ADRB2 Arg16Gly Polymorphism, Lung Function, and Mortality: Results from the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities Study

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence suggests that the Arg16Arg genotype of the beta-2 adrenergic receptor gene may be associated with adverse effects of beta-agonist therapy. We sought to examine the association of beta-agonist use and the Arg16Gly polymorphism with lung function and mortality among participants in the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study. METHODOLOGY AND PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We genotyped study participants and analyzed the association of the Arg16Gly polymorphism and beta-agonist use with lung function at baseline and clinical examination three years later and with all-cause mortality during 10 years of follow-up. Lung function was characterized by percent-predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second. Associations were examined separately for blacks and whites. Black beta-agonist users with the Arg/Arg genotype had better lung function at baseline and at the second clinical visit than those with Arg/Gly and Gly/Gly genotypes. Adjusted mean percent-predicted FEV(1) was 21% higher in Arg/Arg subjects compared to Gly/Gly at baseline (p = 0.01) and 20% higher than Gly/Gly at visit 2 (p = 0.01). Arg/Gly subjects had adjusted percent-predicted FEV(1) 17% lower than Arg/Arg at baseline but were similar to Arg/Arg subjects at visit 2. Although black beta-agonist users with the Arg/Arg genotype appeared to have better crude survival rates, the association between genotype and all-cause mortality was inconclusive. We found no difference in lung function or mortality by genotype among blacks who did not use beta-agonists or among whites, regardless of beta-agonist use. CONCLUSIONS: Black beta-agonist users with the ADRB2 Arg16Arg genotype had better lung function, and, possibly, better overall survival compared to black beta-agonist users with the Gly16Gly genotype. Our findings highlight the need for additional studies of sufficient size and statistical power to allow examination of outcomes among beta-agonist users of different races and genotypes

The dynamical evolution of molecular clouds near the Galactic Centre - I. Orbital structure and evolutionary timeline

We recently proposed that the star-forming potential of dense molecular clouds in the Central Molecular Zone (CMZ, i.e. the central few 100 pc) of the Milky Way is intimately linked to their orbital dynamics, potentially giving rise to an absolute-time sequence of star-forming clouds. In this paper, we present an orbital model for the gas stream(s) observed in the CMZ. The model is obtained by integrating orbits in the empirically constrained gravitational potential and represents a good fit (⁠χ2red=2.0⁠) to the observed position–velocity distribution of dense (n > several 103 cm-3) gas, reproducing all of its key properties. The orbit is also consistent with observational constraints not included in the fitting process, such as the 3D space velocities of Sgr B2 and the Arches and Quintuplet clusters. It differs from previous, parametric models in several respects: (1) the orbit is open rather than closed due to the extended mass distribution in the CMZ, (2) its orbital velocity (100–200 km s-1) is twice as high as in previous models, and (3) Sgr A* coincides with the focus of the (eccentric) orbit rather than being offset. Our orbital solution supports the recently proposed scenario in which the dust ridge between G0.253+0.016 (‘the Brick’) and Sgr B2 represents an absolute-time sequence of star-forming clouds, of which the condensation was triggered by the tidal compression during their most recent pericentre passage. We position the clouds on a common timeline and find that their pericentre passages occurred 0.30–0.74 Myr ago. Given their short free-fall times (tff ∼ 0.34 Myr), the quiescent cloud G0.253+0.016 and the vigorously star-forming complex Sgr B2 are separated by a single free-fall time of evolution, implying that star formation proceeds rapidly once collapse has been initiated. We provide the complete orbital solution, as well as several quantitative predictions of our model (e.g. proper motions and the positions of star formation ‘hotspots’). The paper is concluded with a discussion of the assumptions and possible caveats, as well as the position of the model in the Galactic context, highlighting its relation to large-scale gas accretion, the dynamics of the bar, the x2 orbital family, and the origin of the Arches and Quintuplet clusters

Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias

BACKGROUND: The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. CONCLUSIONS: Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials