Key result
Cardiac or renal disease linked to ~59% higher prevalence of the slow acetylator phenotype.
Why the study?
Is a more selective analytical method necessary for the sulphapyridine acetylator phenotyping test in patients with cardiac and renal diseases compared to healthy volunteers?
Observational (n=56)
Is a more selective analytical method necessary for the sulphapyridine acetylator phenotyping test in patients with cardiac and renal diseases compared to healthy volunteers?
Absolute Event Rate: 81% vs 51%
When performing the sulphapyridine acetylator phenotyping test, a more selective analytical procedure is required for patients on concomitant drug therapy to prevent methodological interference.
May indicate assay interference in diseased patients; leaves open whether true acetylator differences exist or refined methods are needed.
The acetylator phenotype of 35 healthy, drug-free volunteers and 21 patients with cardiac and/or renal disease has been assessed using oral sulphapyridine. Comparative evaluation of a simplified and a more selective method of sulphapyridine analysis was performed. Thirteen of the patients were also phenotyped by determination of plasma isoniazid half-life. 81% of the patients were slow acetylators, compared with only 51% of the volunteers. When phenotyping healthy, drug-free subjects the analytical procedure, involving a direct estimation of sulphapyridine in urine with the Bratton-Marshall procedure, was satisfactory. On the other hand, in patients receiving concomitant drug therapy the more selective analytical procedure was necessary in order to diminish the risk of methodological interference.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Molin et al. (1977) conducted an observational in Cardiac and renal diseases (n=56). Cardiac and/or renal disease vs. Healthy, drug-free volunteers was evaluated on Slow acetylator phenotype. Patients with cardiac and/or renal disease had a higher prevalence of the slow acetylator phenotype (81%) compared to healthy volunteers (51%) when assessed using oral sulphapyridine.
Synapse has enriched 2 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: