Why the study?
Does the RGS2 (-391, C>G) genetic variation correlate with blood pressure response to antihypertensive drugs in Chinese patients with essential hypertension?
Does the RGS2 (-391, C>G) genetic variation correlate with blood pressure response to antihypertensive drugs in Chinese patients with essential hypertension?
The RGS2 (-391, C>G) genetic polymorphism may serve as a biomarker to predict blood pressure response to specific antihypertensive therapies in Chinese patients.
RGS2 genotype may predict BP response to ARBs/ACEI in Chinese hypertensives; leaves open whether genotyping should guide therapy.
OBJECTIVE: Regulators of G-protein signaling protein 2 (RGS2) play an irreplaceable role in the control of normal blood pressure (BP). One RGS2 (-391, C>G) genetic variation markedly changes its mRNA expression levels. This study explored the relationship between this genetic variation and the responses to antihypertensive drugs in Chinese patients with essential hypertension. METHODS: Genetic variations of RGS2 were successfully identified in 367 specimens using polymerase chain reaction-restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) assays. All patients were treated with conventional doses of antihypertensives after a 2-week run-in period and followed-up according to our protocol. A general linear model multivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for the data analysis. RESULTS: A significant difference in the mean systolic BP change was observed between RGS2 (-391, C>G) CC/CG (n = 82) and GG (n = 38) genotype carriers (-13.6 vs. -19.9 mmHg, P = 0.043) who were treated with candesartan, irbesartan or imidapril at the end of 6 weeks. In addition, the patients' BP responses to α,β-adrenergic receptor blockers exhibited an age-specific association with the RGS2 (-391, C>G) genetic variation at the end of 4 weeks. CONCLUSION: The RGS2 (-391, C>G) genetic polymorphism may serve as a biomarker to predict a patient's response to antihypertensive drug therapy, but future studies need to confirm this.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
He et al. (2015) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: