Seizure: European Journal of Epilepsy
Volume 19, Issue 6 , Pages 339-346, July 2010

ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism and the risk of resistance to antiepileptic drugs in epilepsy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

  • B.S. Haerian

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author.
    • ,
  • H. Roslan

      Affiliations

    • UKM Medical Molecular Biology Institute, National University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    • ,
  • A.A. Raymond

      Affiliations

    • Faculty of Medicine, National University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    • ,
  • C.T. Tan

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    • ,
  • K.S. Lim

      Affiliations

    • Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    • ,
  • S.Z. Zulkifli

      Affiliations

    • UKM Medical Molecular Biology Institute, National University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    • ,
  • E.H.M. Mohamed

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    • ,
  • H.J. Tan

      Affiliations

    • Faculty of Medicine, National University of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
    • ,
  • Z. Mohamed

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Received 14 March 2010; received in revised form 30 April 2010; accepted 7 May 2010. published online 04 June 2010.

Article Outline

Abstract 

Objective

The C3435T, a major allelic variant of the ABCB1 gene, is proposed to play a crucial role in drug-resistance in epilepsy. The C/C genotype carriers reportedly are at higher risk of pharmacoresistance to AEDs, but only in some studies. The hypothesis of the C-variant associated risk and resistance to antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) has been hampered by conflicting results from inadequate power in case–control studies. To assess the role of C3435T polymorphism in drug-resistance in epilepsy, a systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted.

Methods

Databases were obtained from the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, major American and European conference abstracts, and www.google.my for genetic association studies up to February 2010. All the case–control association studies evaluating the role of ABCB1 C3435T in pharmacoresistance to AEDs were identified. The new definition of treatment outcome from International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) was used for including studies for sub-analysis. To measure the strength of genetic association for the gene variant, the odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using models of both fixed- and random-effects for comparisons of the alleles and genotypes with co-dominant (C/C vs. T/T, C/T vs. T/T), dominant (C/C+C/T vs. T/T), and recessive (C/C vs. C/T+T/T) models in overall and in ethnicity subgroups. The 19 studies were selected for the next sub-analysis based on the new definition of drug-responsiveness and drug-resistance from ILAE. The same analysis was also performed for treatment outcome and ethnicity subgroups.

Results

A total of 22 association studies including 3231 (47.8%) drug-resistant patients and 3524 (52.2%) drug-responsive patients or healthy controls (genotyped for C3435T) were pooled in this meta-analysis. The allelic association of ABCB1 C3435T with risk of drug-resistance was not significant under fixed-effects model, 1.06 (95% CI 0.98–1.14, p=0.12) and random-effects model, 1.10 (0.93–1.30, p=0.28) in overall and in the subgroup analysis by ethnicity. Similar results were also obtained for all genetic models in the stratified analyses by new definition of drug-resistance by ILAE and ethnicity subgroups. There was no publication bias.

Conclusion

We failed to show an association between the ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism and the risk of drug-resistance suggesting a revision in contribution of this polymorphism in the multi-drug transporters hypothesis of pharmacoresistance to AEDs in epilepsy.

Keywords: Meta-analysis, Epilepsy, ABCB1, Polymorphism, P-glycoprotein, Antiepileptic drugs, Pharmacoresistance

 

Epilepsy is a complex disease characterized by a predisposition to recurrent unprovoked seizures.1 Despite treatment with antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), about one-third of newly treated patients do not respond adequately to medications, making pharmacoresistance a major problem in the control of this condition.2 Recent studies have investigated the association between over-expression of efflux transporters and excess efflux of AEDs across the blood–brain barrier (BBB) thereby leading to drug-resistant epilepsy.3 P-glycoprotein (P-gp) was the first discovered human ABC transporter more than 30 years ago in drug-resistance ovarian cells obtained from Chinese hamsters.4 P-gp is the most studied protein among the ATP-binding cassette (ABC) efflux transporters. This transmembrane transporter is the product of the ABC subfamily B member 1 transporter (ABCB1) gene, encoded by ABC subfamily B member 1 transporter (ABCB1) gene and located at the endothelial cells of the BBB.5 The level of P-gp expression is highly variable between different individuals. Inter-individual variability of P-gp activity may affect blood levels and drug distribution to the specific target compartment.6 The ABCB1 gene is highly polymorphic and more than 50 variants reside in the coding region which can possibly cause altered function. The C3435T polymorphism is one of the most common polymorphisms in the ABCB1 gene.7

There appears to be a possible link between the ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism and drug-resistance epilepsy but results from various studies indicate that this is controversial. The first pharmacogenetic study on this matter suggested a strong and significant association (P=0.006) between the C/C genotype in the ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism and drug-resistant epilepsy.8 Following that study, 21 replication studies were conducted to evaluate this hypothesis, but only nine confirmed the results of the first report (Table 2). It is unclear why these reports have found such contradictory results. How can such conflicting results be interpreted? Is there any obvious effect of C3435T polymorphism on response to AEDs even if the phenotypes are almost the same? Two meta-analyses of three and eleven association studies published in 2007 and 2008, respectively did not confirm whether the C3435T in the ABCB1 gene contributes to the risk of drug-resistance in epilepsy patients and certain ethnic subgroups.9, 10 Therefore, to overcome the limitations of the individual studies and reliably assess the hypothesized ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism relationship with the risk of drug-resistance in epilepsy on the basis of the existing data, we provided pooled estimates using both fixed- and random-effects models in overall, the Asian and Caucasian populations and definition of treatment outcome using all genetic model analysis.

