3.9 Article

Modulation of aldosterone levels by-344 C/T CYP11B2 polymorphism and spironolactone use in resistant hypertension

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jash.2013.12.001

关键词

Mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists; refractory hypertension; aldosterone synthase and aldosterone breakthrough

资金

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP)
  2. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Interindividual variability in plasma aldosterone levels comprises environmental and genetic sources. Increased aldosterone levels have been associated with higher risk of hypertension and target-organ damage related to hypertension. Aldosterone excess and intravascular volume expansion are implicated in pathophysiology of resistant hypertension (RH). We sought to investigate whether -344 C/T polymorphism (rs1799998) in aldosterone synthase gene (CYP11B2) is associated with plasma aldosterone levels in patients with resistant hypertension. Sixty-two patients with resistant hypertension were enrolled in this cross-sectional study. Genotypes were obtained by allelic discrimination assay using real time polymerase chain reaction. Multivariable linear regression was used to identify whether TT genotype was a predictor of aldosterone levels. No differences in clinical and laboratorial parameters were found among genotype groups. We found an additive effect of the T allele on plasma aldosterone concentration in RH. Also, there was higher aldosterone levels in TT homozygous under use of spironolactone compared with C carriers and compared with TT subjects who was not under use of spironolactone. TT genotype and the use of spironolactone were significant predictors of aldosterone levels in RH subjects. Plasma aldosterone concentration is significantly associated with -344 C/T CYP11B2 polymorphism and with the treatment with spironolactone in resistant hypertensive subjects. (C) 2014 American Society of Hypertension. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据