Effects of 5-HT2C, 5-HT1A receptor challenges and modafinil on the initiation and persistence of gambling behaviours

Rationale Problematic patterns of gambling are characterised by loss of control and persistent gambling often to recover losses. However, little is known about the mechanisms that mediate initial choices to begin gambling and then continue to gamble in the face of losing outcomes. Objectives These experiments first assessed gambling and loss-chasing performance under different win/lose probabilities in C57Bl/6 mice, and then investigated the effects of antagonism of 5-HT2CR with SB242084, 5-HT1AR agonism with 8-OH-DPAT and modafinil, a putative cognitive enhancer. Results As seen in humans and other species, mice demonstrated the expected patterns of behaviour as the odds for winning were altered increasing gambling and loss-chasing when winning was more likely. SB242084 decreased the likelihood to initially gamble, but had no effects on subsequent gambling choices in the face of repeated losses. In contrast, 8-OH-DPAT had no effects on choosing to gamble in the first place, but once started 8-OH-DPAT increased gambling choices in a dose-sensitive manner. Modafinil effects were different to the serotonergic drugs in both decreasing the propensity to initiate gambling and chase losses. Conclusions We present evidence for dissociable effects of systemic drug administration on different aspects of gambling behaviour. These data extend and reinforce the importance of serotonergic mechanisms in mediating discrete components of gambling behaviour. They further demonstrate the ability of modafinil to reduce gambling behaviour. Our work using a novel mouse paradigm may be of utility in modelling the complex psychological and neurobiological underpinnings of gambling problems, including the analysis of genetic and environmental factors

Identifying postpartum intervention approaches to prevent type 2 diabetes in women with a history of gestational diabetes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Women who develop gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) have an increased risk for the development of type 2 diabetes. Despite this "window of opportunity," few intervention studies have targeted postpartum women with a history of GDM. We sought perspectives of women with a history of GDM to identify a) barriers and facilitators to healthy lifestyle changes postpartum, and b) specific intervention approaches that would facilitate participation in a postpartum lifestyle intervention program.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We used mixed methods to gather data from women with a prior history of GDM, including focus groups and informant interviews. Analysis of focus groups relied on grounded theory and used open-coding to categorize data by themes, while frequency distributions were used for the informant interviews.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 38 women eligible to participate in focus groups, only ten women were able to accommodate their schedules to attend a focus group and 15 completed informant interviews by phone. We analyzed data from 25 women (mean age 35, mean pre-pregnancy BMI 28, 52% Caucasian, 20% African American, 12% Asian, 8% American Indian, 8% refused to specify). Themes from the focus groups included concern about developing type 2 diabetes, barriers to changing diet, and barriers to increasing physical activity. In one focus group, women expressed frustration about feeling judged by their physicians during their GDM pregnancy. Cited barriers to lifestyle change were identified from both methods, and included time and financial constraints, childcare duties, lack of motivation, fatigue, and obstacles at work. Informants suggested facilitators for lifestyle change, including nutrition education, accountability, exercise partners/groups, access to gyms with childcare, and home exercise equipment. All focus group and informant interview participants reported access to the internet, and the majority expressed interest in an intervention program delivered primarily via the internet that would include the opportunity to work with a lifestyle coach.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Time constraints were a major barrier. Our findings suggest that an internet-based lifestyle intervention program should be tested as a novel approach to prevent type 2 diabetes in postpartum women with a history of GDM.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p>ClinicalTrials.gov: <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01102530">NCT01102530</a></p

Development and Validation of the Gene Expression Predictor of High-grade Serous Ovarian Carcinoma Molecular SubTYPE (PrOTYPE).