Back to Article Outline

1. Method 

1.1. Search strategy and selection 

All articles that examined the ABCB1 C3435T association with drug-resistance in epilepsy were identified. Databases were obtained from MEDLINE, EMBASE, as well as the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, major American and European conference abstracts, and www.google.com and all relevant studies were compiled up to February 2010. Non-English language publications were excluded. Additionally, we hand searched the reference lists of retrieved full-text articles. MESH terms used included “EPILEPSY”, “POLYMORPHISM”, “ABCB1”, “C3435T”, “DRUG-RESISTANT”, “DRUG-RESPONSIVENESS”, “ANTIEPILEPTIC DRUGS”, and “ANTICONVULSANT DRUGS” (including “MONOTHERAPY” and “POLYTHERAPY”). Two reviewer independently assessed titles and abstracts of electronic searches, obtaining the full articles to assess for relevance where necessary.

1.2. Data extraction 

For primary selection of the studies, all articles published till February 2010, were considered. All selected articles were examined for their appropriateness by two independent reviewers using an extraction template. Disagreements were documented and resolved by discussion with a third author. The case–control genetic association studies included in this meta-analysis had to meet the following criteria: (a) AED treatment of patients and compliance; (b) data on genotype distributions were available for both case and control groups; (c) genotype distribution of the control subjects conformed to the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium; and (d) clear treatment outcome of either resistant or responsive to AEDs. Information on name of the first author, year of publication, country, journal, ethnic origin of the studied population, sample size, definition of drug-resistance and drug responsiveness, the types of epilepsy syndromes and AED treatment, genotyping methods, genotype and allele distributions, and confirmation of the diagnosis were abstracted. Genotype distributions reported in percentages were converted to actual numbers. If allele frequencies were not given, they were calculated from the corresponding genotype distributions. The control group was either drug-responsive epilepsy patients receiving AEDs or healthy people. In each study, if both drug-responsive patients and control data were available, we used drug-responsive patients’ data for analyses. The phenotype definition of treatment outcome in each study was assessed according to the new three categories from the International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE): (1) drug-responsiveness as complete seizure freedom for at least one year; (2) drug-resistant as failure of two tolerated and appropriately chosen and used AED schedules (whether as monotherapies or in combination) to achieve sustained seizure freedom; and (3) undetermined.11 The consistent studies with outcome categories either 1 and 2 or 3 were classified as group one and two, respectively.

1.3. Statistical analysis 

The meta-analysis was performed to examine the overall association for allelic (C vs. T) and genotype genetic models (C/C vs. T/T and C/T vs. T/T, C/C+C/T vs. T/T, and C/C vs. C/T+T/T, assuming co-dominant, dominant, and recessive effects) of the 3435C allele and the risk of resistance to AEDs. Deviation of Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) was examined by χ2 tests. The per-allele odds ratio (OR) of the rare allele (3435T) as well as the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p value were calculated as using a comparative two group outcomes statistics to compare drug-resistant and drug-responsive patients. Fixed-effects summary measures were calculated as inverse-variance–weighted average of the log OR if there was no heterogeneity (p>0.10) and random-effects where substantial heterogeneity (p<0.10) exist. To measure the strength of genetic association, we used the I2 test to assess the proportion of statistical heterogeneity and the Q-statistic test with a p<0.10 to define a significant degree of heterogeneity. A sensitivity analysis was carried out by excluding each study in turn to investigate the extent to which they contributed to the heterogeneity. Subsidiary analyses including subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the effects of either ethnicity in overall of studies for allelic model or definition of treatment outcome and ethnicity in overall and subgroups under all genetic models. Ethnic group was defined as Asian and Caucasians. The new definition of treatment outcome from ILAE was used for sub-analysis of both subgroups one and two and ethnicity in the first subgroup. All probability values are 2-sided, and values of P<0.05 were considered statistically significant. The evidence of publication bias was assessed by visual funnel plot inspection and Egger's test. Statistical analyses were performed using validated Meta-analysis Made Easy (MIX) version 1.7.12

Back to Article Outline

2. Results 

2.1. Study characteristics 

The initial search with the keywords and the subject terms identified 22 publications that met the inclusion criteria and were eligible for review. Out of the 22 studies, nine were positive studies among which the carriers homozygous for the 3435T allele in three studies were significantly higher in the drug-resistant than in the drug-responsive patients. Among the 22 included studies, there was considerable diversity between ethnic groups. Fourteen articles represented studies with the Asian populations,14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 while seven were carried out in European descent populations.8, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 Patients were recruited from Egypt (one),19 Australia (one),30 China (five studies),14, 15, 18, 21, 25 Croatia (one),28 Germany (one),33 India (two studies),26, 27 Ireland (one),15 Japan (one),17 Korea (three studies),15, 16, 24 Scotland (one),31 Turkey (two studies),22, 23 and United Kingdom (two studies).8, 29 In one multi-centre cooperation study, subjects were collected from Australia, Hong Kong and Scotland.13 We divided this study into three sub-studies for meta-analysis. Hence, the total number of studies for meta-analysis could be considered to be 24 instead of 22 for analyses. Characteristics of the included studies are presented in Table 1. The included studies provided a total of 6755 subjects, 3231 (47.8%) drug-resistant patients and 3524 (52.2%) drug-responsive epilepsy patients or healthy controls. The median number of sample size was 288 (range, 45–609). The genotype and allele distributions of ABCB1 C3435T in the studies are shown in Table 2. The ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism was found to occur in frequencies consistent with HWE in the drug-resistant and drug-responsive epilepsy patients or healthy populations of the published studies.

