Effects of Delivering SLCO1B1 Pharmacogenetic Information in Randomized Trial and Observational Settings.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of tailoring statin-type based on solute carrier organic anion transporterfamily member 1B1 ( SLCO1B1)pharmacogenetic toxicity information on patient, provider, and pharmacological outcomes are unknown. METHODS: The trial randomized 159 patients not taking statins because of prior statin myalgia 1:1 to receiving SLCO1B1 GIST (Genotype Informed Statin Therapy) versus usual care (UC) and followed for up to 8 months. The UC arm received their SLCO1B1 results post-trial. The primary outcome was statin adherence using the Morisky Medication Adherence Scale, which was assessed in those patients who reinitiated statins. Secondary outcomes assessed in all participants included statin reinitiation and LDLc (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), within and post-trial. Using commercial laboratory data, serial LDLc were compared between 1907 patients receiving SLCO1B1 testing and propensity-matched, untested controls. RESULTS: Trial participants were 25% SLCO1B1*5 carriers. Statin adherence was similar between arms (Morisky Medication Adherence Scale in GIST versus UC, 6.8±1.5 versus 6.9±1.6, P=0.96). GIST led to more new statin prescriptions (55.4% versus 38.0%, P=0.04) and lower LDLc at 3 months (131.9±42.0 versus 144.4±43.0 mg/dL; P=0.048) with similar magnitude at 8 months (128.6±37.9 versus 141.0±44.4; P=0.12). SLCO1B1*5 carriers exhibited a greater drop in LDLc with GIST versus UC (interaction P=0.048). Post-trial, LDLc decreased in UC participants who crossed over to GIST compared with those allocated to GIST (-14.9±37.8 versus +9.0±37.3 mg/dL, P=0.03). Patients tested for SLCO1B1 though a commercial laboratory had a greater LDLc decrease ( P=0.04) compared with controls. CONCLUSIONS: Delivery of SLCO1B1 pharmacogenetic testing that addresses statin myalgia improved statin reinitiation and LDLc but did not improve self-reported statin adherence. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01894230.

Improved weight management using genetic information to personalize a calorie controlled diet.

BACKGROUND: Gene-environment studies demonstrate variability in nutrient requirements depending upon individual variations in genes affecting nutrient metabolism and transport. This study investigated whether the inclusion of genetic information to personalize a patient's diet (nutrigenetics) could improve long term weight management. METHODS: Patients with a history of failures at weight loss were offered a nutrigenetic test screening 24 variants in 19 genes involved in metabolism. 50 patients were in the nutrigenetic group and 43 patients attending the same clinic were selected for comparison using algorithms to match the characteristics: age, sex, frequency of clinical visits and BMI at initial clinic visit. The second group of 43 patients did not receive a nutrigenetic test. BMI reduction at 100 and > 300 days and blood fasting glucose were measured. RESULTS: After 300 days of follow-up individuals in the nutrigenetic group were more likely to have maintained some weight loss (73%) than those in the comparison group (32%), resulting in an age and gender adjusted OR of 5.74 (95% CI 1.74-22.52). Average BMI reduction in the nutrigenetic group was 1.93 kg/m2(5.6% loss) vs. an average BMI gain of 0.51 kg/m2(2.2% gain) (p < 0.023). Among patients with a starting blood fasting glucose of > 100 mg/dL, 57% (17/30) of the nutrigenetic group but only 25% (4/16) of the non-tested group had levels reduced to < 100 mg/dL after > 90 days of weight management therapy (OR for lowering glucose to < 100 mg/dL due to diet = 1.98 95%CI 1.01, 3.87, p < 0.046). CONCLUSION: Addition of nutrigenetically tailored diets resulted in better compliance, longer-term BMI reduction and improvements in blood glucose levels.

Evolving concepts and techniques for anti-doping.

Technical advances are being made in many areas of biotechnology and genetics that are facilitating the detection of doping in sport. These improvements have been catalyzed by the need to counter the ever-increasing sophistication of the community of athletes and their retinues who are intent on the illicit use of physical, pharmacological and genetic tools and methods to enhance athletic performance, in contravention of established international ethical and legal standards and of international treaty. The methods described in this article present a partial and general picture of only some of these advances.