Clinical and Pharmacogenetic Predictors of Circulating Atorvastatin and Rosuvastatin Concentrations in Routine Clinical Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A barrier to statin therapy is myopathy associated with elevated systemic drug exposure. Our objective was to examine the association between clinical and pharmacogenetic variables and statin concentrations in patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: In total, 299 patients taking atorvastatin or rosuvastatin were prospectively recruited at an outpatient referral center. The contribution of clinical variables and transporter gene polymorphisms to statin concentration was assessed using multiple linear regression. We observed 45-fold variation in statin concentration among patients taking the same dose. After adjustment for sex, age, body mass index, ethnicity, dose, and time from last dose, SLCO1B1 c.521T>C (P<0.001) and ABCG2 c.421C>A (P<0.01) were important to rosuvastatin concentration (adjusted R(2)=0.56 for the final model). Atorvastatin concentration was associated with SLCO1B1 c.388A>G (P<0.01) and c.521T>C (P<0.05) and 4β-hydroxycholesterol, a CYP3A activity marker (adjusted R(2)=0.47). A second cohort of 579 patients from primary and specialty care databases were retrospectively genotyped. In this cohort, genotypes associated with statin concentration were not differently distributed among dosing groups, implying providers had not yet optimized each patient's risk-benefit ratio. Nearly 50% of patients in routine practice taking the highest doses were predicted to have statin concentrations greater than the 90th percentile. CONCLUSIONS: Interindividual variability in statin exposure in patients is associated with uptake and efflux transporter polymorphisms. An algorithm incorporating genomic and clinical variables to avoid high atorvastatin and rosuvastatin levels is described; further study will determine whether this approach reduces incidence of statin myopathy.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".