Table 1. Characteristics of the analyzed studies of ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism in relation to drug-resistance epilepsy.
AuthorYearOriginGenotyped samples for C3435T (N)DefinitionEpilepsy typeAEDs typeFrequent genotype in NRRef.
RNRCNRR
Positive studies (n=9)
1Siddiqui et al.2003UK200115200>4 seizures in year>1 year seizure freedomVariousVariousC/C8
2Hajnsek et al.2004Croatia3030-As Seddique et al.As Seddique et al.VariousVariousT/T28
3Soranzo et al.2004UK280136-As Seddique et al.As Seddique et al.VariousVariousC/C29
4Hung et al.2005Taiwan108223287>10 seizures in year>2 years seizure freedomVariousVariousC/C14
5Seo et al.**2006Japan12684-≥1 seizure in month>1 year seizure freedomVariousCBZT/T17
6Ebid et al.**2007Egypt633750Seizure in 6 months>6 months seizure freedomVariousPHTC/C19
7Hung et al.2007Taiwan114213287>10 seizures in year>2 years seizure freedomVariousVariousC/C20
8Kwan et al.2007China221297179≥1 seizure in month>1 year seizure freedomVariousVariousT/T21
9Kwan et al.2009China194270-≥1 seizure in month>1 year seizure freedomVariousVariousC/C25

Negative studies (n=15)
10Tan et al.2004Australia401208-As Seddique et al.As Seddique et al.VariousVarious-30
11Sills et al.2005Scotland230170-All patients with any seizures>1 year seizure freedomVariousVarious-31
12Kim et al.2006Korea59101212As Seddique et al.As Seddique et al.VariousVarious-15
13Kim et al.2006Korea99100-As Seddique et al.As Seddique et al.VariousVarious-16
14Chen et al.2007China50164-As Seddique et al.As Seddique et al.VariousVarious-18
15Shahwan et al.**2007Ireland122233-<50% seizure reduction in year>1 year seizure freedom or ≥50% seizure reductionVariousVarious-32
16Dericioglu et al.**2008Turkey89-100Resective brain surgery (at least 1 seizure/month)Healthy volunteersSPE or CPEVarious-22
17Ozgon et al.2008Turkey4453174≥4 seizures in 6 months>1 year seizure freedomVariousCBZ-23
18Kim et al.2009Korea198193-As Seddique et al.As Seddique et al.VariousVarious-24
19Lakhan et al.2009India9423197As Seddique et al.As Seddique et al.VariousVarious-26
20*Szoeke et al.2009Combined208334-Seizure in year>1 year seizure freedomVariousVarious-13
20-1Szoeke et al.2009Scotland133152-Seizure in year>1 year seizure freedomVariousVarious-13
20-2Szoeke et al.2009Australia64148-Seizure in year>1 year seizure freedomVariousVarious-13
20-3Szoeke et al.2009Hong Kong1134-Seizure in year>1 year seizure freedomVariousVarious-13
21Ufer et al.**2009Germany188103242Receiving any second-line drug due to non-response or adverse reactions in the course of the initial AED treatmentResponders to the first-line AEDsVariousVarious-33
22Vahab et al.2009India113129-<6 month terminal remission>1 year seizure freedomVariousVarious-27

*Data of the combined cohort study in number 20 is divided into three studies by population (20-1, 20-2, and 20-3).

**Incompatible with new ILAE definition of drug-resistance11.Abbreviations: CBZ, carbamazepine; PHT, phenytoin; R, drug-responsive; NR, drug-resistance; C, control; SPE, symptomatic partial epilepsy; CPE, cryptogenic partial epilepsy; ILAE, International League Against Epilepsy.

Table 2. Distribution of ABCB1 C3435T genotypes and allele frequencies among drug-resistance and drug-responsive epilepsy patients.
AuthorYearPopulationDistribution of ABCB1 genotypesDistribution of ABCB1 allelesRef.
C/CC/TT/TCT
NRRNRRNRRNRRNRR
Positive studies (n=9)
1Siddiqui et al.2003UK5518106633934216991841318
2Hajnsek et al.2004Croatia12414154113823223728
3Soranzo et al.2004UK732014580623629112026915229
4Hung et al.2005Taiwan47314611815741401807626614
5Seo et al.**2006Japan3436583434141261061266217
6Ebid et al.**2007Egypt35524174159427324719
7Hung et al.2007Taiwan40395510719671351859324120
8Kwan et al.2007China80114104161372226438917820521
9Kwan et al.2009China7110194148292123635015219025

Negative studies (n=15)
10Tan et al.2004Australia75371931151335634318945922730
11Sills et al.2005Scotland413211282775619414626619431
12Kim et al.2006Korea19482730132365126537615
13Kim et al.2006Korea4745464867140138586216
14Chen et al.2007China156325791022552054512318
15Shahwan et al.**2007Ireland203764119387710419314027332
16Dericioglu et al.**2008Turkey26253449292686999210122
17Ozgon et al.2008Turkey13162629585261364523
18Kim et al.2009Korea73819790282224325215313424
19Lakhan et al.2009India9385210433897018011828226
20Szoeke et al.2009Combined4281104159629418832122834713
20-1Szoeke et al.*2009Scotland20346972444610914015716413
20-2Szoeke et al.*2009Australia213427671647691355916113
20-3Szoeke et al.*2009Hong Kong113820211046122213
21Ufer et al.**2009Germany4420854659371738620312033
22Vahab et al.2009India3461824943679015916827

*Data of the combined cohort study in number 20 is divided into three studies by population (20-1, 20-2, and 20-3).

