Evidence map›Paper›PMID 16389549›Full record

ArticleJournal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany)2006

Mutational analysis in UK patients with a clinical diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolaemia: relationship with plasma lipid traits, heart disease risk and utility in relative tracing.

Steve E Humphries, Treena Cranston, Marcus Allen, Helen Middleton-Price, Maryam C Fernandez, Victoria Senior, Emma Hawe, Andrew Iversen, Richard Wray, Martin A Crook and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of molecular medicine (Berlin, Germany), 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 70 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Statins for children with familial hypercholesterolemia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019
    Pooled it
  2. Statins for children with familial hypercholesterolemia.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Mutational Spectrum ofFrontiers in genetics · 2021
    Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Lipid lowering with PCSK9 inhibitors.Nature reviews. Cardiology · 2014
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Steve E HumphriesCentre for Cardiovascular Genetics, British Heart Foundation Laboratories, Royal Free and University College London Medical School, Rayne Building, 5 University Street, London WC1E 6JJ, UK. rmhaseh@ucl.ac.uk
Treena Cranston
Marcus Allen
Helen Middleton-Price
Maryam C Fernandez
Victoria Senior
Emma Hawe
Andrew Iversen
Richard Wray
Martin A Crook
Anthony S Wierzbicki
University College London · GBKing's College London · GBSt Thomas' Hospital · GBBritish Heart Foundation · GBConquest Hospital · GBRoyal Sussex County Hospital · GBThe Royal Free Hospital · GB

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As part of a randomised trial [Genetic Risk Assessment for Familial Hypercholesterolaemia (FH) Trial] of the psychological consequences of DNA-based and non-DNA-based diagnosis of FH, 338 probands with a clinical diagnosis of FH (46% with tendon xanthomas) were recruited. In the DNA-based testing arm (245 probands), using single-strand conformation polymorphism of all exons of the low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR) gene, 48 different pathogenic mutations were found in 62 probands (25%), while 7 (2.9%) of the patients had the R3500Q mutation in the apolipoprotein B (APOB) gene. Compared to those with no detected mutation, mean untreated cholesterol levels in those with the APOB mutation were similar, while in those with an LDLR mutation levels were significantly higher (None=9.15+/-1.62 vs LDLR=9.13+/-1.16 vs APOB=10.26+/-2.07 mmol/l p<0.001, respectively). Thirty seven percent of the detected mutations were in exon 3/4 of LDLR, and this group had significantly higher untreated cholesterol than those with other LDLR mutations (11.71+/-2.39 mmol/l vs 9.88+/-2.44 mmol/l, p=0.03), and more evidence of coronary disease compared to those with other LDLR or APOB mutations (36 vs 13% p=0.04). Of the probands with a detected mutation, 54 first-degree relatives were identified, of whom 27 (50%) had a mutation. Of these, 18 had untreated cholesterol above the 95th percentile for their age and gender, but there was overlap with levels in the non-carrier relatives such that 12% of subjects would have been incorrectly diagnosed on lipid levels alone. In the non-DNA-based testing arm (82 probands) only 19 of the 74 relatives identified had untreated cholesterol above the 95th percentile for their age and gender, which was significantly lower (p<0.0005) than the 50% expected for monogenic inheritance. These data confirm the genetic heterogeneity of LDLR mutations in the UK and the deleterious effect of mutations in exon 3 or 4 of LDLR on receptor function, lipids and severity of coronary heart disease. In patients with a clinical diagnosis of FH but no detectable mutation, there is weaker evidence for a monogenic cause compared with relatives of probands with LDLR mutations. This supports the usefulness of DNA testing to confirm diagnosis of FH for the treatment of hyperlipidaemia and for further cascade screening.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesDNA Mutational AnalysisEnglandFemaleGenetic TestingHumansHyperlipoproteinemia Type IILipidsMaleMiddle AgedPedigreePrevalenceRandom AllocationReceptors, LDLRisk FactorsLipidsReceptors, LDL

Identifiers

PMID16389549
OpenAlexW2104654286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.