| Literature DB >> 24282434 |
Qing-Ya Li1, Zhi-Zhong Guo, Xin Deng, Lie-Ming Xu, Yue-Qiu Gao, Wei Zhang, Xiao-Su Wang, Dong-Ying Xue, Yi-Yu Lu, Ping Liu, Shi-Bing Su.
Abstract
Aim. To investigate the correlation of Fuzheng-Huayu tablet (FZHY) efficacy on chronic hepatitis B caused cirrhosis (HBC) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of CYP1A2. Methods. After 111 cases of HBC with 69 excess, 21 deficiency-excess, and 21 deficiency ZHENGs (ZHENG, also called traditional Chinese medicine syndrome) were treated by FZHY for 6 months, clinical symptoms, Child-Pugh score, and ZHENG score were observed. Three of the SNPs in CYP1A2 gene were detected and analyzed using SNaPshot assay. Results. In ZHENG efficacy between effective and invalid groups, there was significant difference (P < 0.001). The ZHENG deficiency was significantly correlated with FZHY efficacy (P < 0.05). AA genotype of CYP1A2-G2964A was significantly different with GG genotype (P < 0.05) between CYP1A2 Genotypes and FZHY efficacy on ZHENG. More importantly, GA plus AA genotype of CYP1A2-G2964A was significantly different with deficiency ZHENG (P < 0.05) between CYP1A2 genotypes and FZHY efficacy on ZHENG. Conclusion. FZHY improved ZHENG score of HBC, and these efficacies may relate to CYP1A2-G2964A sites. It was suggested that CYP1A2-G2964A locus is probably a risk factor for ZHENG-based FZHY efficacy in HBC.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24282434 PMCID: PMC3824415 DOI: 10.1155/2013/302131
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Clinical data of HBC patients.
| Patients (%) | |
|---|---|
| Gender | |
| Male (%) | 79 (71.17) |
| Female (%) | 32 (28.83) |
| Mean age (yr) | 49.51 ± 10.05 |
| Child-Pugh classification | |
| A | 89 (80.18) |
| B | 20 (18.02) |
| C | 2 (1.80) |
| ZHENG classification | |
| Excess | 69 (62.16) |
| Deficiency-excess | 21 (18.92) |
| Deficiency | 21 (18.92) |
The gene position, polymorphism, and primer sequences of CYP SNPs.
| Gene position | Rs number | Polymorphism | Primer sequences |
|---|---|---|---|
| CYP1A2-733 | rs762551 | C/A | F: 5′-CTACTCCAGCCCCAGAAGTG-3 |
| CYP1A2-2964 | rs2069514 | G/A | F: 5′-AACACAACGGGACTTCTTGG-3 |
| CYP1A2-5347 | rs2470890 | T/C | F: 5′-ATCTACGGGCTGACCATGAA-3 |
Effects of FZHY on ALT, AST, Child-Pugh score, and ZHENG sore in HBC.
| Parameters | FZHY treatment (M ± |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | |||
| ALT (U/L) | 34.50 ± 31.75 | 33.00 ± 25.00 | −1.764 | 0.078 |
| AST (U/L) | 43.00 ± 19.62 | 41.00 ± 26.25 | −1.445 | 0.149 |
| Child-Pugh (score) | 5.00 ± 0.00 | 5.00 ± 0.00 | −0.536 | 0.592 |
| ZHENG (score) | 212.5 ± 100.5 | 111.00 ± 15.25 | −7.673 |
|
*Wilcoxon test.
The bold font emphasizes the result was statistically significant (P < 0.05)
Correlation between ZHENG and FZHY efficacy on HBC.
| ZHENG classification | Effective (%) | Invalid (%) |
| OR | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Excess | 39 (58.21) | 30 (68.18) | 0.611 | 0.854 | 0.464, 1.570 |
| Deficiency-Excess | 10 (14.93) | 11 (25.00) | 0.277 | 0.597 | 0.234, 1.524 |
| Deficiency | 18 (26.86) | 3 (6.82) |
| 3.940 | 1.095, 14.173 |
Correlation between CYP1A2 genotypes and FZHY efficacy on Child-Pugh scores in HBC.