**Incompatible with new ILAE definition of drug-resistance11.Abbreviations: R, drug-responsive; NR, drug-resistance; C, control; ILAE, International League Against Epilepsy.

Although the basic study design was the same, a wide variety of epilepsy syndromes, AED types, and definition of treatment outcomes were used. From 24 studies, 19 studies were compatible with the new outcome categories from ILAE, 12 performed in the Asian populations13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and seven in the Caucasian populations8, 13, 28, 29, 30, 31 (Table 4), while five studies were incompatible17, 19, 22, 32, 33 (Table 5).

2.2. Meta-analysis 

In a pooled analysis of 24 studies, no significant allelic association was recorded under either fixed-effects model 1.06 (95% CI 0.98–1.14, p=0.12) or random-effects model, 1.10 (0.93–1.30, p=0.28) indicating that the C allele is not associated with the risk of resistance to AED in epilepsy as compared to the T allele (Fig. 1, Table 3). The wide variation in the C allele frequency in drug-responsive and drug-resistant patients caused high and significant heterogeneity (I2=80.7%, p<0.0001). A sensitivity analysis which excluded each study in turn, demonstrated a decrease of the pooled OR from 1.06 to 0.93 but still non-significant (95% CI 0.86–1.01, p=0.09). This heterogeneity was contributed mainly by the six positive studies8, 14, 17, 19, 20, 28 among which the effect of two studies14, 19 was higher. Removal of these six studies from meta-analysis gave 24.48% (p=0.17) heterogeneity and showed that they have the highest effect on ABCB1 C3435T allelic association with the risk of resistance to AEDs. The ethnicity-based subgroup meta-analysis examining allelic model, also showed no significant association in the either Asian or Caucasian populations (Table 3).

  • View full-size image.
  • Fig. 1. 

    Results of the published studies of the association between ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism and drug-resistance in epilepsy. Areas of squares of individual studies are inversely proportional to the variances of the log ORs and the horizontal lines represent 95% CI estimating the outcome of the C allele against the T allele. The study of Szoeke et al. is divided into three sub-studies for Scotland (a), Australia (b), and Hong Kong (c).

Table 3. Distribution of ABCB1 C3435T genotypes and allele frequencies among (n=3231) drug-resistance and drug-responsive (n=3524) epilepsy patients based on the ethnicity. Twenty-four studies included in this analysis, 15 Asians13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and nine Caucasians8, 13, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33.
ComparisonPopulationAllele/genotype (N)Fixed-effects modelRandom-effects modelI2 (%)p
NRR or CpOR (95% CI)pOR (95% CI)
C vs. TTotal646270480.121.06 (0.98–1.14)0.281.10 (0.93–1.30)80.70.00
Asian316644580.741.02 (0.92–1.12)0.781.04 (0.80–1.35)85.60.00
Caucasian329625900.051.11 (1.00–1.24)0.101.16 (0.97–1.39)61.40.00

C/C vs. T/TTotal165917490.191.11 (0.95–1.29)0.361.19 (0.82–1.71)79.90.00
Asian82611130.880.98 (0.79–1.22)0.911.03 (0.58–1.85)84.70.00
Caucasian8336360.041.26 (1.01–1.58)0.101.37 (0.94–1.98)61.30.00

C/T vs. T/TTotal235726290.600.97 (0.85–1.10)0.971.00 (0.82–1.21)52.30.00
Asian107015700.290.90 (0.75–1.09)0.750.95 (0.68–1.32)65.00.00
Caucasian128710590.781.02 (0.86–1.22)0.781.02 (0.86–1.22)00.50

(C/C+C/T) vs. T/TTotal323135240.871.01 (0.89–1.14)0.641.06 (0.84–1.34)69.90.00
Asian158322290.440.93 (0.78–1.11)0.930.98 (0.66–1.45)77.60.00
Caucasian164812950.341.08 (0.91–1.28)0.301.12 (0.90–1.40)37.00.12

C/C vs. (C/T+T/T)Total323135240.031.14 (1.01–1.28)0.211.17 (0.91–1.51)75.50.00
Asian158322290.341.07 (0.93–1.23)0.681.08 (0.75–1.56)81.30.00
Caucasian164812950.021.25 (1.03–1.53)0.091.30 (0.96–1.76)54.10.03

Abbreviations: R, drug-responsive; NR, drug-resistance; C, control; ILAE, International League Against Epilepsy.

In a comparable genotype data, the association of all genetic models with drug-resistance was not statistically significant. Subsidiary analyses of ethnicity in the 15 and nine studies from the Asians and Caucasians, respectively showed no significant associations in all genetic models. However, the risk of drug-resistance in the Caucasian population for the allelic model (p=0.10) and co-dominant (C/C vs. T/T: p=0.10), dominant (p=0.38), and recessive (p=0.09) effects of the ABCB1 C3435T was greater than in Asians (p=0.78, p=0.91, p=0.93, and p=0.68, respectively). A wide range of heterogeneity (0–85.6%) was observed among the studies in both the Asian and Caucasian populations. Unlike the co-dominant (C/T vs. T/T) and dominant genetic models in the Caucasians (p=0.50 and p=0.12, respectively), the heterogeneity in the rest was significance (Table 3).

