4.2 Article

CysLTR1 promoter polymorphism and requirement for leukotriene receptor antagonist in aspirin-intolerant asthma patients

期刊

PHARMACOGENOMICS
卷 8, 期 9, 页码 1143-1150

出版社

FUTURE MEDICINE LTD
DOI: 10.2217/14622416.8.9.1143

关键词

aspirin-intolerant; asthma; cysteinyl leukotriene; rece tor 1; genetic; polymorphism; leukotriene; receptor antagonist

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), such as montelukast, have been used as a first-line treatment for patients with aspirin-intolerant asthma (AIA). This study evaluated associations between the clinical requirement for LTRA and genetic polymorphisms of the ALOX5, LTC4S, COX-2, CysLTR1 and TBXA2R genes in the arachidonic acid cascade in the long-term management of 89 AIA patients from a Korean population. Methods: Asthma control status was monitored for 1 year with maintenance medications of inhaled corticosteroid and oral LTRA, and AIA patients were classified into three groups according to the mean montelukast dose required per month to maintain asthma control for 1 year: group I (>= 200 mg montelukast/month; n = 37), group II (5-150 mg/month; n = 25) and group III (<5 mg/month; n = 27). Genetic polymorphisms in the arachidonic acid cascade were determined using a single-base extension method. Results: We found that there was a significant difference in the genotype frequency of the CysLTR1 promoter polymorphism -634C > T among the three groups (p = 0.007 for group I vs group 11, p = 0.017 for group I vs group 111), while there were no significant associations between LTRA requirements and polymorphisms of the other genes. The patients with the variant genotype (CT or TT) of the -634C = T CysLTR1 promoter polymorphism showed a higher expression level than those with the common genotype (CC). Conclusion: These findings indicate that the CysLTR1 promoter polymorphism is a useful genetic marker for predicting LTRA requirements in the long-term management of AIA patients.

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