PROGNOSTIC VALUE OF CYP1A2 (rs2069514 AND rs762551) POLYMORPHISMS IN COVID-19 PATIENTS
Bozkurt I, Gözler T, Yüksel I, Ulucan K, Tarhan KN
*Corresponding Author: Prof.Dr. Korkut Ulucan, Saray, Site Yolu Cd No:27, Umraniye/ Istanbul, Turkey, 34768, email: korkutulucan@hotmail.com.tr; +902164002222
page: 35
|
|
RESULTS
The mean age of the patients was 56.75±19.70 (age
range: 20-87). Of the 60 patients, 53.3% (n=32) were male
and 46.7% (n=28) were female. 33.3% (n=20) of the patients
had a ground glass appearance; 36.7% (n=22) of the patients
had a chronic disease and 25% (n=15) were intubated during
their treatment. According to COVID-19 symptoms; 45%
(n=27) of the patients were fatigued, 38.3% (n=23) had
cough, 16.7% (n=10) had loss of taste-smell, 16.7% (n=10)
For CYP1A2 rs2069514 polymorphism of the patients
hospitalized in intensive care; 44% (n=11) had AG, 40%
(n=10) had GG and 16% (n=4) had AA genotypes. When
we count the alleles, G was 62% (n=31) and A was 38%
(n=19). For the rs762551 polymorphism, 60% (n=15) had
CC, 20% (n=5) had AC and 20% (n=5) had AA genotypes.
The C allele was counted as 70% (n=35) and the A as
30% (n=15).
For rs2069514 polymorphism of the passed-away
patients; 53.8% (n=7) had AG, 23.1% (n=3) had GG and
23.1% (n=3) had AA genotypes. For the alleles, G was
counted as 50% (n=13) and A was as 50% (n=13). For
the rs762551 polymorphism, 53.8% (n=7) had CC, 23.1%
(n=3) had AC and 23.1% (n=3) had AA genotypes. For
the alleles, the C allele was counted as 65.4% (n=17) and
the A as 34.6% (n=15) (Table 2).
In comparing the patients with and without intensive
care; gender distributions of the two groups were
detected as similar (p=0.382). Compared to the patients
who were admitted to the intensive care unit, those aged
65 and over (64.5% vs 35.5%; p<0.001), chronic disease
(68.2% vs 31.8%; p=0.002), cardiovascular disease
(76.9% vs 23.1%; p=0.004), respiratory distress (95.2%
vs 4.8%; p<0.001), neurological disease (100.0 vs. 0%)
0; p=0.004), fatigue (55.6% vs 44.4%; p=0.048), nausea/
vomiting (100.0% vs. 0.0%; p=0.026), intubated (100% vs
0.0%; p<0.001), ground glass appearance (95.0% vs 5.0%;
p<0.001), AA+AG genotype for the rs2069514 polymorphism
(75.0 vs 25%, 0; p<0.001) and CC+CA genotype for
the rs762551 polymorphism (51.3% vs 48.7%; p=0.040)
were statistically significantly different. In addition, the
number of patients with the CYP1A2 *1A/*1C + *1C/*1C
genotype (68.8% vs 31.3%; p<0.001) was found to be
significantly higher in patients admitted to the intensive
care unit compared to those without intensive care. The
number of patients with the CYP1A2 *1A/*1F + *1F/*1F
genotype was also significantly different (16.1% vs 83.9%;
p<0.001) (Table 3).
had fever, 6.7% (n=4) had nausea/vomiting and 1.7% (n=1)
had diarrhea. The patients in intensive care follow-up were
58.3% (n=35) and 41.7% (n=25) of the patients followed
up in intensive care passed away (Table 1).
