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