Pharmacogenomics · 2012
SCN1A IVS5N+5 polymorphism and response to sodium valproate: a multicenter study.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализМногоцентровое исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Haerian Batoul Sadat, Baum Larry, Tan Hui Jan, Kwan Patrick, Raymond Azman Ali, Saruwatari Junji, Nakagawa Kazuko, Mohamed Zahurin
Аннотация
AIM: Approximately 30% of epilepsy patients do not response to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs). The functional SCN1A IVS5N+5 polymorphism may play a role in response to some AEDs. The purpose of this study was to examine this hypothesis in a cohort study of Malaysian and Hong Kong Chinese epilepsy patients on sodium valproate (VPA) monotherapy and in a meta-analysis.
PATIENTS & METHODS: The SCN1A IVS5N+5 polymorphism was genotyped in 583 Malaysian (84%) and Hong Kong Chinese (16%) epilepsy patients receiving VPA monotherapy. The related association studies, including the current study, were meta-analyzed by using fixed- and random-effects models under various genetic models.
RESULTS: A total of 277 (47.5%) and 306 (52.5%) patients were VPA nonresponsive and responsive, respectively. Unlike Chinese and Indian patients, Malay nonresponsive patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy showed significant association, probably caused by the small sample size.
CONCLUSION: The cohort study and meta-analysis did not demonstrate an association between AED responsiveness and this polymorphism. Future studies with a larger sample size of Malays with idiopathic generalized epilepsy are suggested.
PATIENTS & METHODS: The SCN1A IVS5N+5 polymorphism was genotyped in 583 Malaysian (84%) and Hong Kong Chinese (16%) epilepsy patients receiving VPA monotherapy. The related association studies, including the current study, were meta-analyzed by using fixed- and random-effects models under various genetic models.
RESULTS: A total of 277 (47.5%) and 306 (52.5%) patients were VPA nonresponsive and responsive, respectively. Unlike Chinese and Indian patients, Malay nonresponsive patients with idiopathic generalized epilepsy showed significant association, probably caused by the small sample size.
CONCLUSION: The cohort study and meta-analysis did not demonstrate an association between AED responsiveness and this polymorphism. Future studies with a larger sample size of Malays with idiopathic generalized epilepsy are suggested.