PURPOSE: Gene expression-based molecular subtypes of high-grade serous tubo-ovarian cancer (HGSOC), demonstrated across multiple studies, may provide improved stratification for molecularly targeted trials. However, evaluation of clinical utility has been hindered by nonstandardized methods, which are not applicable in a clinical setting. We sought to generate a clinical grade minimal gene set assay for classification of individual tumor specimens into HGSOC subtypes and confirm previously reported subtype-associated features. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Adopting two independent approaches, we derived and internally validated algorithms for subtype prediction using published gene expression data from 1,650 tumors. We applied resulting models to NanoString data on 3,829 HGSOCs from the Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium. We further developed, confirmed, and validated a reduced, minimal gene set predictor, with methods suitable for a single-patient setting. RESULTS: Gene expression data were used to derive the predictor of high-grade serous ovarian carcinoma molecular subtype (PrOTYPE) assay. We established a de facto standard as a consensus of two parallel approaches. PrOTYPE subtypes are significantly associated with age, stage, residual disease, tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes, and outcome. The locked-down clinical grade PrOTYPE test includes a model with 55 genes that predicted gene expression subtype with >95% accuracy that was maintained in all analytic and biological validations. CONCLUSIONS: We validated the PrOTYPE assay following the Institute of Medicine guidelines for the development of omics-based tests. This fully defined and locked-down clinical grade assay will enable trial design with molecular subtype stratification and allow for objective assessment of the predictive value of HGSOC molecular subtypes in precision medicine applications.See related commentary by McMullen et al., p. 5271.Core funding for this project was provided by the National Institutes of Health (R01-CA172404, PI: S.J. Ramus; and R01-CA168758, PIs: J.A. Doherty and M.A.Rossing), the Canadian Institutes for Health Research (Proof-of-Principle I program, PIs: D.G.Huntsman and M.S. Anglesio), the United States Department of Defense Ovarian Cancer Research Program (OC110433, PI: D.D. Bowtell). A. Talhouk is funded through a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Scholar Award. M.S. Anglesio is funded through a Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research Scholar Award and the Janet D. Cottrelle Foundation Scholars program managed by the BC Cancer Foundation. J. George was partially supported by the NIH/National Cancer Institute award number P30CA034196. C. Wang was a Career Enhancement Awardee of the Mayo Clinic SPORE in Ovarian Cancer (P50 CA136393). D.G. Huntsman receives support from the Dr. Chew Wei Memorial Professorship in Gynecologic Oncology, and the Canada Research Chairs program (Research Chair in Molecular and Genomic Pathology). M. Widschwendter receives funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 European Research Council Programme, H2020 BRCA-ERC under Grant Agreement No. 742432 as well as the charity, The Eve Appeal (https://eveappeal.org.uk/), and support of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) and the University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Biomedical Research Centre. G.E. Konecny is supported by the Miriam and Sheldon Adelson Medical Research Foundation. B.Y. Karlan is funded by the American Cancer Society Early Detection Professorship (SIOP-06-258-01-COUN) and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS), Grant UL1TR000124. H.R. Harris is 20 supported by the NIH/National Cancer Institute award number K22 CA193860. OVCARE (including the VAN study) receives support through the BC Cancer Foundation and The VGH+UBC Hospital Foundation (authors AT, BG, DGH, and MSA). The AOV study is supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP86727). The Gynaecological Oncology Biobank at Westmead, a member of the Australasian Biospecimen Network-Oncology group, was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council Enabling Grants ID 310670 & ID 628903 and the Cancer Institute NSW Grants ID 12/RIG/1-17 & 15/RIG/1-16. The Australian Ovarian Cancer Study Group was supported by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command under DAMD17-01-1-0729, The Cancer Council Victoria, Queensland Cancer Fund, The Cancer Council New South Wales, The Cancer Council South Australia, The Cancer Council Tasmania and The Cancer Foundation of Western Australia (Multi-State Applications 191, 211 and 182) and the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC; ID199600; ID400413 and ID400281). BriTROC-1 was funded by Ovarian Cancer Action (to IAM and JDB, grant number 006) and supported by Cancer Research UK (grant numbers A15973, A15601, A18072, A17197, A19274 and A19694) and the National Institute for Health Research Cambridge and Imperial Biomedical Research Centres. Samples from the Mayo Clinic were collected and provided with support of P50 CA136393 (E.L.G., G.L.K, S.H.K, M.E.S.)

