MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Pharmacogenomics of CRP response to statins: a GIST consortium study

2024· article· en· W4403821829 on OpenAlexaff
Emma Magavern, Harshal Deshmukh, Geneviève Asselin, Elizabeth Theusch, Stella Trompet, Xiaohui Li, Raymond Noordam, Mark J. Caulfield, Daniel I. Chasman, Michael P. Dubé, G. A. Hitman, Helen R. Warren

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Heart Journal · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFolate and B Vitamins Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalMontreal Heart Institute
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchBarts Charity
KeywordsMedicinePharmacogenomicsInternal medicineGiSTOncologyPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Introduction Statins are first line treatments in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Prior clinical studies have shown that statins act independently of lipid lowering mechanisms to decrease C-reactive protein (CRP), a marker of inflammation. Purpose To elucidate genetic loci associated with CRP response to statins. Methods CRP response was specified as the change from baseline in log CRP after at least 4 weeks of statin therapy. Cohort level Genome-wide Association Studies (GWAS) of this CRP response was performed by linear regression analysis adjusted for baseline CRP, age, sex and BMI covariates using genetic data imputed to 1000 Genomes, testing ~10 million single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of minor allele frequency (MAF) >2%. Following quality control with EasyQC, a meta-analysis was conducted with METAL to combine GWAS results from six different cohorts of European ancestry (CARDS, FHS, JUPITER, MESA, PARC, PROSPER) within the GIST consortium. 1Mb loci regions were defined, centred +/-500kb around the lead SNP. Conditional analysis was performed using GCTA. Results There were 11,075 statin-treated individuals. The meta-analysis results revealed two loci achieving genome wide significance (P<5e-8): APOE (chr 19) and HNF1A (chr 12) (Figure 1). A signal at the CRP locus was highly suggestive (P=2.3e-7). All three loci are known to be associated with CRP levels in the absence of statin. Conditional analysis did not reveal secondary signals. The most associated variant at the APOE locus was the missense SNP rs429358, which contributes to the APOE E4 haplotype and is a risk locus for both dyslipidaemia and Alzheimer’s dementia. It is a C>T missense variant of MAF 0.12 leading to a R/C amino acid change, more common in African ancestry populations (MAF 0.27), and least common in Asian populations (MAF 0.09). A nominally significant association (P=0.09) for interaction with randomized allocation to statin v. placebo within samples derived from clinical trials supports this pharmacogenetic effect at APOE beyond genetic effects on baseline CRP levels. The most associated variant at the HNF1A locus was the intronic SNP rs11065384, which is in strong LD with the HNF1A missense SNP (rs1169288). The HNF1A locus is associated with diabetes, cholesterol levels, and coronary artery disease. There was no between-study heterogeneity at the top three loci (P>0.1), and forest plots show contribution to these signals from all 6 studies within the meta-analysis (Figure 2 A,B,C). Conclusions APOE and HNF1A are associated with CRP response to statins at the level of genome-wide significance. TheAPOE E4 signal is also known to be associated with LDL-Cholesterol response to statins, whereas the HNF1A locus is identified here for the first time as a pharmacogenetic determinant of statin response. The effect of this interindividual variability in CRP response on non-cardiovascular clinical outcomes should be elucidated.Figure 1Figure 2 A,B,C

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.337 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Heart Journal→Same topicFolate and B Vitamins Research→French-language works237,207→