The stratified analysis using the new definition of ILAE11 for treatment outcomes was performed for the 19 compatible (Table 4) and five incompatible studies (Table 5). The subsidiary analysis based on this new definition of treatment outcomes and ethnicity in the compatible and incompatible studies did not show any significant association under all genetic models (Table 4). The range of heterogeneity in the compatible group was wide (14.3–83.3%) and significant, except of Caucasians under co-dominant (C/T vs. T/T) (p=0.32) and dominant (p=0.05) models. Similarly, the incompatible studies showed a wide range of heterogeneity (58.8–94.2%) and significant. The funnel plot for C vs. T was basically symmetric and Egger's test did not indicate statistically significant asymmetry of the plot [Intercept=1.54, 95% CI (−1.96–5.04, p=0.37)], suggesting no evidence of publication bias.

Table 4. Distribution of ABCB1 C3435T genotypes and allele frequencies among drug-resistance (n=2643) and drug-responsive (n=2967) epilepsy patients in the compatible studies with the new definition of ILAE. Nineteen studies included in this analysis, 12 Asians13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and seven Caucasians13, 28, 29, 30, 31.
ComparisonPopulationAllele/genotype (N)Fixed-effects modelRandom-effects modelI2 (%)p
NRR or CpOR (95% CI)pOR (95% CI)
C vs. TTotal528659340.181.05 (0.97–1.14)0.441.07 (0.90–1.28)78.90.00
Asian261040160.811.01 (0.91–1.12)0.930.99 (0.76–1.28)82.70.00
Caucasian267619180.071.12 (0.99–1.26)0.141.19 (0.94–1.51)70.60.00

C/C vs. T/TTotal133614570.241.11 (0.93–1.32)0.541.14 (0.76–1.71)79.70.00
Asian6649920.910.99 (0.78–1.25)0.790.92 (0.49–1.71)83.30.00
Caucasian6724650.061.27 (0.99–1.64)0.141.45 (0.89–2.37)70.60.00

C/T vs. T/TTotal278630630.510.95 (0.83–1.10)0.880.98 (0.79–1.22)53.10.00
Asian88714150.360.91 (0.74–1.11)0.670.93 (0.65–1.32)64.50.00
Caucasian10417800.991.00 (0.82–1.22)0.901.01 (0.81–1.26)14.30.32

(C/C+C/T) vs. T/TTotal381940811.001.00 (0.87–1.14)0.801.03 (0.80–1.34)68.90.00
Asian130520080.510.94 (0.78–1.14)0.720.93 (0.62–1.40)75.30.00
Caucasian13389590.521.06 (0.88–1.29)0.371.14 (0.85–1.52)51.80.05

C/C vs. (C/T+T/T)Total381940810.041.15 (1.01–1.31)0.311.15 (0.87–1.52)75.30.00
Asian130520080.351.08 (0.92–1.27)0.931.02 (0.69–1.50)79.70.00
Caucasian13389590.021.29 (1.03–1.60)0.111.37 (0.93–2.00)64.70.00

Abbreviations: R, drug-responsive; NR, drug-resistance; C, control; ILAE, International League Against Epilepsy.

Table 5. Distribution of ABCB1 C3435T genotypes and allele frequencies among drug-resistance (n=588) and drug-responsive (n=557) epilepsy patients in the incompatible studies with the new definition of ILAE. Seven studies included in this analysis, five Asians17, 19, 22 and two Caucasians32, 33.
ComparisonPopulationAllele/genotype (N)Fixed-effects modelRandom-effects modelI2 (%)p
NRR or CpOR (95% CI)pOR (95% CI)
C vs. TTotal117611140.391.08 (0.91–1.28)0.421.24 (0.74–2.07)88.20.00
Asian5564420.771.04 (0.80–1.34)0.561.38 (0.46–4.11)94.00.00

C/C vs. T/TTotal3232920.581.10 (0.78–1.56)0.421.45 (0.58–3.63)84.60.00
Asian1621210.910.97 (0.58–1.62)0.511.90 (0.28–13.04)92.10.00

C/T vs. T/TTotal4294340.881.02 (0.76–1.36)0.791.06 (0.66–1.72)58.80.04
Asian1831550.590.88(0.55–1.40)0.781.16 (0.40–3.35)77.90.01

(C/C+C/T) vs. T/TTotal5885570.711.05 (0.80–1.38)0.561.20 (0.65–2.23)78.50.00
Asian2782210.680.91 (0.59–1.41)0.611.43 (0.36–5.70)88.80.00

C/C vs. (C/T+T/T)Total5885570.551.09 (0.82–1.46)0.431.32 (0.67–2.60)80.90.00
Asian2782210.831.04 (0.70–1.56)0.511.58 (0.41–6.15)90.30.00

Abbreviations: R, drug-responsive; NR, drug-resistance; C, control; ILAE, International League Against Epilepsy.