| Genotypes | Effective (%) | Invalid (%) |
| OR | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CYP1A2-5347 | |||||
| CC | 17 (70.80) | 63 (75.00) | |||
| CT | 6 (25.00) | 20 (23.80) | 0.844 | 0.899 | 0.312, 2.591 |
| TT | 1 (4.20) | 1 (1.20) | 0.393 | 0.270 | 0.016, 4.541 |
| CT + TT | 7 (29.20) | 21 (25.00) | 0.681 | 0.810 | 0.295, 2.221 |
| CYP1A2-2964 | |||||
| GG | 10 (41.70) | 46 (53.50) | |||
| GA | 11 (45.80) | 30 (34.90) | 0.289 | 0.593 | 0.224, 1.567 |
| AA | 3 (12.50) | 10 (11.60) | 0.700 | 0.725 | 0.168, 3.121 |
| GA + AA | 14 (58.30) | 40 (46.50) | 0.306 | 0.621 | 0.249, 1.552 |
| CYP1A2-733 | |||||
| CC | 3 (12.50) | 9 (10.50) | |||
| CA | 9 (37.50) | 38 (44.20) | 0.653 | 1.407 | 0.316, 6.277 |
| AA | 12 (50.00) | 39 (45.30) | 0.914 | 1.083 | 0.252, 4.656 |
| CA + AA | 21 (87.50) | 77 (89.50) | 0.777 | 1.222 | 0.304, 4.921 |
The bold font emphasizes the result was statistically significant (P < 0.05)
Correlation between CYP1A2 Genotypes and FZHY efficacy on ZHENG score in HBC.
| Genotypes | Effective (%) | Invalid (%) |
| OR | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CYP1A2-5347 | |||||
| CC | 48 (71.60) | 32 (72.70) | |||
| CT | 17 (25.40) | 9 (20.50) | 0.624 | 0.794 | 0.315, 2.000 |
| TT | 0 (0) | 2 (4.50) | |||
| CT + TT | 17 (25.40) | 11 (25.00) | 0.947 | 0.971 | 0.402, 2.341 |
| CYP1A2-2964 | |||||
| GG | 33 (49.30) | 23 (52.30) | |||
| GA | 30 (44.80) | 11 (25.00) | 0.146 | 0.526 | 0.220, 1.258 |
| AA | 3 (4.50) | 10 (22.70) |
| 4.783 | 1.184, 19.321 |
| GA + AA | 33 (49.30) | 21 (47.70) | 0.815 | 0.913 | 0.426, 1.959 |
| CYP1A2-733 | 0.527 | ||||
| CC | 9 (13.40) | 3 (6.80) | |||
| CA | 27 (40.30) | 20 (45.50) | 0.266 | 2.222 | 0.532, 9.275 |
| AA | 30 (44.80) | 21 (47.70) | 0.299 | 2.100 | 0.507, 8.694 |
| CA + AA | 57 (85.10) | 41 (93.20) | 0.261 | 2.158 | 0.550, 8.466 |
The bold font emphasizes the result was statistically significant (P < 0.05)
Correlation between CYP1A2 genotype and ZHENG types in FZHY efficacy.
| Genotypes | Excess ZHENG |
| Deficiency-Excess ZHENG |
| Deficiency ZHENG |
| |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Effective (%) | Invalid (%) | Effective (%) | Invalid (%) | Effective (%) | Invalid (%) | ||||
| CYP1A2-5347 | |||||||||
| CC | 27 (69.23) | 20 (66.67) | 8 (80.00) | 8 (72.73) | 14 (77.78) | 2 (66.67) | |||
| CT | 11 (28.21) | 5 (16.67) | 0.425 | 2 (20.00) | 3 (27.27) | 1.000 | 4 (22.22) | 1 (33.33) | 1.000 |
| TT | 0 (0) | 2 (6.67) | — | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | — | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | — |
| CT + TT | 11 (28.21) | 7 (23.33) | 0.788 | 2 (20.00) | 3 (27.27) | 1.000 | 4 (22.22) | 1 (33.33) | 1.000 |
| CYP1A2-2964 | |||||||||
| GG | 17 (43.59) | 15 (50.00) | 7 (70.00) | 5 (45.45) | 1 (5.56) | 2 (66.67) | |||
| GA | 19 (48.72) | 7 (23.33) | 0.119 | 3 (30.00) | 3 (27.27) | 1.000 | 12 (66.67) | 1 (33.33) | 0.071 |
| AA | 3 (7.69) | 6 (20.00) | 0.454 | 0 (0) | 3 (27.27) | — | 5 (27.78) | 0 (0) | — |
| GA + AA | 22 (56.41) | 13 (43.33) | 0.420 | 3 (30.00) | 6 (54.55) | 0.387 | 17 (94.44) | 1 (33.33) |
|
| CYP1A2-733 | |||||||||
| CC | 5 (12.82) | 2 (6.67) | 2 (20.00) | 1 (9.09) | 2 (11.11) | 0 (0) | |||
| CA | 14 (35.89) | 13 (43.33) | 0.426 | 6 (60.00) | 4 (36.36) | 1.000 | 8 (44.44) | 2 (66.67) | — |
| AA | 20 (51.28) | 13 (43.33) | 0.691 | 2 (20.00) | 6 (54.55) | 0.491 | 8 (44.44) | 1 (33.33) | — |
| CA + AA | 34 (87.18) | 26 (86.67) | 0.454 | 8 (80.00) | 10 (90.91) | 0.586 | 16 (88.88) | 3 (100.00) | — |
The bold font emphasizes the result was statistically significant (P < 0.05)