ArticleBiology2014
Genetic risk scores associated with baseline lipoprotein subfraction concentrations do not associate with their responses to fenofibrate.
Article in Biology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adverse event profiles of fenofibrate and gemfibrozil: a retrospective comparative study and literature synthesis.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Genetic associations with lipoprotein subfraction measures differ by ethnicity in the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis (MESA).Human genetics · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Lipoprotein subclass concentrations are modifiable markers of cardiovascular disease risk. Fenofibrate is known to show beneficial effects on lipoprotein subclasses, but little is known about the role of genetics in mediating the responses of lipoprotein subclasses to fenofibrate. A recent genomewide association study (GWAS) associated several single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with lipoprotein measures, and validated these associations in two independent populations. We used this information to construct genetic risk scores (GRSs) for fasting lipoprotein measures at baseline (pre-fenofibrate), and aimed to examine whether these GRSs also associated with the responses of lipoproteins to fenofibrate. Fourteen lipoprotein subclass measures were assayed in 817 men and women before and after a three week fenofibrate trial. We set significance at a Bonferroni corrected alpha <0.05 (p < 0.004). Twelve subclass measures changed with fenofibrate administration (each p = 0.003 to <0.0001). Mixed linear models which controlled for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), smoking status, pedigree and study-center, revealed that GRSs were associated with eight baseline lipoprotein measures (p < 0.004), however no GRS was associated with fenofibrate response. These results suggest that the mechanisms for changes in lipoprotein subclass concentrations with fenofibrate treatment are not mediated by the genetic risk for fasting levels.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.