MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2791345234 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy009.046

A46 THE IMPACT OF CYP2C19 POLYMORPHISM ON PROTON PUMP INHIBITORS DOSING: A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS

2018· article· en· W2791345234 on OpenAlexaffabout
Waleed Alghamdi, R Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPharmaceutical studies and practices
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCYP2C19LansoprazoleMedicineDosingPantoprazolePharmacologyEsomeprazolePharmacogenomicsInternal medicinePharmacogeneticsProton-pump inhibitorPharmacokineticsPopulationMaintenance doseOmeprazoleGastroenterologyGenotypeCytochrome P450BiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are used in a wide spectrum of gastrointestinal disorders. They undergo significant metabolism by the main enzyme Cytochrome P450 2C19 (CYP2C19). Genetic variation in this enzyme influences the pharmacokinetics of all PPIs. Despite the different challenges with implementing pharmacogenetics-guided therapy in clinical practice, CYP2C19 pharmacogenomics testing is currently available at London Health Sciences Centre (LHSC) as we recognize the major role it plays in drug responses and interactions in different clinical scenarios. However, its role in PPIs response in different gastrointestinal disorder needs further studies. To investigate the frequency of CYP2C19 polymorphism in our patient population in a tertiary care center in London, Ontario, and its correlation with high and standard PPI dosing. Standard dose was defined as 30 mg per day for lansoprazole and 40 mg per day for pantoprazole. The high dose was defined as a dose that is double the standard dose. A retrospective chart review was performed of all adult patients who were on CYP-dependent PPIs (lansoprazole and pantoprazole) and underwent CYP2C19 genotype testing in our lab for different indications from January 2010 to July 2017. Statistical testing was conducted to compare high PPI dose group with standard PPI dose group. The primary outcome was to describe the correlation between CYP2C19 genotype and PPI dose. 79 genotyped patients were included in this interim analysis, of whom 22 patients (27.8%) were on high dose PPI and 57 (72.2%) were on standard dose. There was no statistically significant difference between the high dose group and standard dose group in age, gender or BMI. The high dose group patients were more likely to have a previous history of PUD (p<0.001), erosions (p<0.001) and UGIB (p=0.002). Extensive metabolizers (EM) was the most common CYP2C19 phenotype in both groups (81.8% vs. 70.2%; p=0.29) with intermediate metabolizers (IM), poor metabolizers (PM) and ultra-rapid metabolizers (UM) identified more in the standard dose group (9.1% vs. 19.3%, p=0.27; 4.5% vs. 5.4%, p=0.9; 4.5% vs. 5.4%, p=0.9; respectively). Patients in the high dose group experienced improvement in their PUD and UGIB more than the standard dose group patients (p=0.003 and p=0.01, respectively). IM and PM patients were found to be on standard dose PPIs more often but this was not statistically significant. In this interim analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in PPI dosing among CYP2C19 different phenotypes. CYP2C19 genotype testing might have a role in PPI dosing. Future prospective randomized controlled trials are needed to further identify that role. A larger sample size will be presented in the Canadian Digestive Disease Week. None

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)0.003
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicPharmaceutical studies and practicesFrench-language works237,207