As a result of univariate analysis, age, CYP1A2
polymorphisms, chronic disease, fatigue, and age values
showed statistically significant upon admission to the intensive
care unit (p<0.05, Table 3). These variables were
included in the Multivariate logistic regression model and
determined that the risk of admission to the intensive care
unit increased in CYP1A2 *1A/*1C + *1C/*1C genotypes
5.23 times more than *1A/*1A + *1F/*1F (OR: 5.23 95%
CI: 1.22-22.36; p=0.025) genotypes; and with chronic
disease were 4.68 times more likely than those without
(OR: 4.68, 95% CI: 1.14-19.15; p=0.032). Also, those ≥65
years old were 5.17 times more likely than those under 65
years of age (OR:5.17, 95%CI:1.26-21.14; p=0.022). It
was determined that the variables in the model explained
48% of the factors determining intensive care admission
(Table 4).
|
|
|
|
 |
Number 27
VOL. 27 (2), 2024 |
Number 27
VOL. 27 (1), 2024 |
Number 26
Number 26 VOL. 26(2), 2023 All in one |
Number 26
VOL. 26(2), 2023 |
Number 26
VOL. 26, 2023 Supplement |
Number 26
VOL. 26(1), 2023 |
Number 25
VOL. 25(2), 2022 |
Number 25
VOL. 25 (1), 2022 |
Number 24
VOL. 24(2), 2021 |
Number 24
VOL. 24(1), 2021 |
Number 23
VOL. 23(2), 2020 |
Number 22
VOL. 22(2), 2019 |
Number 22
VOL. 22(1), 2019 |
Number 22
VOL. 22, 2019 Supplement |
Number 21
VOL. 21(2), 2018 |
Number 21
VOL. 21 (1), 2018 |
Number 21
VOL. 21, 2018 Supplement |
Number 20
VOL. 20 (2), 2017 |
Number 20
VOL. 20 (1), 2017 |
Number 19
VOL. 19 (2), 2016 |
Number 19
VOL. 19 (1), 2016 |
Number 18
VOL. 18 (2), 2015 |
Number 18
VOL. 18 (1), 2015 |
Number 17
VOL. 17 (2), 2014 |
Number 17
VOL. 17 (1), 2014 |
Number 16
VOL. 16 (2), 2013 |
Number 16
VOL. 16 (1), 2013 |
Number 15
VOL. 15 (2), 2012 |
Number 15
VOL. 15, 2012 Supplement |
Number 15
Vol. 15 (1), 2012 |
Number 14
14 - Vol. 14 (2), 2011 |
Number 14
The 9th Balkan Congress of Medical Genetics |
Number 14
14 - Vol. 14 (1), 2011 |
Number 13
Vol. 13 (2), 2010 |
Number 13
Vol.13 (1), 2010 |
Number 12
Vol.12 (2), 2009 |
Number 12
Vol.12 (1), 2009 |
Number 11
Vol.11 (2),2008 |
Number 11
Vol.11 (1),2008 |
Number 10
Vol.10 (2), 2007 |
Number 10
10 (1),2007 |
Number 9
1&2, 2006 |
Number 9
3&4, 2006 |
Number 8
1&2, 2005 |
Number 8
3&4, 2004 |
Number 7
1&2, 2004 |
Number 6
3&4, 2003 |
Number 6
1&2, 2003 |
Number 5
3&4, 2002 |
Number 5
1&2, 2002 |
Number 4
Vol.3 (4), 2000 |
Number 4
Vol.2 (4), 1999 |
Number 4
Vol.1 (4), 1998 |
Number 4
3&4, 2001 |
Number 4
1&2, 2001 |
Number 3
Vol.3 (3), 2000 |
Number 3
Vol.2 (3), 1999 |
Number 3
Vol.1 (3), 1998 |
Number 2
Vol.3(2), 2000 |
Number 2
Vol.1 (2), 1998 |
Number 2
Vol.2 (2), 1999 |
Number 1
Vol.3 (1), 2000 |
Number 1
Vol.2 (1), 1999 |
Number 1
Vol.1 (1), 1998 |
|
|
