4.2 Article

Genome-wide response to antihypertensive medication using home blood pressure measurements: a pilot study nested within the HOMED-BP study

期刊

PHARMACOGENOMICS
卷 14, 期 14, 页码 1709-1721

出版社

FUTURE MEDICINE LTD
DOI: 10.2217/pgs.13.161

关键词

antihypertensive drugs; blood pressure response; n genome wide association study; home blood pressure; personalized treatment

资金

  1. Japan Cardiovascular Research Foundation
  2. Japan Arteriosclerosis Prevention Fund
  3. Tohoku University
  4. Program for Promotion of Fundamental Studies in research grant from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan
  5. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [24390140, 22390170, 25253059, 23659422] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension in the HOMED-BP trial were randomly allocated to first-line treatment with a calcium channel blocker (CCB), angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (ACEI) or angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB). Methods: We recruited 265 (93 for CCB, 71 for ACEI and 101 for ARB) patients who completed the genomic study. Home blood pressure was measured for 5 days off-treatment before randomization and for 5 days after 2-4 weeks of randomized drug treatment. Genotyping was performed by 500K DNA microarray chips. The blood pressure responses to the three drugs were analyzed separately as a quantitative trait. For replication of SNPs with p < 10(-4), we used the multicenter GEANE study, in which patients were randomized to valsartan or amlodipine. Results: SNPs in PICALM, TANC2, NUMA1 and APCDD1 were found to be associated with CCB responses and those in ABCC9 and YIPF1 were found to be associated with ARB response with replication. Conclusion: Our approach, the first based on high-fidelity phenotyping by home blood pressure measurement, might be a step in moving towards the personalized treatment of hypertension. Original submitted 29 April 2013; Revision submitted 14 August 2013

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

4.2
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