Back to Article Outline

3. Discussion 

It was hypothesized that the ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism is related with the risk of resistance to AEDs in epilepsy. Siddiqui et al. (2003) for the first time examined whether C3435T polymorphism was associated with resistance to AEDs in the Caucasians with epilepsy. The frequency of the C/C genotype among drug-resistant patients was significantly higher than in responsive patients (P=0.006).8 Zimprich et al. (2004) confirmed the results of the original report (p=0.035),34 but the outcome of the study of Tan et al. (2004) with the exact replication of the first study and almost twice the sample size in the Caucasians was negative.30 Similarly, a comprehensive genome wide approach35 and also a combined cohort study in the Scottish, Australian, and Hong Kong populations, failed to confirm the original findings.13 In total, 22 studies attempted to examine this hypothesis in epilepsy, but only nine found significant association in which three reported that the T/T genotype was more frequent in drug-resistant patients. There have been also two meta-analysis studies of the association of ABCB1 C3435T with drug-resistance. The first report included three studies performed in 1073 Caucasians patients with the same definition of drug-responsiveness and drug-resistance9 and the second one included 11 studies involving 3371 patients with different ethnicities and definition of drug-responsiveness and drug-resistance.10 Neither studies confirmed this association and stratification of ethnic subgroups in the second meta-analysis also provided no further evidence.

The findings of the present meta-analysis indicate that neither the C allele nor the T allele carriers of the ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism confer significant risk to drug-resistance in epilepsy. Similar results were found for all genotype genetic models in overall of studies. In the subgroup analysis for the Asian and the Caucasian populations, none of the genetic comparisons showed a significant association. Hence, the substitution of C to T at position 3435 of the exon 26 of the ABCB1 gene does not effect on response to AEDs in the epilepsy patients with different ethnicities. As different definitions of drug-responsiveness and drug-resistance in the patients with various ethnicities were included in the studies, we therefore carried out subgroup meta-analyses based on the new definition drug-resistance by the ILAE11 and ethnicity. Subsidiary analyses of the definition of treatment outcomes in the 19 included and five excluded studies as well as by ethnicity in the included reports did not show any association under all genetic models.

The current meta-analysis provides a comprehensive assessment of ABCB1 C3435T variant and drug-resistance risk. Meanwhile our meta-analysis does not support an association of C3435T polymorphism with risk of resistance to AEDs. Compared with the precious meta-analysis, the present study is much larger, with almost twice as many as the cases as the earlier meta-analysis. Furthermore, we assessed not only the association between the C3435T polymorphism and drug-resistance risk in the consistent and inconsistent studies with the new definition of ILAE for treatment outcome in epilepsy but also for the stratified subgroup by ethnicity in the consistent group with ILAE definition. The non-concordance in the studies may be explained by five phenomena: (i) publication bias which can be caused by false positive results, found by chance as a result of insufficient sample size and low statistical power.36, 37 The meta-analysis by Bournissen et al (2008)10 and our results, however, did not indicate significant publication bias. Moreover, sample size of the included 22 genetic association studies in the current meta-analysis was quite small, the median being 288. In order to have a power of 80%, it needs a large sample size or collaboration between multi-centres and countries38 (20). (ii) Population diversity with different race and types of seizures and epilepsy syndromes may cause variety in AEDs type administration, dosage, and treatment duration.39 However, the data of Bournissen et al (2008) and the current meta-analysis showed no evidence that the ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism is associated with the risk of resistance to AEDs in the Asians and Caucasians. Furthermore, the data were not sufficient enough to allow us to undertake further subgroup analyses on specific subsets of epilepsy types/syndromes and AEDs type. (iii) Variability in the definitions of treatment outcomes to distinguish drug-resistance from drug-responsiveness in epilepsy may cause variations in the results.40 Since, those patients who are classified as drug-resistant in some studies may be drug-responsiveness.41 Despite of the fact that we have excluded five studies, there is no effect on the overall results as well as the results in the Asians and Caucasian subgroups. Furthermore, a short-term follow-up of newly diagnosed patients in the cohort studies leads to misclassification. The shortest follow-up period used by new definition of drug-resistance and drug-responsiveness from ILAE was 12 months,11 while the range of response to AEDs is 2–16 years (median, 5 years);3 the shortest follow-up periods for both drug-resistance and drug-responsiveness to AEDs in the 22 included studies in this meta-analysis was 3 months.(iv) It is not clear whether some AEDs are substrates of P-gp;42, 43, 44 hence justification of the results is difficult. Moreover, the interaction between AEDs in poly-therapy regimens can influence the response to AEDs.45 In this study, because of data limitation; we did not carry out the stratification analyses by AED monotherapy regimens. (v) The complex gene–gene (epistasis) and/or gene–environment interactions contribute to etiology and response to AEDs in epilepsy. The marginal effect of each susceptibility gene is small but the effect of these genes acting through a set of genes and their variants epistically in the same pathway may be large.46 The discrepant results may be caused by cross-tabulation of the C3435T polymorphism with specific variants either in the ABCB1 gene or other genes.39 In addition, C3435T might have only marginal functional significance as suggested by Cascorbi.47 Such a variant–variant interaction may play an important role in gene–disease associations than individual polymorphism in epilepsy and cause variety in AED types administration, dosage, and treatment duration across and within the populations with different features.39 Further studies in larger and different populations need to be conducted to examine this hypothesis.

Back to Article Outline

4. Conclusions 

The results of this meta-analysis do not provide support for the association of the ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism with risk of resistance to AEDs in different races and suggest a revision in contribution of this polymorphism in the multi-drug transporters hypothesis of resistance to AEDs in epilepsy.

