MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999964344 · doi:10.1001/jama.299.3.296

Pharmacogenetic Association of the NPPA T2238C Genetic Variant With Cardiovascular Disease Outcomes in Patients With Hypertension

2008· article· en· W1999964344 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amy I. Lynch, Eric Boerwinkle, Barry R. Davis, Charles E. Ford, John H. Eckfeldt, Catherine Leiendecker‐Foster, Donna K. Arnett

Bibliographic record

VenueJAMA · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineChlorthalidoneAmlodipineMyocardial infarctionStroke (engine)CardiologyHazard ratioLisinoprilBlood pressureHeart failureDiureticAngiotensin-converting enzymeConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

CONTEXT: The NPPA gene codes for the precursor of atrial natriuretic polypeptide, suggesting that NPPA may modulate the efficacy of some antihypertensive drugs. OBJECTIVE: To test whether participants with minor NPPA alleles in the T2238C or G664A variants had different rates of cardiovascular disease or blood pressure (BP) changes than common allele homozygotes when treated with a diuretic vs other antihypertensive medications. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Post hoc analysis of 38,462 participants with hypertension from ALLHAT, a multicenter randomized clinical trial conducted in the United States and Canada. Genotyping was performed from February 2004 to January 2005. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to receive a diuretic (chlorthalidone; n = 13,860), a calcium antagonist (amlodipine; n = 8174), an angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor (lisinopril; n = 8233), or an alpha-blocker (doxazosin; n = 8195). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measure was coronary heart disease (CHD), defined as fatal CHD or nonfatal myocardial infarction (mean follow-up, 4.9 years). Secondary outcomes were stroke, all-cause mortality, combined cardiovascular disease outcomes, and 6-month systolic and diastolic BP changes. Genotype x treatment interactions were tested where genotypes were modeled additively and dominantly. RESULTS: Depending on genotype, the event rates per 1000 person-years were 15.3 to 19.7 for CHO, 9.6 to 15.4 for stroke, and 27.4 to 30.7 for all-cause mortality. For the NPPA T2238C variant, lower event rates were found for the C allele carriers than for the TT homozygous individuals when comparing chlorthalidone and amlodipine (CHD: CC = 0.86; TC = 0.90; TT = 1.09; P = .03 [dominant model]; stroke: CC = 1.18; TC = 0.82; TT = 1.26; P = .01 [additive and dominant models]; all-cause mortality: CC = 0.87; TC = 0.98; TT = 1.12; P = .05 [dominant model]). Combined end points yielded similar results. Consistent with these clinical findings, 6-month changes in systolic BP for those with the CC genotype showed larger reductions with chlorthalidone (-6.5 mm Hg) than with amlodipine (-3.8 mm Hg), lisinopril (-2.4 mm Hg), or doxazosin (-3.8 mm Hg). Among those with the TT genotype, systolic BP differences between drugs were less (range, -5.4 to -7.5 mm Hg; P value, <.001 to .003 for interaction); diastolic BP showed similar results. We found no pharmacogenetic associations with the NPPA G664A variant. CONCLUSIONS: The NPPA T2238C variant was associated with modification of antihypertensive medication effects on cardiovascular disease and BP. Minor C allele carriers experienced more favorable cardiovascular disease outcomes when randomized to receive a diuretic, whereas TT allele carriers had more favorable outcomes when randomized to receive a calcium channel blocker.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.009
GPT teacher head0.199
Teacher spread0.189 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations105
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAMASame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207