Depression, Anxiety and Glucose Metabolism in the General Dutch Population: The New Hoorn Study

BACKGROUND: There is a well recognized association between depression and diabetes. However, there is little empirical data about the prevalence of depressive symptoms and anxiety among different groups of glucose metabolism in population based samples. The aim of this study was to determine whether the prevalence of increased levels of depression and anxiety is different between patients with type 2 diabetes and subjects with impaired glucose metabolism (IGM) and normal glucose metabolism (NGM). METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Cross-sectional data from a population-based cohort study of 2667 residents, 1261 men and 1406 women aged 40-65 years from the Hoorn region, the Netherlands. Depressive symptoms and anxiety were measured using the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D, score >or=16) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale--Anxiety Subscale (HADS-A, score >or=8), respectively. Glucose metabolism status was determined by oral glucose tolerance test. In the total study population the prevalence of depressive symptoms and anxiety for the NGM, IGM and type 2 diabetes were 12.5, 12.2 and 21.0% (P = 0.004) and 15.0, 15.3 and 19.9% (p = 0.216), respectively. In men, the prevalence of depressive symptoms was 7.7, 9.5 and 19.6% (p<0.001), and in women 16.4, 15.8 and 22.6 (p = 0.318), for participants with NGM, IGM and type 2 diabetes, respectively. Anxiety was not associated with glucose metabolism when stratified for sex. Intergroup differences (NGM vs. IGM and IGM vs. type 2 diabetes) revealed that higher prevalences of depressive symptoms are mainly manifested in participants with type 2 diabetes, and not in participants with IGM. CONCLUSIONS: Depressive symptoms, but not anxiety are associated with glucose metabolism. This association is mainly determined by a higher prevalence of depressive symptoms in participants with type 2 diabetes and not in participants with IGM

Iron Behaving Badly: Inappropriate Iron Chelation as a Major Contributor to the Aetiology of Vascular and Other Progressive Inflammatory and Degenerative Diseases

The production of peroxide and superoxide is an inevitable consequence of aerobic metabolism, and while these particular "reactive oxygen species" (ROSs) can exhibit a number of biological effects, they are not of themselves excessively reactive and thus they are not especially damaging at physiological concentrations. However, their reactions with poorly liganded iron species can lead to the catalytic production of the very reactive and dangerous hydroxyl radical, which is exceptionally damaging, and a major cause of chronic inflammation. We review the considerable and wide-ranging evidence for the involvement of this combination of (su)peroxide and poorly liganded iron in a large number of physiological and indeed pathological processes and inflammatory disorders, especially those involving the progressive degradation of cellular and organismal performance. These diseases share a great many similarities and thus might be considered to have a common cause (i.e. iron-catalysed free radical and especially hydroxyl radical generation). The studies reviewed include those focused on a series of cardiovascular, metabolic and neurological diseases, where iron can be found at the sites of plaques and lesions, as well as studies showing the significance of iron to aging and longevity. The effective chelation of iron by natural or synthetic ligands is thus of major physiological (and potentially therapeutic) importance. As systems properties, we need to recognise that physiological observables have multiple molecular causes, and studying them in isolation leads to inconsistent patterns of apparent causality when it is the simultaneous combination of multiple factors that is responsible. This explains, for instance, the decidedly mixed effects of antioxidants that have been observed, etc...Comment: 159 pages, including 9 Figs and 2184 reference

Limited effect of screening for depression with written feedback in outpatients with diabetes mellitus: a randomised controlled trial

Item does not contain fulltextAIMS/HYPOTHESIS: The aim of this study was to test the effectiveness of a screening procedure for depression (SCR) vs care as usual (CAU) in outpatients with diabetes. The primary outcome measured was depression score and the secondary outcomes were mental healthcare consumption, diabetes-distress and HbA(1c). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a multicentre parallel randomised controlled trial, 223 outpatients with diabetes, who had an elevated depression score, were randomly assigned to SCR (n = 116) or CAU (n = 107), using computer generated numbers. SCR-patients were invited for a Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) to diagnose depression and/or anxiety (interviewers were not blinded for group assignment). As part of the intervention, patients and their physicians were informed of the outcome of the CIDI in a letter and provided with treatment advice. At baseline and 6 month follow-up, depression and diabetes-distress were measured using the Centre for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and the Problem Areas in Diabetes survey (PAID). HbA(1c) levels were obtained from medical charts. RESULTS: Mean CES-D depression scores decreased from baseline to 6 months in both groups (24 +/- 8 to 21 +/- 8 [CAU] and 26 +/- 7 to 22 +/- 10 [SCR] respectively [p < 0.001]), with no significant differences between groups. Neither diabetes-distress nor HbA(1c) changed significantly within and between groups. The percentage of patients receiving mental healthcare increased in the SCR group from 20% to 28%, compared with 15% to 18% in the CAU group. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Depression screening with written feedback to patient and physician does not improve depression scores and has a limited impact on mental healthcare utilisation, compared with CAU. It appears that more intensive depression management is required to improve depression outcomes in patients with diabetes

AusTraits, a curated plant trait database for the Australian flora

We introduce the AusTraits database - a compilation of values of plant traits for taxa in the Australian flora (hereafter AusTraits). AusTraits synthesises data on 448 traits across 28,640 taxa from field campaigns, published literature, taxonomic monographs, and individual taxon descriptions. Traits vary in scope from physiological measures of performance (e.g. photosynthetic gas exchange, water-use efficiency) to morphological attributes (e.g. leaf area, seed mass, plant height) which link to aspects of ecological variation. AusTraits contains curated and harmonised individual- and species-level measurements coupled to, where available, contextual information on site properties and experimental conditions. This article provides information on version 3.0.2 of AusTraits which contains data for 997,808 trait-by-taxon combinations. We envision AusTraits as an ongoing collaborative initiative for easily archiving and sharing trait data, which also provides a template for other national or regional initiatives globally to fill persistent gaps in trait knowledge

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca