S V Rana1,2, R P Ola3, Sanjeev K Sharma3, S K Arora4, S K Sinha3, P Pandhi5, K Singh3. 1. Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. svrana25@hotmail.com. 2. , House # 137, Sector 15-A, Chandigarh, 160015, India. svrana25@hotmail.com. 3. Department of Gastroenterology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. 4. Department of Immunopathology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India. 5. Department of Pharmacology, Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Isoniazid (INH) is one of the most important drugs of antitubercular treatment regime, and in some cases it causes hepatotoxicity. It is metabolized by hepatic N-acetyltransferase-2 (NAT2). AIM: To compare whether both methods, i.e., genotype NAT2 and phenotype test of measuring serum INH levels, are useful to identify acetylator status of patients on antitubercular treatment (ATT). METHODS: A total of 251 tuberculosis (TB) patients on standard treatment were followed up to 6 months for this study. NAT2 genotype was assessed by PCR with restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) whereas serum INH levels were measured by fluorometry. RESULTS: Of the 251 patients, 50 (19.9%) developed ATT-induced hepatotoxicity. By phenotypic estimation, in the hepatotoxicity group, 17/50 (34%) were slow acetylators whereas 33/50 (66%) were fast acetylators. Genotypically, 19/50 (38%) were slow acetylators and 31/50 (62%) fast acetylators. By phenotypic analysis, in non-hepatotoxicity group, 46/201 (22.9%) were slow acetylators and 155/201 (77.1%) fast acetylators. By genotypic analysis, 30/201 (14.9%) were slow acetylators and 171/201 (85%) fast acetylators. Overall, slow acetylators (25.1%) measured phenotypically were not significantly different from slow acetylators (19.5%) measured genotypically. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the acetylator status of TB patients can be detected by phenotypic method as efficaciously as by genotypic method. Therefore, phenotypic method can replace genotypic method to determine acetylating status as phenotypic method is simple and inexpensive.
BACKGROUND:Isoniazid (INH) is one of the most important drugs of antitubercular treatment regime, and in some cases it causes hepatotoxicity. It is metabolized by hepatic N-acetyltransferase-2 (NAT2). AIM: To compare whether both methods, i.e., genotype NAT2 and phenotype test of measuring serum INH levels, are useful to identify acetylator status of patients on antitubercular treatment (ATT). METHODS: A total of 251 tuberculosis (TB) patients on standard treatment were followed up to 6 months for this study. NAT2 genotype was assessed by PCR with restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) whereas serum INH levels were measured by fluorometry. RESULTS: Of the 251 patients, 50 (19.9%) developed ATT-induced hepatotoxicity. By phenotypic estimation, in the hepatotoxicity group, 17/50 (34%) were slow acetylators whereas 33/50 (66%) were fast acetylators. Genotypically, 19/50 (38%) were slow acetylators and 31/50 (62%) fast acetylators. By phenotypic analysis, in non-hepatotoxicity group, 46/201 (22.9%) were slow acetylators and 155/201 (77.1%) fast acetylators. By genotypic analysis, 30/201 (14.9%) were slow acetylators and 171/201 (85%) fast acetylators. Overall, slow acetylators (25.1%) measured phenotypically were not significantly different from slow acetylators (19.5%) measured genotypically. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the acetylator status of TBpatients can be detected by phenotypic method as efficaciously as by genotypic method. Therefore, phenotypic method can replace genotypic method to determine acetylating status as phenotypic method is simple and inexpensive.
Entities:
Keywords:
Hepatotoxicity; Isoniazid; N-acetyltransferase-2; Slow and fast acetylator
Authors: Raúl Díaz-Molina; José M Cornejo-Bravo; Marco A Ramos-Ibarra; Julia D Estrada-Guzmán; Ofelia Morales-Arango; Rubén Reyes-Báez; Octavio M Robinson-Navarro; Carmen G Soria-Rodríguez Journal: Mol Med Rep Date: 2008 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.952
Authors: D E Ryan; L Ramanathan; S Iida; P E Thomas; M Haniu; J E Shively; C S Lieber; W Levin Journal: J Biol Chem Date: 1985-05-25 Impact factor: 5.157
Authors: Kimberly S Collins; Anthony L J Raviele; Amanda L Elchynski; Alexander M Woodcock; Yang Zhao; Rhonda M Cooper-DeHoff; Michael T Eadon Journal: Am J Nephrol Date: 2020-09-14 Impact factor: 3.754
Authors: Ellen M McDonagh; Sotiria Boukouvala; Eleni Aklillu; David W Hein; Russ B Altman; Teri E Klein Journal: Pharmacogenet Genomics Date: 2014-08 Impact factor: 2.089
Authors: Ching-Soon Ng; Abul Hasnat; Abdullah Al Maruf; Maizbha Uddin Ahmed; Munir Pirmohamed; Christopher P Day; Guruprasad P Aithal; Ann K Daly Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2014-06-03 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Min Zhang; Shuqiang Wang; Bob Wilffert; Rongsheng Tong; Dick van Soolingen; Susan van den Hof; Jan-Willem Alffenaar Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2018-10-03 Impact factor: 4.335