A recent study on the effects of a hypertension drug in African Americans has shone the spotlight on the value of single race studies in medicine. While some praise such studies for reaching out to groups disproportionately affected by a disease, others say grouping trial participants by race attributes health disparities to the wrong cause.
While clinical trials often look at associations between race and outcomes, it is uncommon for them to be prospectively race-specific. This study compared several different doses of the drug nebivolol - a beta blocker approved in a number of European countries - against placebo, and found the drug significantly lowered blood pressure in African Americans. Beta blockers are thought to be less effective in African American patients than in white Americans.
Race-based studies offer "a window of opportunity to understand nuances in medicine," Keith Ferdinand, the chief science officer of the Association of Black Cardiologists, told The Scientist. In addition to a weaker response to beta blockers, African Americans have a higher prevalence and a more severe pathophysiology of heart disease than do white Americans. While medical outcomes might be due to factors such as access to care, economic stress, or diet, they tend to segregate by race, which therefore provides a useful marker for testing the efficacy of drugs, Ferdinand said.
In the past, African American-only trials have received considerable attention. The heart disease drug BiDil, for example, which Ferdinand helped to study, was the first drug in the US approved for and marketed to just one race of patients. Jonathan Kahn, a law professor at Hamline University in St. Paul, Minn., who has been an outspoken critic of BiDil's marketing approach, said that "it sends dangerous messages that race is somehow genetic." Which it is not, Charles Rotimi, the director of the National Human Genome Center at Howard University in Washington, DC, told The Scientist. While race can be useful to understand how diseases manifest in certain groups, hinging studies on race distracts from the underlying causes of health disparities, Kahn said.
But Frank Douglas, the former director of MIT's Center for Biomedical Innovation, said that regardless of the underlying causes of health disparities, testing a drug's efficacy by racial identification can benefit patients. In the case of nebivolol, Douglas told The Scientist, "If you find a beta blocker that works in a patient subset that traditionally hasn't responded well to others, why would you...lose focus on patients who need the drug and get involved in a social discussion? That I don't understand."
Unlike BiDil, nebivolol will not be marketed as a beta blocker specifically for African Americans, said Charles Triano, the vice president of investor relations at Forest Laboratories, nebivolol's manufacturer. "Nebivolol, we think, is a product that will demonstrate blood pressure reduction in a very broad population," he told The Scientist. (The US Food and Drug Administration is currently reviewing the drug for approval; Triano said he expects a decision at the end of this month, and prescriptions to become available in January 2008.)
Instead, the study, commissioned by Mylan Pharmaceuticals, was conducted in order to demonstrate that nebivolol works well in African American patients, despite the fact that it is a beta blocker, said lead author Elijah Saunders of the University of Maryland School of Medicine. He examined the drugs efficacy exclusively in African American patients, and found that nebivolol "basically did a wonderful job to lower blood pressure," he told The Scientist.
The study did not compare nebivolol to other beta blockers. Nor did it compare the efficacy of nebivolol in white versus African American patients, although previous trials have shown a comparable benefit for both groups taking the drug, the authors wrote.
While beta blockers work significantly better in white patients than African American patients, the overall difference in efficacy is still quite small - only about 10 percent, said Jay Kaufman of the University of North Carolina School of Public Health. One study found the beta blocker atenolol was effective in about half of hypertensive African American patients. "So if you deny Black patients these drugs, a big chunk of patients aren't getting drugs that would work for them," Kaufman said.
But the problem Rotimi sees with using race as a marker is that any one self-identified group is never homogeneous - there are always more variations genetically within a racial group than between them, he said. "Human variations do not overlap with our notions of race," Rotimi said. The nebivolol study included patients who self-identified as African Americans, which Rotimi noted is a very heterogeneous group. "That is the key message. It is not for us to ignore differences, but understand differences and interpret them correctly."
