<i>RFC1</i> 80G>A Is a Genetic Determinant of Methotrexate Efficacy in Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Human Genome Epidemiologic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Observational Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Associations have been reported between candidate genes and the response to methotrexate (MTX) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients, but most of the studies have been small and have yielded conflicting results. This study was undertaken to provide a systematic review of all genetic variant associations with MTX efficacy and toxicity, and to conduct a meta-analysis evaluating the most commonly studied single-nucleotide polymorphism for which prior cumulative analysis has been lacking. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to identify genetic variant associations with MTX efficacy and toxicity. Studies were identified from the Medline, EMBase, HuGENet Navigator, and Cochrane Library databases through December 2012, and from the 2009-2011 abstracts of the American College of Rheumatology and the European League Against Rheumatism annual meeting proceedings. Additional unpublished genotype data from a Canadian cohort of patients with early RA were also included. RESULTS: Among the 87 identified studies examining genetic associations with MTX efficacy and toxicity, the reduced folate carrier 1 gene (RFC1) variant 80G>A (Arg(27) His, rs1051266) was selected for random-effects meta-analysis. RFC1 80G>A was associated with MTX efficacy in both the recessive model (odds ratio [OR] 1.42, 95% confidence interval [95% CI] 1.04-1.93) and the additive model (OR 1.28, 95% CI 1.10-1.49). Restriction of the sensitivity analyses to studies that involved Caucasian subjects only and that used similar outcome measures (MTX failure versus nonfailure) maintained and improved the associations in both models. No significant association between RFC1 80G>A and MTX toxicity was detected. CONCLUSION: In these analyses of available data from observational studies, RFC1 80G>A was found to be associated with MTX efficacy, but not toxicity, in RA patients. This variant merits further prospective analysis as a potential predictor of MTX efficacy. Variability in the definitions of response in pharmacogenetic studies is a source of data heterogeneity that should be addressed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.026 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".