PURPOSE: To explore the association between CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 gene polymorphisms and blood pressure response to amlodipine among participants from the African-American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension Trial randomized toamlodipine (n = 164). METHODS: Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the risk of reaching a target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of < or =107 mm Hg by CYP3A4 (A-392G and T16090C) and CYP3A5 (A6986G) gene polymorphisms, stratified by MAP randomization group (low or usual) and controlling for other predictors for blood pressure response. RESULTS: Women randomized to a usual MAP goal with an A allele at CYP3A4 A-392G were more likely to reach a target MAP of 107 mm Hg. The adjusted hazard ratio (AA/AG compared to GG) with 95% confidence interval was 3.41 (1.20-9.64; p = 0.020). Among participants randomized to a lower MAP goal, those with the C allele at CYP3A4 T16090C were more likely to reach target MAP: The adjusted hazard ratio was 2.04 (1.17-3.56; p = 0.010). After adjustment for multiple testing using a threshold significance level of p = 0.016, only the CYP3A4 T16090C SNP remained significant. CYP3A5 A6986G was not associated with blood pressure response. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that blood pressure response to amlodipine among high-risk African-Americans appears to be determined by CYP3A4 genotypes, and sex specificity may be an important consideration. Clinical applications of CYP3A4 genotype testing for individualized treatment regimens warrant further study. Copyright (c) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To explore the association between CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 gene polymorphisms and blood pressure response to amlodipine among participants from the African-American Study of Kidney Disease and Hypertension Trial randomized to amlodipine (n = 164). METHODS: Cox proportional hazards models were used to determine the risk of reaching a target mean arterial pressure (MAP) of < or =107 mm Hg by CYP3A4 (A-392G and T16090C) and CYP3A5 (A6986G) gene polymorphisms, stratified by MAP randomization group (low or usual) and controlling for other predictors for blood pressure response. RESULTS:Women randomized to a usual MAP goal with an A allele at CYP3A4A-392G were more likely to reach a target MAP of 107 mm Hg. The adjusted hazard ratio (AA/AG compared to GG) with 95% confidence interval was 3.41 (1.20-9.64; p = 0.020). Among participants randomized to a lower MAP goal, those with the C allele at CYP3A4T16090C were more likely to reach target MAP: The adjusted hazard ratio was 2.04 (1.17-3.56; p = 0.010). After adjustment for multiple testing using a threshold significance level of p = 0.016, only the CYP3A4T16090C SNP remained significant. CYP3A5A6986G was not associated with blood pressure response. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that blood pressure response to amlodipine among high-risk African-Americans appears to be determined by CYP3A4 genotypes, and sex specificity may be an important consideration. Clinical applications of CYP3A4 genotype testing for individualized treatment regimens warrant further study. Copyright (c) 2009 S. Karger AG, Basel.
Authors: Fred F Kadlubar; Gertrud S Berkowitz; Robert R Delongchamp; Charles Wang; Bridgett L Green; George Tang; Jatinder Lamba; Erin Schuetz; Mary S Wolff Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2003-04 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: E Hustert; M Haberl; O Burk; R Wolbold; Y Q He; K Klein; A C Nuessler; P Neuhaus; J Klattig; R Eiselt; I Koch; A Zibat; J Brockmöller; J R Halpert; U M Zanger; L Wojnowski Journal: Pharmacogenetics Date: 2001-12
Authors: Jackson T Wright; George Bakris; Tom Greene; Larry Y Agodoa; Lawrence J Appel; Jeanne Charleston; DeAnna Cheek; Janice G Douglas-Baltimore; Jennifer Gassman; Richard Glassock; Lee Hebert; Kenneth Jamerson; Julia Lewis; Robert A Phillips; Robert D Toto; John P Middleton; Stephen G Rostand Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-11-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Sarah J Plummer; David V Conti; Pamela L Paris; Anthony P Curran; Graham Casey; John S Witte Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Dennis A Hesselink; Ron H N van Schaik; Ilse P van der Heiden; Marloes van der Werf; Peter J H Smak Gregoor; Jan Lindemans; Willem Weimar; Teun van Gelder Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Aram V Chobanian; George L Bakris; Henry R Black; William C Cushman; Lee A Green; Joseph L Izzo; Daniel W Jones; Barry J Materson; Suzanne Oparil; Jackson T Wright; Edward J Roccella Journal: JAMA Date: 2003-05-14 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Lawrence J Appel; John Middleton; Edgar R Miller; Michael Lipkowitz; Keith Norris; Lawrence Y Agodoa; George Bakris; Janice G Douglas; Jeanne Charleston; Jennifer Gassman; Tom Greene; Kenneth Jamerson; John W Kusek; Julia A Lewis; Robert A Phillips; Stephen G Rostand; Jackson T Wright Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Chris Stockmann; Bernhard Fassl; Roger Gaedigk; Flory Nkoy; Derek A Uchida; Steven Monson; Christopher A Reilly; J Steven Leeder; Garold S Yost; Robert M Ward Journal: J Pediatr Date: 2013-01-03 Impact factor: 4.406
Authors: Robin Taylor Wilson; Loren D Masters; Jill S Barnholtz-Sloan; Anna C Salzberg; Terryl J Hartman Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 4.897