BackgroundFocal adhesion (FA) family genes have been studied as candidate genes for osteoporosis, but the results of genetic association studies (GASs) are controversial. To clarify these data, a systematic assessment of GASs for FA genes in osteoporosis was conducted.MethodsWe developed Cumulative Meta-Analysis of GAS-OSTEOporosis (CUMAGAS-OSTEOporosis), a web-based information system that allows the retrieval, analysis and meta-analysis (for allele contrast, recessive, dominant, additive and codominant models) of data from GASs on osteoporosis with the capability of update. GASs were identified by searching the PubMed and HuGE PubLit databases.ResultsData from 72 studies involving 13 variants of 6 genes were analyzed and catalogued in CUMAGAS-OSTEOporosis. Twenty-two studies produced significant associations with osteoporosis risk under any genetic model. All studies were underpowered (<50%). In four studies, the controls deviated from the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Eight variants were chosen for meta-analysis, and significance was shown for the variants collagen, type I, α1 (COL1A1) G2046T (all genetic models), COL1A1 G-1997T (allele contrast and dominant model) and integrin β-chain β3 (ITGB3) T176C (recessive and additive models). In COL1A1 G2046T, subgroup analysis has shown significant associations for Caucasians, adults, females, males and postmenopausal women. A differential magnitude of effect in large versus small studies (that is, indication of publication bias) was detected for the variant COL1A1 G2046T.ConclusionThere is evidence of an implication of FA family genes in osteoporosis. CUMAGAS-OSTEOporosis could be a useful tool for current genomic epidemiology research in the field of osteoporosis.

No abstract

No abstract

Summary What is known and objective The relative effectiveness and safety profile of the treatments with marketing authorization for relapsing multiple sclerosis (MS) are not well known because randomized controlled trials with head‐to‐head comparisons between these treatments do not exist. Thus, a network of multiple‐treatments meta‐analysis was performed using four clinical outcomes: ‘patients free of relapse’, ‘patients without disease progression’, ‘patients without MRI progression’ and ‘patients with adverse events’. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on MS were systematically searched in PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trial. The network analysis performed pairwise comparisons between the marketed treatments (Betaferon 250mcg, Avonex 30mcg, Rebif 44mcg, Rebif 22mcg, Aubagio 7 mg, Aubagio 14 mg, Copaxone 20 mg, Tysabri 300 mg, Gilenya 0·5 mg and Novantrone 12 mg/m2) using direct and indirect analyses. Results and discussion The analysis included 48 articles, involving 20 455 patients with MS. The direct analysis showed better response for more than one outcome for Gilenya compared with Avonex (‘patients free of relapse’ and ‘patients without MRI progression’) and for Betaferon compared with Avonex (‘patients without disease progression’ and ‘patients without MRI progression’). The indirect analysis indicated that Tysabri may have better relative effectiveness compared with the other treatments for two outcomes: ‘patients free of relapse’ and ‘patients without MRI progression’. Regarding ‘patients with adverse events’, no data were available for all comparisons to make fair inferences. What is new and conclusion This was an attempt, for the first time, to compare the efficacy and safety profile of existing approved treatments for relapsing MS. Although some treatments have shown better response, the results of the network analysis should be interpreted with caution because of the lack of RCTs with head‐to‐head comparisons between treatments.

The methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase (MTHFR) gene has been proposed as a candidate gene for breast cancer (BC). However, the specific role of MTHFR polymorphisms and haplotypes has not been fully clarified and replicated. We examined the association of two common MTHFR polymorphisms (C677T and A1298C) and their haplotypes in a candidate-gene association study, involving 300 female patients with BC and 283 healthy women. The single locus analysis for the two polymorphisms revealed an association only for the C677T polymorphism [odds ratio (95% confidence interval), OR=2.05 (1.21-3.48)], but adjustment for age diminished this association [OR=1.76 (0.92-3.42)]. The menopausal status showed no significant effect in the association between the MTHFR polymorphisms and BC. The analysis of haplotypes showed an association for the C677-A1298 haplotypes (p=0.04). The available evidence from our study may support a contributory role of MTHFR polymorphisms in BC development. Future larger studies may help in elucidating the genetics of BC further.