Back to Article Outline

References 

  1. Hauser WA, Annegers JF, Kurland LT. Incidence of epilepsy and unprovoked seizures in Rochester, Minnesota: 1935–1984. Epilepsia. 1993;34(3):453–468
  2. Elger CE, Schmidt D. Modern management of epilepsy: a practical approach. Epilepsy Behav. 2008;12:501–539
  3. Schmidt D, Löscher W. Drug resistance in epilepsy: putative neurobiologic and clinical mechanisms. Epilepsia. 2005;46(6):858–877
  4. Juliano RL, Ling V. A surface glycoprotein modulating drug permeability in Chinese hamster ovary cell mutants. Biochim Biophys Acta. 1976;455:152–162
  5. Schinkel AH, Smit JJM, Beijnen JH, Wagenaar E, van Deemter L, Mol CAAM, et al. Disruption of the mouse mdr1a P-glycoprotein gene leads to a deficiency in the blood–brain barrier and to increased sensitivity to drugs. Cell. 1994;77:491–502
  6. Löscher W, Potschka H. Blood–brain barrier active efflux transporters: ATP-binding cassette gene family. Epilepsia. 2005;1–23
  7. Komar AA. Silent SNPs: impact on gene function and phenotype. Pharmacogenomics. 2007;8(8):1075–1080
  8. Siddiqui A, Kerb R, Weale ME, Brinkmann U, Smith A, Goldstein DB, et al. Association of multidrug resistance in epilepsy with a polymorphism in the drug-transporter gene ABCB1. N Engl J Med. 2003;348(15):1442–1448
  9. Leschziner GD, Andrew T, Leach JP, Chadwick D, Coffey AJ, Balding DJ, et al. Common ABCB1 polymorphisms are not associated with multidrug resistance in epilepsy using a gene-wide tagging approach. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2007;17(3):217–220
  10. Bournissen FG, Moretti ME, Juurlink DN, Koren G, Walker M, Finkelstein Y. Polymorphism of the MDR1/ABCB1 C3435T drug-transporter and resistance to anticonvulsant drugs: a meta-analysis. Epilepsia. 2009;50(4):898–903
  11. Kwan P, Arzimanoglou A, Berg AT, Brodie MJ, Hauser WA, Mathern G, et al. Definition of drug resistant epilepsy: consensus proposal by the ad hoc Task Force of the ILAE Commission on Therapeutic Strategies. Epilepsia. 2009;1–9
  12. Bax L, Yu LM, Ikeda N, Tsuruta H, Moons KG. Development and validation of MIX: comprehensive free software for meta-analysis of causal research data. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6(50):1–11
  13. Szoeke C, Sills GJ, Kwan P, Petrovski S, Newton M, Hitiris N, et al. Multidrug-resistancegenotype (ABCB1) and seizure recurrence in newly treated epilepsy: data from International Pharmacogenetic Cohorts. Epilepsia. 2009;(May):
  14. Hung CC, Tai JJ, Lin CJ, Lee MJ, Liou HH. Complex haplotypic effects of the ABCB1 gene on epilepsy treatment response. Pharmacogenomics. 2005;6(4):411–417
  15. Kim DW, Kim M, Lee SK, Kang R, Lee SY. Lack of association between C3435T nucleotide MDR1 genetic polymorphism and multidrug-resistanceepilepsy. Seizure. 2006;15(5):344–347
  16. Kim YO, Kim MK, Woo YJ, Lee MC, Kim JH, Park KW, et al. Single nucleotide polymorphisms in the multidrug resistance 1 gene in Korean epileptics. Seizure. 2006;15(1):67–72
  17. Seo T, Ishitsu T, Ueda N, Nakada N, Yurube K, Ueda K, et al. ABCB1 polymorphisms influence the response to antiepileptic drugs in Japanese epilepsy patients. Pharmacogenomics. 2006;7(4):551–561
  18. Chen L, Liu CQ, Hu Y, Xiao ZT, Chen Y, Liao JX. Association of a polymorphism in MDR1 C3435T with response to antiepileptic drug treatment in ethic Han Chinese children with epilepsy. Zhongguo Dang Dai Er Ke Za Zhi. 2007;9(1):11–14
  19. Ebid AH, Ahmed MM, Mohammed SA. Therapeutic drug monitoring and clinical outcomes in epileptic Egyptian patients: a gene polymorphism perspective study. Ther Drug Monit. 2007;29(3):305–312
  20. Hung CC, Jen Tai J, Kao PJ, Lin MS, Liou HH. Association of polymorphisms in NR1I2 and ABCB1 genes with epilepsy treatment responses. Pharmacogenomics. 2007;8(9):1151–1158
  21. Kwan P, Baum L, Wong V, Ng PW, Lui CH, Sin NC, et al. Association between ABCB1 C3435T polymorphism and drug-resistanceepilepsy in Han Chinese. Epilepsy Behav. 2007;11(1):112–117
  22. Dericioglu N, Babaoglu MO, Yasar U, Bal IB, Bozkurt A, Saygi S. Multidrug resistance in patients undergoing resective epilepsy surgery is not associated with C3435T polymorphism in the ABCB1 (MDR1) gene. Epilepsy Res. 2008;80(1):42–46
  23. Ozgon GO, Bebek N, Gul G, Cine N. Association of MDR1 (C3435T) polymorphism and resistance to carbamazepine in epileptic patients from Turkey. Eur Neurol. 2008;59(1–2):67–70
  24. Kim DW, Lee SK, Chu K, Jang IJ, Yu KS, Cho JY, et al. Lack of association between ABCB1, ABCG2, and ABCC2 genetic polymorphisms and multidrug resistance in partial epilepsy. Epilepsy Res. 2009;84(1):86–90
  25. Kwan P, Wong V, Ng PW, Lui CH, Sin NC, Poon WS, et al. Gene-wide tagging study of association between ABCB1 polymorphisms and multidrug resistance in epilepsy in Han Chinese. Pharmacogenomics. 2009;10(5):723–732
  26. Lakhan R, Misra UK, Kalita J, Pradhan S, Gogtay NJ, Singh MK, et al. No association of ABCB1 polymorphisms with drug-refractory epilepsy in a north Indian population. Epilepsy Behav. 2009;14(1):78–82
  27. Vahab SA, Sen S, Ravindran N, Mony S, Mathew A, Vijayan N, et al. Analysis of genotype and haplotype effects of ABCB1 (MDR1) polymorphisms in the risk of medically refractory epilepsy in an Indian population. Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2009;24(3):255–260
  28. Hajnsek S, Basic S, Poljakovic Z, Bozina N. Utjecaj C3435T polimorfizma MDR1 gena na ucinkovitost medikamentnog lijecenja epilesia. Neurol Croat. 2004;53:69–78
  29. Soranzo N, Cavalleri GL, Weale ME, Wood NW, Depondt C, Marguerie R, et al. Identifying candidate causal variants responsible for altered activity of the ABCB1 multidrug resistance gene. Genome Res. 2004;14(7):1333–1344
  30. Tan NCK, Heron SE, Scheffer IE, Pelekanos JT, Mc Mahon JM, Vears DF, et al. Failure to confirm association of a polymorphism in ABCB1 with multidrug-resistanceepilepsy. Neurology. 2004;63:1090–1092
  31. Sills GJ, Mohanraj R, Butler E, McCrindle S, Collier L, Wilson EA, et al. Lack of association between the C3435T polymorphism in the human multidrug resistance (MDR1) gene and response to antiepileptic drug treatment. Epilepsia. 2005;46(5):643–647
  32. Shahwan A, Murphy K, Doherty C, Cavalleri GL, Muckian C, Dicker P, et al. The controversial association of ABCB1 polymorphisms in refractory epilepsy: an analysis of multiple SNPs in an Irish population. Epilepsy Res. 2007;73(2):192–198
  33. Ufer M, Mosyagin I, Muhle H, Jacobsen T, Haenisch S, Häsler R, et al. Non-response to antiepileptic pharmacotherapy is associated with the ABCC2-24C>T polymorphism in young and adult patients with epilepsy. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2009;19:353–362
  34. Zimprich F, Sunder-Plassmann R, Stogmann E, Gleiss A, Dal-Bianco A, Zimprich A, et al. Association of an ABCB1 gene haplotype with pharmacoresistance to AEDs in temporal lobe epilepsy. Neurology. 2004;63(6):1087–1089
  35. Leschziner G, Zabaneh D, Pirmohamed M, Owen A, Rogers J, Coffey AJ, et al. Exon sequencing and high resolution haplotype analysis of ABC transporter genes implicated in drug resistance. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2006;16(6):439–450
  36. Cardon LR, Palmer LJ. Population stratification and spurious allelic association. Lancet. 2003;361:598–604
  37. Tan NCK, Mulley JC, Berkovic SF. Genetic association studies in epilepsy: “The truth is out there”. Epilepsia. 2004;45(11):1429–1442
  38. Otto J. Association of genetic loci Replication or not, that is the question. Neurology. 2004;63:955–958
  39. Duncan JS, Sander JW, Sisodiya SM, Walker MC. Adult epilepsy. Lancet. 2006;367:1087–1100
  40. French JA. Refractory epilepsy: one size does not fit all. Epilepsy Curr. 2006;6(6):177–180
  41. Kasperaviciute D, Sisodiya SM. Epilepsy parmacohenetics. Pharmacogenomics J. 2009;10(5):817–836
  42. Baltes S, Gastens AM, Fedrowitz M, Potschka H, Kaever V, Löscher W. Differences in the transport of the antiepileptic drugs phenytoin, levetiracetam and carbamazepine by human and mouse P-glycoprotein. Neuropharmacology. 2007;52:333–346
  43. Baltes S, Fedrowitz M, Tortós CL, Potschka H, Löscher W. Valproic acid is not a substrate for P-glycoprotein or multidrug resistance proteins 1 and 2 in a number of in vitro and in vivo transport assays. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2007;320(1):331–343
  44. Rivers F, O’Brien TJ, Callaghan R. Exploring the possible interaction between anti-epilepsy drugs and multidrug efflux pumps; in vitro observations. Eur J Pharmacol. 2008;598(1–3):1–8
  45. Patsalos PN, Fröscher W, Pisani F, van Rijn CM. The importance of drug interactions in epilepsy therapy. Epilepsia. 2002;43(4):365–385
  46. Zintzaras E, Lau J. Synthesis of genetic association studies for pertinent gene-disease associations appropriate methodological and statistical approaches. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:634–645
  47. Cascorbi I. ABC transporters in drug-refractory epilepsy: limited clinical significance of pharmacogenetics?. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;87(1):15–18

PII: S1059-1311(10)00108-1

doi:10.1016/j.seizure.2010.05.004

Seizure: European Journal of Epilepsy
Volume 19, Issue 6 , Pages 339-346, July 2010

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution