A systematic review of genome-wide association studies for pain, nociception, neuropathy, and pain treatment responses

Pain is the leading cause of disability worldwide, imposing an enormous burden on personal health and society. Pain is a multifactorial and multidimensional problem. Currently, there is (some) evidence that genetic factors could partially explain individual susceptibility to pain and interpersonal differences in pain treatment response. To better understand the underlying genetic mechanisms of pain, we systematically reviewed and summarized genome-wide association studies (GWASes) investigating the associations between genetic variants and pain/pain-related phenotypes in humans. We reviewed 57 full-text articles and identified 30 loci reported in more than 1 study. To check whether genes described in this review are associated with (other) pain phenotypes, we searched 2 pain genetic databases, Human Pain Genetics Database and Mouse Pain Genetics Database. Six GWAS-identified genes/loci were also reported in those databases, mainly involved in neurological functions and inflammation. These findings demonstrate an important contribution of genetic factors to the risk of pain and pain-related phenotypes. However, replication studies with consistent phenotype definitions and sufficient statistical power are required to validate these pain-associated genes further. Our review also highlights the need for bioinformatic tools to elucidate the function of identified genes/loci. We believe that a better understanding of the genetic background of pain will shed light on the underlying biological mechanisms of pain and benefit patients by improving the clinical management of pain.</p

TRPC6 single nucleotide polymorphisms and progression of idiopathic membranous nephropathy

Background: Activating mutations in the Transient Receptor Potential channel C6 (TRPC6) cause autosomal dominant focal segmental glomerular sclerosis (FSGS). TRPC6 expression is upregulated in renal biopsies of patients with idiopathic membranous glomerulopathy (iMN) and animal models thereof. In iMN, disease progression is characterized by glomerulosclerosis. In addition, a context-dependent TRPC6 overexpression was recently suggested in complement-mediated podocyte injury in e.g. iMN. Hence, we hypothesized that genetic variants in TRPC6 might affect susceptibility to development or progression of iMN. Methods & Results: Genomic DNA was isolated from blood samples of 101 iMN patients and 292 controls. By direct sequencing of the entire TRPC6 gene, 13 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were identified in the iMN cohort, two of which were causing an amino acid substitution (rs3802829; Pro15Ser and rs36111323, Ala404Val). No statistically significant differences in genotypes or allele frequencies between patients and controls were observed. Clinical outcome in patients was determined (remission n = 26, renal failure n = 46, persistent proteinuria n = 29, follow-up median 80 months {range 51-166}). The 13 identified SNPs showed no association with remission or renal failure. There were no differences in genotypes or allele frequencies between patients in remission and progressors. Conclusions: Our data suggest that TRPC6 polymorphisms do not affect susceptibility to iMN, or clinical outcome in iMN

Moving across disorders: A cross-sectional study of cognition in early onset ataxia and dystonia

Background: Early onset ataxia (EOA) and Early Onset Dystonia (EOD) are movement disorders developing in young people (age <25 per definition). These disorders result from dysfunctional networks involving the cerebellum and basal ganglia. As these structures are also important for cognition, cognitive deficits can be expected in EOA and EOD. EOA and EOD sometimes co-occur, but in those cases the predominant phenotype is determining. A pending question is whether predominantly EOA and EOD have different profiles of cognitive impairment. Objectives: We investigated whether cognitive functions were impaired in patients with either predominant EOA or predominant EOD and whether cognitive profiles differed between both patient groups. Methods: The sample consisted of 26 EOA and 26 EOD patients with varying etiology but similar duration and severity of the disorder. Patient samples were compared to a group of 26 healthy controls, all matched on age and gender. All participants underwent neuropsychological testing for verbal intelligence, memory, working memory, attention/cognitive speed, executive functions, emotion recognition and language. Results: EOA and EOD patients both performed significantly worse than healthy controls on tests of verbal intelligence, working memory and executive functions. Additionally, attention/cognitive speed and emotion recognition were impaired in the EOA group. Compared to EOD, EOA patients performed worse on attention/cognitive speed and verbal intelligence. Conclusions: Our results show overall similar profiles of cognitive deficits in both patient groups, but deficits were more pronounced in the patients with EOA. This suggests that more severe cognitive impairment is related to more severe cerebellar network dysfunction

A genetic risk score to predict treatment nonresponse in psychotic depression

Psychotic depression is a severe and difficult-to-treat subtype of major depressive disorder for which higher rates of treatment-resistant depression were found. Studies have been performed aiming to predict treatment-resistant depression or treatment nonresponse. However, most of these studies excluded patients with psychotic depression. We created a genetic risk score (GRS) based on a large treatment-resistant depression genome-wide association study. We tested whether this GRS was associated with nonresponse, nonremission and the number of prior adequate antidepressant trials in patients with a psychotic depression. Using data from a randomized clinical trial with patients with a psychotic depression (n = 122), we created GRS deciles and calculated positive prediction values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV) and odds ratios (OR). Nonresponse and nonremission were assessed after 7 weeks of treatment with venlafaxine, imipramine or venlafaxine plus quetiapine. The GRS was negatively correlated with treatment response (r = −0.32, p = 0.0023, n = 88) and remission (r = −0.31, p = 0.0037, n = 88), but was not correlated with the number of prior adequate antidepressant trials. For patients with a GRS in the top 10%, we observed a PPV of 100%, a NPV of 73.7% and an OR of 52.4 (p = 0.00072, n = 88) for nonresponse. For nonremission, a PPV of 100%, a NPV of 51.9% and an OR of 21.3 (p = 0.036, n = 88) was observed for patients with a GRS in the top 10%. Overall, an increased risk for nonresponse and nonremission was seen in patients with GRSs in the top 40%. Our results suggest that a treatment-resistant depression GRS is predictive of treatment nonresponse and nonremission in psychotic depression.</p

