Association between apolipoprotein E gene polymorphism and the risk of coronary artery disease in Chinese population: evidence from a meta-analysis of 40 studies

PLoS One. 2013 Jun 24;8(6):e66924. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066924. Print 2013.

Abstract

Background: Epidemiological studies have evaluated the association between apolipoprotein E (ApoE) gene polymorphism and coronary artery disease (CAD) risk which developed inconsistent conclusions. To derive a more precise estimation of the relationship in Chinese population, we performed this meta-analysis.

Methods: Databases, including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CBMdisc and CNKI, were searched to get the genetic association studies. Additionally, hand searching of the references of identified articles were performed. All the statistical tests were performed using Review Manager 5.1.2 and Stata 11.0.

Results: We identified a total of 40 studies, including 4,564 CAD cases and 3,985 controls. The results showed evidence for significant association between ApoE ε4 allele and CAD risk (for ε2/ε4 vs. ε3/ε3: OR = 1.86, 95% CI = 1.42-2.43, p<0.00001; for ε3/ε4 vs. ε3/ε3: OR = 2.34, 95% CI = 2.07-2.65, p<0.00001; for ε4/ε4 vs. ε3/ε3: OR = 2.89, 95% CI = 1.87-4.47, p<0.00001; for ε4 allele vs. ε3 allele: OR = 2.11, 95% CI = 1.91-2.35, p<0.00001).

Conclusions: The present meta-analysis suggests an association between ApoE ε4 allele and increased risk of CAD in Chinese population. However, due to the small sample size in most of the included studies and the selection bias existed in some studies, the results should be interpreted with caution.

Publication types

  • Meta-Analysis

MeSH terms

  • Alleles
  • Apolipoproteins E / genetics*
  • Asian People / genetics*
  • China
  • Coronary Artery Disease / genetics
  • Genetic Association Studies*
  • Genetic Heterogeneity
  • Genetic Predisposition to Disease*
  • Humans
  • Models, Genetic
  • Polymorphism, Genetic
  • Publication Bias
  • Risk Factors

Substances

  • Apolipoproteins E

Grants and funding

The authors have no funding or support to report.