Variants in ADRB1 and CYP2C9: Association with Response to Atenolol and Losartan in Marfan Syndrome

Objective: To test whether variants in ADRB1 and CYP2C9 genes identify subgroups of individuals with differential response to treatment for Marfan syndrome through analysis of data from a large, randomized trial. Study design: In a subset of 250 white, non-Hispanic participants with Marfan syndrome in a prior randomized trial of atenolol vs losartan, the common variants rs1801252 and rs1801253 in ADRB1 and rs1799853 and rs1057910 in CYP2C9 were analyzed. The primary outcome was baseline-adjusted annual rate of change in the maximum aortic root diameter z-score over 3 years, assessed using mixed effects models. Results: Among 122 atenolol-assigned participants, the 70 with rs1801253 CC genotype had greater rate of improvement in aortic root z-score compared with 52 participants with CG or GG genotypes (Time × Genotype interaction P = .005, mean annual z-score change ± SE -0.20 ± 0.03 vs -0.09 ± 0.03). Among participants with the CC genotype in both treatment arms, those assigned to atenolol had greater rate of improvement compared with the 71 of the 121 assigned to losartan (interaction P = .002; -0.20 ± 0.02 vs -0.07 ± 0.02; P < .001). There were no differences in atenolol response by rs1801252 genotype or in losartan response by CYP2C9 metabolizer status. Conclusions: In this exploratory study, ADRB1-rs1801253 was associated with atenolol response in children and young adults with Marfan syndrome. If these findings are confirmed in future studies, ADRB1 genotyping has the potential to guide therapy by identifying those who are likely to have greater therapeutic response to atenolol than losartan

Variants in ADRB1 and CYP2C9: association with response to atenolol and losartan in Marfan syndrome

OBJECTIVE: To test whether variants in ADRB1 and CYP2C9 genes identify subgroups of individuals with differential response to treatment for Marfan syndrome through analysis of data from a large randomized trial. STUDY DESIGN: In a subset of 250 white, non-Hispanic participants with Marfan syndrome in a prior randomized trial of atenolol vs. losartan, the common variants rs1801252 and rs1801253 in ADRB1 and rs1799853 and rs1057910 in CYP2C9 were analyzed. The primary outcome was baseline-adjusted annual rate of change in the maximum aortic-root diameter z-score over 3 years, assessed using mixed effects models. RESULTS: Among 122 atenolol-assigned participants, the 70 with rs1801253 CC genotype had greater rate of improvement in aortic-root z-score compared with 52 participants with CG or GG genotypes (time × genotype interaction p=0.005, mean annual z-score change ± standard error −0.20±0.03 vs −0.09±0.03). Among participants with the CC genotype in both treatment arms, those assigned to atenolol had greater rate of improvement compared with the 71/121 assigned to losartan (interaction P = .002, −0.20±0.02 vs. −0.07±0.02; p<0.001). There were no differences in atenolol response by rs1801252 genotype or in losartan response by CYP2C9 metabolizer status. CONCLUSIONS: In this exploratory study, ADRB1-rs1801253 was associated with atenolol response in children and young adults with Marfan syndrome. If findings are confirmed in future studies, ADRB1 genotyping has the potential to guide therapy by identifying those who are likely to have greater therapeutic response to atenolol than losartan

Characteristics of children and young adults with Marfan syndrome and aortic root dilation in a randomized trial comparing atenolol and losartan therapy

Item does not contain fulltextBACKGROUND: The Pediatric Heart Network designed a clinical trial to compare aortic root growth and other short-term cardiovascular outcomes in children and young adults with Marfan syndrome randomized to receive atenolol or losartan. We report here the characteristics of the screened population and enrolled subjects. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2007 and 2011, 21 clinical sites randomized 608 subjects, aged 6 months to 25 years who met the original Ghent criteria and had a body surface area-adjusted aortic root diameter z-score >3.0. The mean age at study entry was 11.2 years, 60% were male, and 25% were older teenagers and young adults. The median aortic root diameter z-score was 4.0. Aortic root diameter z-score did not vary with age. Mitral valve prolapse and mitral regurgitation were more common in females. Among those with a positive family history, 56% had a family member with aortic surgery, and 32% had a family member with a history of aortic dissection. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline demographic, clinical, and anthropometric characteristics of the randomized cohort are representative of patients in this population with moderate to severe aortic root dilation. The high percentage of young subjects with relatives who have had aortic dissection or surgery illustrates the need for more definitive therapy; we expect that the results of the study and the wealth of systematic data collected will make an important contribution to the management of individuals with Marfan syndrome