Safety, immunogenicity, and reactogenicity of BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 COVID-19 vaccines given as fourth-dose boosters following two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 or BNT162b2 and a third dose of BNT162b2 (COV-BOOST): a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised trial

Background Some high-income countries have deployed fourth doses of COVID-19 vaccines, but the clinical need, effectiveness, timing, and dose of a fourth dose remain uncertain. We aimed to investigate the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of fourth-dose boosters against COVID-19.Methods The COV-BOOST trial is a multicentre, blinded, phase 2, randomised controlled trial of seven COVID-19 vaccines given as third-dose boosters at 18 sites in the UK. This sub-study enrolled participants who had received BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) as their third dose in COV-BOOST and randomly assigned them (1:1) to receive a fourth dose of either BNT162b2 (30 µg in 0·30 mL; full dose) or mRNA-1273 (Moderna; 50 µg in 0·25 mL; half dose) via intramuscular injection into the upper arm. The computer-generated randomisation list was created by the study statisticians with random block sizes of two or four. Participants and all study staff not delivering the vaccines were masked to treatment allocation. The coprimary outcomes were safety and reactogenicity, and immunogenicity (antispike protein IgG titres by ELISA and cellular immune response by ELISpot). We compared immunogenicity at 28 days after the third dose versus 14 days after the fourth dose and at day 0 versus day 14 relative to the fourth dose. Safety and reactogenicity were assessed in the per-protocol population, which comprised all participants who received a fourth-dose booster regardless of their SARS-CoV-2 serostatus. Immunogenicity was primarily analysed in a modified intention-to-treat population comprising seronegative participants who had received a fourth-dose booster and had available endpoint data. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, 73765130, and is ongoing.Findings Between Jan 11 and Jan 25, 2022, 166 participants were screened, randomly assigned, and received either full-dose BNT162b2 (n=83) or half-dose mRNA-1273 (n=83) as a fourth dose. The median age of these participants was 70·1 years (IQR 51·6–77·5) and 86 (52%) of 166 participants were female and 80 (48%) were male. The median interval between the third and fourth doses was 208·5 days (IQR 203·3–214·8). Pain was the most common local solicited adverse event and fatigue was the most common systemic solicited adverse event after BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 booster doses. None of three serious adverse events reported after a fourth dose with BNT162b2 were related to the study vaccine. In the BNT162b2 group, geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration at day 28 after the third dose was 23 325 ELISA laboratory units (ELU)/mL (95% CI 20 030–27 162), which increased to 37 460 ELU/mL (31 996–43 857) at day 14 after the fourth dose, representing a significant fold change (geometric mean 1·59, 95% CI 1·41–1·78). There was a significant increase in geometric mean anti-spike protein IgG concentration from 28 days after the third dose (25 317 ELU/mL, 95% CI 20 996–30 528) to 14 days after a fourth dose of mRNA-1273 (54 936 ELU/mL, 46 826–64 452), with a geometric mean fold change of 2·19 (1·90–2·52). The fold changes in anti-spike protein IgG titres from before (day 0) to after (day 14) the fourth dose were 12·19 (95% CI 10·37–14·32) and 15·90 (12·92–19·58) in the BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 groups, respectively. T-cell responses were also boosted after the fourth dose (eg, the fold changes for the wild-type variant from before to after the fourth dose were 7·32 [95% CI 3·24–16·54] in the BNT162b2 group and 6·22 [3·90–9·92] in the mRNA-1273 group).Interpretation Fourth-dose COVID-19 mRNA booster vaccines are well tolerated and boost cellular and humoral immunity. Peak responses after the fourth dose were similar to, and possibly better than, peak responses after the third dose

Breast cancer management pathways during the COVID-19 pandemic: outcomes from the UK ‘Alert Level 4’ phase of the B-MaP-C study