By Kerry Grens
mail@the-scientist.com
Links within this article:
Saunders E. et al., "The efficacy and tolerability of nebivolol in hypertensive African American patients," J Clin Hypertens, 9:866-75, 2007.
http://www.lejacq.com/Search_articleDetail.cfm
Diversity, The Scientist, supplement, 2007.
http://www.the-scientist.com/supplement/2006-11-1/
Keith Ferdinand
http://www.controlhypertension.org/about/bios/item.php?bio_id=135
S. Pincock et al., "The year that was," The Scientist, December 5, 2005.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15896
Jonathan Kahn
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15896
Charles Rotimi
http://www.genomecenter.howard.edu/units
Frank Douglas
http://mitsloan.mit.edu/newsroom/newsbriefs-0605-douglas.php
F. Douglas, "Discrimination in academia," The Scientist, October, 2007.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/53636/
Elijah Saunders
http://www.ishib.org/AI_board_esaunders.asp
T. Toma, "Benefits from beta-blockers after heart attacks," The Scientist, December 7, 2000.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/19316
Jay Kaufman
http://www.sph.unc.edu/research/spotlight_on_jay_kaufman
Cushman W.C. et al., "Regional and racial differences in response to antihypertensive medication use in a randomized controlled trial of men with hypertension in the United States," Arch Intern Med, 160:825-31, 2000.
http://www.the-scientist.com/pubmed/10737282
A.M. Leroi, "On human diversity," The Scientist, October 24, 2005.
http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15791

[Comment posted 2007-11-21 15:04:03]
[Comment posted 2007-11-21 13:40:50]
Take an asian friend of ours. Asians didn't have access to dairy products until recently, but have had soy products like soy sauce for generations. Yet the father of this family discovered he didn't have the genes for soy digestion. I bet standard racial profiling would assume that his dietary problems lay in milk, not soy. Some standard racial profilers might assume soy intolerances is impossibly unlikely in asians, and urge him consume as much soy as he wanted.
Obviously our genes are way too mixed and shared for any racial profiling to be dependable. I know the blood tests our doctors did to test our intolerances were accurate. I used to have a weak immune system and now I don't. I used to drink milk, now I don't. My Mom even spiked my food with dairy to see if the doctors were telling the truth.
Racial profiling may have some scientific potential, I suppose, but only as long as you keep in mind you are testing a given culture in a given part of the world. Racial profiling should be treated in the same way one judges crime rates or religous preference in California vs Utah. These studies should be looked upon in perspective of a multitude of interfering factors, not the product of a single cause.
[Comment posted 2007-11-20 04:25:02]
[Comment posted 2007-11-20 04:15:42]
[Comment posted 2007-11-20 04:11:51]
The origin of SPBM is a logical consequence of the definition of a large number of biophysical-semeiotic constitutions, pre-metabolic syndrome, and all clinical refined methods of investigation, based on this original physical semeiotics.
When a patient presents to doctor in order to be investigated and treated, first of all, the doctor must define precisely the biological situations of such an individual. In other words, the healing physician must answer the question: "What kind of patient is this? ?.From a biophysical-semeiotic viewpoint, the doctor must, firstly, recognize at the bedside all the numerous inherited predispositions to well-defined diseases possibly present in that subject and, secondly, the "real risks" of the most common and severe human diseases, in relation to a precise biological system and the severity of the same real risk.
For example, if a subject does not have oncological terrain (i.e. an inherited predisposition to cancer), it would be purely academic to consider malignancy as a possible diagnosis and to waste money and time on useless diagnostic tests. In addition, even in the presence of oncological terrain, a biological system is not necessarily involved in a "real risk" of cancer. Cancer is possible only in the presence of both oncological terrain and the characteristic microcirculatory modifications that parallel the related parenchymal modifications, involving a well limited, defined, smallest part of a biological system. For instance, the breasts of woman with oncological terrain can be perfectly normal. In other words, a woman with oncological terrain is not necessarily at risk of breast cancer, if her mammary glands are free from oncological "real risk". It follows that, with the aid of biophysical semeiotics (ibidem) and the use of the SPBM approach, diagnosis is faster, more reliable, and more precise; treatment is rationally personalized; and therapeutic monitoring is really objective, making prognosis more correct.
[Comment posted 2007-11-20 02:37:46]
[Comment posted 2007-11-20 01:19:23]
[Comment posted 2007-11-19 14:44:59]
It could be as simple as a cultural difference between our preconceived notions of race, or it could be a true genetic difference. Perhaps the food or life styles of the majority of people who self-associate as African increases the efficacy of a drug.
Who cares? If it works, give it to them.
[Comment posted 2007-11-19 14:11:19]