CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 are metabolizing enzymes abundantly expressed in liver and involved in the metabolism of xenobiotics as well as clinically used drugs. Genetic polymorphisms in CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 may alter the metabolic ability of individuals. Thus, CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 might play an important role in the aetiology of chronic myeloid leukaemia (CML) and as modulators of cancer therapy response. In this study, the impact of two single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) CYP3A4*18 (878T>C) and CYP3A5*3 (6986A>G) on CML susceptibility risk was investigated. This case-control study involved a total of 520 study subjects comprising 270 CML patients and 250 normal healthy controls. Genotyping of CYP3A4*18 and CYP3A5*3 was performed by polymerase chain reaction – restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) technique. The association between allelic variants and CML susceptibility risk was assessed by logistic regression analysis, deriving odds ratio (OR) with 95% confident intervals. The results showed that heterozygous (*1/*1*8) genotype of CYP3A4*18 was significantly associated with CML susceptibility risk (OR 3.387; 95% CI: 1.433–8.007, p = 0.005). No homozygous variant (*18/*18) genotype was detected in this study. On the contrary, homozygous variant (*3/*3) and heterozygous (*1/*3) genotypes of CYP3A5*3 were associated with significantly lower risk for CML susceptibility (OR 0.140; 95% CI: 0.079–0.246’ p < 0.001 and OR 0.310; 95% CI: 0.180–0.535, p < 0.001, respectively). The results prompt us to conclude that genetic variation in CYP3A4*18 may contribute to a higher risk whereas CYP3A5*3 polymorphism confers a lower susceptibility risk in Malaysian CML patients.

Background: Medical training is often regarded as a stressful period. Studies have previously found that 21.6%–50% of medical students experience significant psychological distress. The present study compared the prevalence and levels of psychological distress between 2 cohorts of first-year medical students that underwent different admission selection processes. Methods: A comparative cross-sectional study was conducted by comparing 2 cohorts of first-year medical students; 1 group (cohort 1) was selected based purely on academic merit (2008/2009 cohort) and the other group (cohort 2) was selected based on academic merit, psychometric assessment, and interview performance (2009/2010 cohort). Their distress levels were measured by the General Health Questionnaire, and scores higher than 3 were considered indicative of significant psychological distress. Results: The prevalence (P = 0.003) and levels (P = 0.001) of psychological distress were significantly different between the 2 cohorts. Cohort 1 had 1.2–3.3 times higher risk of developing psychological distress compared to cohort 2 (P = 0.007). Conclusion: Cohort 2 had better psychological health than cohort 1 and was less likely to develop psychological distress. This study provided evidence of a potential benefit of multimodal student selection based on academic merit, psychometric assessment, and interview performance. This selection process might identify medical students who will maintain better psychological health.