Abstract: Background: The B-MaP-C study aimed to determine alterations to breast cancer (BC) management during the peak transmission period of the UK COVID-19 pandemic and the potential impact of these treatment decisions. Methods: This was a national cohort study of patients with early BC undergoing multidisciplinary team (MDT)-guided treatment recommendations during the pandemic, designated ‘standard’ or ‘COVID-altered’, in the preoperative, operative and post-operative setting. Findings: Of 3776 patients (from 64 UK units) in the study, 2246 (59%) had ‘COVID-altered’ management. ‘Bridging’ endocrine therapy was used (n = 951) where theatre capacity was reduced. There was increasing access to COVID-19 low-risk theatres during the study period (59%). In line with national guidance, immediate breast reconstruction was avoided (n = 299). Where adjuvant chemotherapy was omitted (n = 81), the median benefit was only 3% (IQR 2–9%) using ‘NHS Predict’. There was the rapid adoption of new evidence-based hypofractionated radiotherapy (n = 781, from 46 units). Only 14 patients (1%) tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 during their treatment journey. Conclusions: The majority of ‘COVID-altered’ management decisions were largely in line with pre-COVID evidence-based guidelines, implying that breast cancer survival outcomes are unlikely to be negatively impacted by the pandemic. However, in this study, the potential impact of delays to BC presentation or diagnosis remains unknown

Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Prognostic gene expression signature for high-grade serous ovarian cancer

Background: Median overall survival (OS) for women with high-grade serous ovarian cancer (HGSOC) is ∼4 years, yet survival varies widely between patients. There are no well-established, gene expression signatures associated with prognosis. The aim of this study was to develop a robust prognostic signature for OS in patients with HGSOC. Patients and methods: Expression of 513 genes, selected from a meta-analysis of 1455 tumours and other candidates, was measured using NanoString technology from formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tumour tissue collected from 3769 women with HGSOC from multiple studies. Elastic net regularization for survival analysis was applied to develop a prognostic model for 5-year OS, trained on 2702 tumours from 15 studies and evaluated on an independent set of 1067 tumours from six studies. Results: Expression levels of 276 genes were associated with OS (false discovery rate < 0.05) in covariate-adjusted single-gene analyses. The top five genes were TAP1, ZFHX4, CXCL9, FBN1 and PTGER3 (P < 0.001). The best performing prognostic signature included 101 genes enriched in pathways with treatment implications. Each gain of one standard deviation in the gene expression score conferred a greater than twofold increase in risk of death [hazard ratio (HR) 2.35, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.02–2.71; P < 0.001]. Median survival [HR (95% CI)] by gene expression score quintile was 9.5 (8.3 to –), 5.4 (4.6–7.0), 3.8 (3.3–4.6), 3.2 (2.9–3.7) and 2.3 (2.1–2.6) years. Conclusion: The OTTA-SPOT (Ovarian Tumor Tissue Analysis consortium - Stratified Prognosis of Ovarian Tumours) gene expression signature may improve risk stratification in clinical trials by identifying patients who are least likely to achieve 5-year survival. The identified novel genes associated with the outcome may also yield opportunities for the development of targeted therapeutic approaches

Whole-genome sequencing reveals host factors underlying critical COVID-19

Critical COVID-19 is caused by immune-mediated inflammatory lung injury. Host genetic variation influences the development of illness requiring critical care1 or hospitalization2–4 after infection with SARS-CoV-2. The GenOMICC (Genetics of Mortality in Critical Care) study enables the comparison of genomes from individuals who are critically ill with those of population controls to find underlying disease mechanisms. Here we use whole-genome sequencing in 7,491 critically ill individuals compared with 48,400 controls to discover and replicate 23 independent variants that significantly predispose to critical COVID-19. We identify 16 new independent associations, including variants within genes that are involved in interferon signalling (IL10RB and PLSCR1), leucocyte differentiation (BCL11A) and blood-type antigen secretor status (FUT2). Using transcriptome-wide association and colocalization to infer the effect of gene expression on disease severity, we find evidence that implicates multiple genes—including reduced expression of a membrane flippase (ATP11A), and increased expression of a mucin (MUC1)—in critical disease. Mendelian randomization provides evidence in support of causal roles for myeloid cell adhesion molecules (SELE, ICAM5 and CD209) and the coagulation factor F8, all of which are potentially druggable targets. Our results are broadly consistent with a multi-component model of COVID-19 pathophysiology, in which at least two distinct mechanisms can predispose to life-threatening disease: failure to control viral replication; or an enhanced tendency towards pulmonary inflammation and intravascular coagulation. We show that comparison between cases of critical illness and population controls is highly efficient for the detection of therapeutically relevant mechanisms of disease