic biomarker for predicting treatment outcomes in patients on statins and that statin treatment for more than 5 months can increase the risk of myopathy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据