A genetic risk score to predict treatment nonresponse in psychotic depression

Psychotic depression is a severe and difficult-to-treat subtype of major depressive disorder for which higher rates of treatment-resistant depression were found. Studies have been performed aiming to predict treatment-resistant depression or treatment nonresponse. However, most of these studies excluded patients with psychotic depression. We created a genetic risk score (GRS) based on a large treatment-resistant depression genome-wide association study. We tested whether this GRS was associated with nonresponse, nonremission and the number of prior adequate antidepressant trials in patients with a psychotic depression. Using data from a randomized clinical trial with patients with a psychotic depression (n = 122), we created GRS deciles and calculated positive prediction values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV) and odds ratios (OR). Nonresponse and nonremission were assessed after 7 weeks of treatment with venlafaxine, imipramine or venlafaxine plus quetiapine. The GRS was negatively correlated with treatment response (r = −0.32, p = 0.0023, n = 88) and remission (r = −0.31, p = 0.0037, n = 88), but was not correlated with the number of prior adequate antidepressant trials. For patients with a GRS in the top 10%, we observed a PPV of 100%, a NPV of 73.7% and an OR of 52.4 (p = 0.00072, n = 88) for nonresponse. For nonremission, a PPV of 100%, a NPV of 51.9% and an OR of 21.3 (p = 0.036, n = 88) was observed for patients with a GRS in the top 10%. Overall, an increased risk for nonresponse and nonremission was seen in patients with GRSs in the top 40%. Our results suggest that a treatment-resistant depression GRS is predictive of treatment nonresponse and nonremission in psychotic depression.</p

Influence of Genetic Variants in TPMT and COMT Associated with Cisplatin Induced Hearing Loss in Patients with Cancer:Two New Cohorts and a Meta-Analysis Reveal Significant Heterogeneity between Cohorts

Treatment with cisplatin-containing chemotherapy regimens causes hearing loss in 40-60% of cancer patients. It has been suggested that genetic variants in the genes encoding thiopurine S-methyltransferase (TPMT) and catechol O-methyltransferase (COMT) can predict the development of cisplatin-induced ototoxicity and may explain interindividual variability in sensitivity to cisplatin-induced hearing loss. Two recently published studies however, sought to validate these findings and showed inconsistent results. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of polymorphisms in the TPMT and COMT genes in cisplatin-induced ototoxicity. Therefore we investigated two independent cohorts of 110 Dutch and 38 Spanish patients with osteosarcoma and performed a meta-analysis including all previously published studies resulting in a total population of 664 patients with cancer. With this largest meta-analysis performed to date, we show that the influence of TPMT and COMT on the development of cisplatin-induced hearing loss may be less important than previously suggested

Drug interaction potential of high-dose rifampicin in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis

Accumulating evidence supports the use of higher doses of rifampicin for tuberculosis (TB) treatment. Rifampicin is a potent inducer of metabolic enzymes and drug transporters, resulting in clinically relevant drug interactions. To assess the drug interaction potential of higher doses of rifampicin, we compared the effect of high-dose rifampicin (40 mg/kg daily, RIF40) and standard-dose rifampicin (10 mg/kg daily, RIF10) on the activities of major cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes and P-glycoprotein (P-gp). In this open-label, single-arm, two-period, fixed-order phenotyping cocktail study, adult participants with pulmonary TB received RIF10 (days 1-15), followed by RIF40 (days 16-30). A single dose of selective substrates (probe drugs) was administered orally on days 15 and 30: caffeine (CYP1A2), tolbutamide (CYP2C9), omeprazole (CYP2C19), dextromethorphan (CYP2D6), midazolam (CYP3A), and digoxin (P-gp). Intensive pharmacokinetic blood sampling was performed over 24 hours after probe drug intake. In all, 25 participants completed the study. Geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval) of the total exposure (area under the concentration versus time curve, RIF40 versus RIF10) for each of the probe drugs were as follows: caffeine, 105% (96%-115%); tolbutamide, 80% (74%-86%); omeprazole, 55% (47%-65%); dextromethorphan, 77% (68%-86%); midazolam, 62% (49%-78%), and 117% (105%-130%) for digoxin. In summary, high-dose rifampicin resulted in no additional effect on CYP1A2, mild additional induction of CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6, and CYP3A, and marginal inhibition of P-gp. Existing recommendations on managing drug interactions with rifampicin can remain unchanged for the majority of co-administered drugs when using high-dose rifampicin. Clinical Trials registration number NCT04525235.</p