Contemporary Neuroscience Core Curriculum for Medical Schools

Medical students need to understand core neuroscience principles as a foundation for their required clinical experiences in neurology. In fact, they need a solid neuroscience foundation for their clinical experiences in all other medical disciplines also, because the nervous system plays such a critical role in the function of every organ system. Due to the rapid pace of neuroscience discoveries, it is unrealistic to expect students to master the entire field. It is also unnecessary, as students can expect to have ready access to electronic reference sources no matter where they practice. In the pre-clerkship phase of medical school, the focus should be on providing students with the foundational knowledge to use those resources effectively and interpret them correctly. This article describes an organizational framework for teaching the essential neuroscience background needed by all physicians. This is particularly germane at a time when many medical schools are re-assessing traditional practices and instituting curricular changes such as competency-based approaches, earlier clinical immersion, and increased emphasis on active learning. This article reviews factors that should be considered when developing the pre-clerkship neuroscience curriculum, including goals and objectives for the curriculum, the general topics to include, teaching and assessment methodology, who should direct the course, and the areas of expertise of faculty who might be enlisted as teachers or content experts. These guidelines were developed by a work group of experienced educators appointed by the Undergraduate Education Subcommittee (UES) of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). They were then successively reviewed, edited, and approved by the entire UES, the AAN Education Committee, and the AAN Board of Directors

Contemporary neuroscience core curriculum for medical schools

Medical students need to understand core neuroscience principles as a foundation for their required clinical experiences in neurology. In fact, they need a solid neuroscience foundation for their clinical experiences in all other medical disciplines also, because the nervous system plays such a critical role in the function of every organ system. Due to the rapid pace of neuroscience discoveries, it is unrealistic to expect students to master the entire field. It is also unnecessary, as students can expect to have ready access to electronic reference sources no matter where they practice. In the pre-clerkship phase of medical school, the focus should be on providing students with the foundational knowledge to use those resources effectively and interpret them correctly. This article describes an organizational framework for teaching the essential neuroscience background needed by all physicians. This is particularly germane at a time when many medical schools are re-assessing traditional practices and instituting curricular changes such as competency-based approaches, earlier clinical immersion, and increased emphasis on active learning. This article reviews factors that should be considered when developing the pre-clerkship neuroscience curriculum, including goals and objectives for the curriculum, the general topics to include, teaching and assessment methodology, who should direct the course, and the areas of expertise of faculty who might be enlisted as teachers or content experts. These guidelines were developed by a work group of experienced educators appointed by the Undergraduate Education Subcommittee (UES) of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). They were then successively reviewed, edited, and approved by the entire UES, the AAN Education Committee, and the AAN Board of Directors

Contemporary neuroscience core curriculum for medical schools

Medical students need to understand core neuroscience principles as a foundation for their required clinical experiences in neurology. In fact, they need a solid neuroscience foundation for their clinical experiences in all other medical disciplines also, because the nervous system plays such a critical role in the function of every organ system. Due to the rapid pace of neuroscience discoveries, it is unrealistic to expect students to master the entire field. It is also unnecessary, as students can expect to have ready access to electronic reference sources no matter where they practice. In the pre-clerkship phase of medical school, the focus should be on providing students with the foundational knowledge to use those resources effectively and interpret them correctly. This article describes an organizational framework for teaching the essential neuroscience background needed by all physicians. This is particularly germane at a time when many medical schools are re-assessing traditional practices and instituting curricular changes such as competency-based approaches, earlier clinical immersion, and increased emphasis on active learning. This article reviews factors that should be considered when developing the pre-clerkship neuroscience curriculum, including goals and objectives for the curriculum, the general topics to include, teaching and assessment methodology, who should direct the course, and the areas of expertise of faculty who might be enlisted as teachers or content experts. These guidelines were developed by a work group of experienced educators appointed by the Undergraduate Education Subcommittee (UES) of the American Academy of Neurology (AAN). They were then successively reviewed, edited, and approved by the entire UES, the AAN Education Committee, and the AAN Board of Directors