Progressive skin fibrosis is associated with a decline in lung function and worse survival in patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis in the European Scleroderma Trials and Research (EUSTAR) cohort.

Objectives To determine whether progressive skin fibrosis is associated with visceral organ progression and mortality during follow-up in patients with diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc). Methods We evaluated patients from the European Scleroderma Trials and Research database with dcSSc, baseline modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) ≥7, valid mRSS at 12±3 months after baseline and ≥1 annual follow-up visit. Progressive skin fibrosis was defined as an increase in mRSS >5 and ≥25% from baseline to 12±3 months. Outcomes were pulmonary, cardiovascular and renal progression, and all-cause death. Associations between skin progression and outcomes were evaluated by Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariable Cox regression. Results Of 1021 included patients, 78 (7.6%) had progressive skin fibrosis (skin progressors). Median follow-up was 3.4 years. Survival analyses indicated that skin progressors had a significantly higher probability of FVC decline ≥10% (53.6% vs 34.4%; p<0.001) and all-cause death (15.4% vs 7.3%; p=0.003) than non-progressors. These significant associations were also found in subgroup analyses of patients with either low baseline mRSS (≤22/51) or short disease duration (≤15 months). In multivariable analyses, skin progression within 1 year was independently associated with FVC decline ≥10% (HR 1.79, 95% CI 1.20 to 2.65) and all-cause death (HR 2.58, 95% CI 1.31 to 5.09). Conclusions Progressive skin fibrosis within 1 year is associated with decline in lung function and worse survival in dcSSc during follow-up. These results confirm mRSS as a surrogate marker in dcSSc, which will be helpful for cohort enrichment in future trials and risk stratification in clinical practice

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Genetic Overlap Between Alzheimer’s Disease and Bipolar Disorder Implicates the MARK2 and VAC14 Genes

Background: Alzheimer's disease (AD) and bipolar disorder (BIP) are complex traits influenced by numerous common genetic variants, most of which remain to be detected. Clinical and epidemiological evidence suggest that AD and BIP are related. However, it is not established if this relation is of genetic origin. Here, we applied statistical methods based on the conditional false discovery rate (FDR) framework to detect genetic overlap between AD and BIP and utilized this overlap to increase the power to identify common genetic variants associated with either or both traits. Methods: We obtained genome wide association studies data from the International Genomics of Alzheimer's Project part 1 (17,008 AD cases and 37,154 controls) and the Psychiatric Genetic Consortium Bipolar Disorder Working Group (20,352 BIP cases and 31,358 controls). We used conditional QQ-plots to assess overlap in common genetic variants between AD and BIP. We exploited the genetic overlap to re-rank test-statistics for AD and BIP and improve detection of genetic variants using the conditional FDR framework. Results: Conditional QQ-plots demonstrated a polygenic overlap between AD and BIP. Using conditional FDR, we identified one novel genomic locus associated with AD, and nine novel loci associated with BIP. Further, we identified two novel loci jointly associated with AD and BIP implicating the MARK2 gene (lead SNP rs10792421, conjunctional FDR=0.030, same direction of effect) and the VAC14 gene (lead SNP rs11649476, conjunctional FDR=0.022, opposite direction of effect). Conclusions: We found polygenic overlap between AD and BIP and identified novel loci for each trait and two jointly associated loci. Further studies should examine if the shared loci implicating the MARK2 and VAC14 genes could explain parts of the shared and distinct features of AD and BIP

Genomic Dissection of Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia, Including 28 Subphenotypes

publisher: Elsevier articletitle: Genomic Dissection of Bipolar Disorder and Schizophrenia, Including 28 Subphenotypes journaltitle: Cell articlelink: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2018.05.046 content_type: article copyright: © 2018 Elsevier Inc

R& D/Returns Causality: Absorptive Capacity or Organizational IQ

Absorptive capacity is the principle that assimilating new knowledge requires prior knowledge. The attendant prescription is to invest more in R& D to derive greater benefit from the R& D of others (spillovers). Empirical tests of R& D productivity typically find absorptive capacity (R& D * rival R& D) to be significant. This result poses a puzzle, however: What can a firm conducting 50% of industry R& D learn from a set of firms each conducting 5%? Aren't the laggard firms merely playing catch-up? Yet, if this is so, why is the interaction term significant? One possible resolution to this puzzle is that the correlation between R& D spending and returns is really about innate ability (IQ) rather than investment behavior (absorptive capacity). In this view the causality between capability and behavior is reversed. It is not that firms obtain higher returns by investing more in R& D; it is that some firms have higher returns to R& D, thus they invest more. I conduct an empirical test of the competing views and find that (1) firms differ in the output elasticities of their own R& D (IQ) as well as the elasticities of spillovers from rivals, (2) absorptive capacity becomes insignificant when accounting for that heterogeneity, (3) R& D investment increases with IQ, but (4) R& D investment has no impact on a firm's ability to benefit from spillovers.absorptive capacity, organizational IQ, R& D, spillovers