Article

Pharmacogenomics and therapeutic strategies for dementia

EuroEspes Biomedical Research Center, Institute for CNS Disorders and Genomic Medicine, 15165-Bergondo, Coruña, Spain.
Expert Review of Molecular Diagnostics (Impact Factor: 4.27). 10/2009; 9(6):567-611. DOI: 10.1586/erm.09.42
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Recent advances in genomic medicine have contributed to the acceleration of our understanding regarding the pathogenesis of dementia, improving diagnostic accuracy with the introduction of novel biomarkers and personalizing therapeutics with the incorporation of pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic procedures to drug development and clinical practice. Most neurodegenerative disorders, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), share some common features, such as a genomic background in which hundreds of genes might be involved, genome-environment interactions, complex pathogenic pathways, poor therapeutic outcomes and chronic disability. The main aim of a cost-effective treatment is to halt disease progression via modification of the functional cascade involving AD genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics. Unfortunately, the drugs available for the treatment of dementia are not cost effective. The pharmacological treatment of dementia accounts for 10-20% of direct costs, and fewer than 20% of the patients are moderate responders to conventional drugs, some of which may cause important adverse drug reactions. Future antidementia drugs must address the complex pathogenic niche of the disease from a multifactorial perspective. Pharmacogenetic and pharmacogenomic factors may account for 60-90% of drug variability in drug disposition and pharmacodynamics. In addition to antidementia drugs, patients with AD or with other forms of dementia need concomitant medications for the treatment of diverse disorders of the CNS associated with progressive brain dysfunction. Approximately 60-80% of drugs acting on the CNS are metabolized via enzymes of the CYP gene superfamily, and 10-20% of Caucasians are carriers of defective CYP2D6 polymorphic variants that alter the metabolism of many psychotropic agents. Only 26% of the patients are pure extensive metabolizers for the trigenic cluster integrated by allelic variants of the CYP2D6, CYP2C19 and CYP2C9 in combination. Although many genes have been suggested to be associated with AD, with the exception of APOE, most polymorphic variants of potential risk exhibit a very weak association with AD. APOE-4/4 carriers exhibit a dramatic biological disadvantage in comparison with other genotypes, and AD patients harboring this homozygous condition are the worst responders to conventional drugs. The incorporation of pharmacogenetic/pharmacogenomic protocols into AD research and clinical practice can foster the optimization of therapeutics by helping to develop cost-effective biopharmaceuticals and improving drug efficacy and safety.

1 Follower
 · 
141 Views
  • Source
    • "A review of proteomics in drug discovery and development was published by Soares et al. (2004). The pharmacogenomics of AD was reviewed by Cacabelos (2009). Blood–brain barrier genomics and proteomics have been performed for the elucidation of the phenotype and the identification of disease targets that may enable brain drug delivery for AD treatment (Calabria and Shusta, 2006). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a protein misfolding-based rapid cognitive impairment in the aging brain. Because of its very widespread molecular background, AD has been approached using genomic and proteomic methods and has accumulated a large body of data during the last 15 years. In this review, we summarize the systems biology data on AD and pay particular attention to the proteomic changes in AD. Applying a systems biology model of the synapse, we attempt to integrate protein changes and provide an explanation of why seemingly diverse molecular changes result in memory impairment. We also summarize the present state of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and blood biomarker studies for the diagnosis of AD as well as the results of proteomic studies in tissue cultures and animal models. Finally, we give a systems biology model of AD explaining how AD can develop in an individual manner in each particular subject but always results in a rapidly developing dementia and memory impairment.
    Neurochemistry International 02/2011; DOI:10.1016/j.neuint.2011.02.008 · 2.65 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "A review of proteomics in drug discovery and development was published by Soares et al. (2004). The pharmacogenomics of AD was reviewed by Cacabelos (2009). Blood–brain barrier genomics and proteomics have been performed for the elucidation of the phenotype and the identification of disease targets that may enable brain drug delivery for AD treatment (Calabria and Shusta, 2006). "
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although antipsychotic drugs are effective in alleviating schizophrenic symptoms, individual differences in patient response suggest that genetic components play a major role, and pharmacogenetic studies have indicated the possibility for a more individually based pharmacotherapy. The new field of pharmacogenomics, which focuses on genetic determinants of drug response at the level of the entire human genome, is important for development and prescription of safer and more effective individually tailored drugs. DNA microarray (DNA chip) analysis enables genome-wide scanning, using the high-density single nucleotide polymorphisms map. Pharmacogenomics will aid in understanding how genetics influence disease development and drug response, and contribute to discovery of new treatments. The rate of discovery of those polymorphisms will depend on the quality of the drug response phenotype. Prospective genotyping of schizophrenic patients for the many genes at the level of the drug target, drug metabolism, and disease pathways will contribute to individualized therapy matching the patient's unique genetic make-up with an optimally effective drug.
    European Journal of Pharmacology 01/2001; 410(2-3):227-241. DOI:10.1016/S0014-2999(00)00817-7 · 2.68 Impact Factor
Show more