Skip to main content

Table 1 Results of the secondary analyses: association between CYP genetic variants and hepatotoxicity

From: CYP genetic variants and toxicity related to anti-tubercular agents: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Gene

Variant

Comparison

Country (no. of studies)

Ethnicity

OR (95% CI)

# cases

# controls

I2 value

CYP2E1

Rs2080672

Het (AG) vs Hom WT (AA)

China (1 study)

NR

1.16 (0.72, 1.89)

86

334

N/A

Hom MT (GG) vs Hom WT (AA)

China (1 study)

NR

0.69 (0.19, 2.42)

54

228

N/A

Rs915908

Het (GA) vs Hom WT (GG)

China (1 study)

NR

0.89 (0.47, 1.69)

79

318

N/A

Hom MT (AA) vs Hom WT (GG)

China (1 study)

NR

1.09 (0.52, 2.32)

75

292

N/A

Rs8192775

Het (GA) vs Hom WT (GG)

China (1 study)

NR

1.17 (0.72, 1.90)

85

333

N/A

Hom MT (AA) vs Hom WT (GG)

China (1 study)

NR

0.76 (0.25, 2.29)

55

234

N/A

Rs2515641

Het (CT) vs Hom WT (CC)

China (1 study)

NR

1.20 (0.73, 1.99)

85

342

N/A

Hom MT (TT) vs Hom WT (CC)

China (1 study)

NR

1.31 (0.41, 4.18)

60

252

N/A

Rs2515644

Het (CA) vs Hom WT (CC)

China (1 study)

NR

1.26 (0.74, 2.15)

73

285

N/A

Hom MT (AA) vs Hom WT (CC)

China (1 study)

NR

1.04 (0.52, 2.08)

42

186

N/A

Rs2070672

Het (AG) vs Hom WT (AA)

South Korea (1 study)

NR

1.74 (0.93, 3.25)

63

149

N/A

Hom MT (GG) vs Hom WT (AA)

South Korea (1 study)

NR

0.94 (0.18, 4.85)

41

116

N/A

Rs2070673a

Het (TA) vs Hom WT (TT)

South Korea (1 study)

NR

0.88 (0.48, 1.63)

59

134

N/A

Hom MT (AA) vs Hom WT (TT)

South Korea (1 study)

NR

0.75 (0.28, 1.96)

37

84

N/A

96-bp (deletion-insertion SNP)

Het (DI) vs Hom WT (DD)

India (1 study)

NR

1.13 (0.22, 5.88)

6

98

N/A

Brazil (1 study)

NR

0.25 (0.01, 4.26)

18

228

N/A

All (2 studies)

0.77 (0.19, 3.21)

24

326

0.0%

Hom MT (II) vs Hom WT (DD)

India (1 study)

NR

11.56 (1.37, 97.67)

5

55

N/A

Brazil (1 study)

NR

3.72 (0.15, 94.60)

18

207

N/A

All (2 studies)

8.20 (1.38, 48.68)

23

262

0.0%

CYP2C9

Rs4918758b

Het (TC) vs Hom WT (TT)

China (1 study)

NR

0.78 (0.46, 1.33)

69

285

N/A

South Korea (1 study)

NR

1.66 (0.85, 3.23)

59

127

N/A

All (2 studies)

1.11 (0.53, 2.31)

128

412

66.7%

Hom MT (CC) vs Hom WT (TT)

China (1 study)

NR

0.94 (0.49, 1.80)

51

188

N/A

South Korea (1 study)

NR

0.72 (0.27, 1.95)

24

80

N/A

All (2 studies)

0.87 (0.51, 1.50)

75

268

0.0%

Rs9332098

Het (GA) vs Hom WT (GG)

China (1 study)

NR

0.32 (0.07, 1.38)

88

354

N/A

Hom MT (AA) vs Hom WT (GG)

China (1 study)

NR

Data excludedc

Rs9332096

Het (CT) vs Hom WT (CC)

South Korea (1 study)

NR

0.63 (0.27, 1.47)

66

156

N/A

Hom MT (TT) vs Hom WT (CC)

South Korea (1 study)

NR

0.73 (0.03, 18.24)

58

129

N/A

Rs1057910

Het (AC) vs Hom WT (AA)

South Korea (1 study)

NR

1.00 (0.34, 2.97)

64

154

N/A

Hom MT (CC) vs Hom WT (AA)

South Korea (1 study)

NR

Data excludedc

CYP2B6

rs3745274

Het (GT) vs Hom WT (GG)

Brazil (1 study)

NR

1.57 (0.71, 3.45)

30

176

N/A

Ethiopia (1 study)

NR

1.42 (0.68, 2.98)

35

145

N/A

All (2 studies)

1.49 (0.87, 2.55)

65

321

0.0%

Hom MT (TT) vs Hom WT (GG)

Brazil (1 study)

NR

0.58 (0.07, 4.81)

13

103

N/A

Ethiopia (1 study)

NR

1.98 (0.66, 5.87)

22

94

N/A

All (2 studies)

1.51 (0.55, 4.13)

35

197

4.2%

CYP3A4

rs12333983

Het (TA) vs Hom WT (TT)

China (1 study)

NR

1.33 (0.81, 2.18)

78

312

N/A

Hom MT (AA) vs Hom WT (TT)

China (1 study)

NR

1.33 (0.62, 2.86)

47

204

N/A

-392 A-G

Het (GA) vs Hom WT (AA)

Brazil (1 study)

42% white, 58% non-white

0.69 (0.32, 1.47)

45

69

N/A

Hom MT (GG) vs Hom WT (AA)

Brazil (1 study)

42% white, 58% non-white

0.91 (0.31, 2.70)

34

45

N/A

CYP2C19

rs11568732

Het (TG) vs Hom WT (TT)

China (1 study)

NR

0.54 (0.25, 1.19)

87

350

N/A

Hom MT (GG) vs Hom WT (TT)

China (1 study)

NR

0.93 (0.10, 8.47)

80

229

N/A

rs4986894

Het (TC) vs Hom WT (TT)

China (1 study)

NR

0.95 (0.57, 1.59)

72

302

N/A

Hom MT (CC) vs Hom WT (TT)

China (1 study)

NR

1.11 (0.53, 2.32)

48

191

N/A

rs17878465

Het (CT) vs Hom WT (CC)

South Korea (1 study)

NR

0.99 (0.50, 1.94)

65

153

N/A

Hom MT (TT) vs Hom WT (CC)

South Korea (1 study)

NR

0.33 (0.02, 6.58)

49

118

N/A

rs4986893

Het (GA) vs Hom WT (GG)

South Korea (1 study)

NR

0.69 (0.31, 1.56)

66

156

N/A

Hom MT (AA) vs Hom WT (GG)

South Korea (1 study)

NR

0.74 (0.03, 18.42)

57

128

N/A

CYP3A5

rs776746

Het (AG) vs Hom WT (AA)

Brazil (1 study)

NR

1.84 (0.83, 4.05)

31

189

N/A

Hom MT (GG) vs Hom WT (AA)

Brazil (1 study)

NR

Data excludedc

Number of CYP3A5*1

One copy vs zero copies

Ethiopia (1 study)

NR

1.56 (0.76, 3.20)

39

151

N/A

Two copies vs zero copies

Ethiopia (1 study)

NR

1.02 (0.21, 5.05)

24

110

N/A

CYP1A1

MspI

Hom MT or Het vs Hom WT

China (1 study)

NR

1.33 (0.81, 2.19)

127

127

N/A

CYP2D6

rs1080983

Het (GA) vs Hom WT (AA)

South Korea (1 study)

NR

0.83 (0.43, 1.61)

65

152

N/A

Hom MT (GG) vs Hom WT (AA)

South Korea (1 study)

NR

0.56 (0.06, 5.11)

50

113

N/A

rs1080989

Het (GA) vs Hom WT (AA)

South Korea (1 study)

NR

0.89 (0.45, 1.74)

50

121

N/A

Hom MT (GG) vs Hom WT (AA)

South Korea (1 study)

NR

1.03 (0.47, 2.27)

36

80

N/A

  1. CI confidence interval, Het heterozygous genotype, Hom MT homozygous mutant-type, Hom WT homozygous wild-type, N/A not applicable, NR not reported, OR odds ratio
  2. aThe paper (Kim 2009 [GI: KIM]) reports WT to be A and MT to be T, but data suggest that WT is T and MT is A
  3. bOne of the studies (Kim 2009 [GI: KIM]) reports WT to be C and MT to be T, but the other study (Tang 2013b [GI: ADACS]), and the data, suggest that WT is T and MT is C
  4. cData excluded due to zero counts in one of the genotype groups
  5. The italicised values are pooled results from more than one study, i.e. the results of meta-analyses
Back to article page

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053