4.7 Article

Common cholesteryl ester transfer protein gene polymorphisms and the effect of atorvastatin therapy in type 2 diabetes

期刊

DIABETES CARE
卷 26, 期 4, 页码 1216-1223

出版社

AMER DIABETES ASSOC
DOI: 10.2337/diacare.26.4.1216

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVE - The cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) plays a key role in the remodeling of triglyceride (TG)-rich and HDL particles. Sequence variations in the CETP gene may interfere with the effect of lipid-lowering treatment in type 2 diabetes. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS - We performed a 30-week randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial with atorvastatin 10 mg (A10) and 80 mg (A80) in 217 unrelated patients with diabetes. RESULTS - CETP TaqlB and A-629C polymorphisms were tightly concordant (P < 0.001). At baseline, B1B1 carriers had lower plasma HDL cholesterol (0.99 +/- 0.2 vs. 1.11 +/- 0.2 mmol/l,P < 0.05), higher CETP mass (2.62 +/- 0.8 vs. 2.05 +/- 0.4 mg/l, P < 0.001), and slightly increased, though not significant, plasma TGs (2.7 +/- 1.05 vs. 2.47 +/- 0.86, P = 0.34) compared with B2B2 carriers. Atorvastatin treatment significantly reduced CETP mass dose-dependently by 18% (A10) and 29% (A80; both Vs. placebo P < 0.001, A10-A80 P - 0.001). CETP mass and activity were strongly correlated (r = 0.854, P < 0.0001). CETP TaqlB polymorphism appeared to modify the effect of atorvastatin on HDL cholesterol elevation (B1B1 7.2%, B1B2 6.1% B2B2 0.5%; P < 0.05), TG reduction (B1B1 39.7%, B1B2 38.4%, B1B2 18.4%; P = 0.08), an CETP mass reduction (B1B1 32.1%, B1B2 29.6%, B2B2 21.9%; P = 0.27, NS). Similar results were obtained for the A-629C polymorphism. CONCLUSIONS - in conclusion, the B1B1/CC carriers of the CETP polymorphisms have a more atherogenic lipid profile, including low HDL, and they respond better to statin therapy. These results favor the hypothesis that CETP polymorphisms modify the effect of statin treatment and may help to identify patients who will benefit most from statin therapy.

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

4.7
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