37 research outputs found

    Genome-wide meta-analysis of cerebral white matter hyperintensities in patients with stroke.

    Get PDF
    OBJECTIVE: For 3,670 stroke patients from the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Belgium, and Italy, we performed a genome-wide meta-analysis of white matter hyperintensity volumes (WMHV) on data imputed to the 1000 Genomes reference dataset to provide insights into disease mechanisms. METHODS: We first sought to identify genetic associations with white matter hyperintensities in a stroke population, and then examined whether genetic loci previously linked to WMHV in community populations are also associated in stroke patients. Having established that genetic associations are shared between the 2 populations, we performed a meta-analysis testing which associations with WMHV in stroke-free populations are associated overall when combined with stroke populations. RESULTS: There were no associations at genome-wide significance with WMHV in stroke patients. All previously reported genome-wide significant associations with WMHV in community populations shared direction of effect in stroke patients. In a meta-analysis of the genome-wide significant and suggestive loci (p < 5 × 10(-6)) from community populations (15 single nucleotide polymorphisms in total) and from stroke patients, 6 independent loci were associated with WMHV in both populations. Four of these are novel associations at the genome-wide level (rs72934505 [NBEAL1], p = 2.2 × 10(-8); rs941898 [EVL], p = 4.0 × 10(-8); rs962888 [C1QL1], p = 1.1 × 10(-8); rs9515201 [COL4A2], p = 6.9 × 10(-9)). CONCLUSIONS: Genetic associations with WMHV are shared in otherwise healthy individuals and patients with stroke, indicating common genetic susceptibility in cerebral small vessel disease.Funding for collection, genotyping, and analysis of stroke samples was provided by Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium-2, a functional genomics grant from the Wellcome Trust (DNA-Lacunar), the Stroke Association (DNA-lacunar), the Intramural Research Program of National Institute of Ageing (Massachusetts General Hospital [MGH] and Ischemic Stroke Genetics Study [ISGS]), National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (Siblings With Ischemic Stroke Study, ISGS, and MGH), the American Heart Association/Bugher Foundation Centers for Stroke Prevention Research (MGH), Deane Institute for Integrative Study of Atrial Fibrillation and Stroke (MGH), National Health and Medical Research Council (Australian Stroke Genetics Collaborative), and Italian Ministry of Health (Milan). Additional support for sample collection came from the Medical Research Council, National Institute of Health Research Biomedical Research Centre and Acute Vascular Imaging Centre (Oxford), Wellcome Trust and Binks Trust (Edinburgh), and Vascular Dementia Research Foundation (Munich). MT is supported by a project grant from the Stroke Association (TSA 2013/01). HSM is supported by an NIHR Senior Investigator award. HSM and SB are supported by the NIHR Cambridge University Hospitals Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre. VT and RL are supported by grants from FWO Flanders. PR holds NIHR and Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator Awards. PAS is supported by an MRC Fellowship. CML’s research is supported by the National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) based at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London, and the BRC for Mental Health at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London. This is the final version of the article. It first appeared from Wolters Kluwer via http://dx.doi.org/10.1212/WNL.000000000000226

    Charmed baryons circa 2015

    Full text link

    Multiorgan MRI findings after hospitalisation with COVID-19 in the UK (C-MORE): a prospective, multicentre, observational cohort study

    Get PDF
    Introduction: The multiorgan impact of moderate to severe coronavirus infections in the post-acute phase is still poorly understood. We aimed to evaluate the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities after hospitalisation with COVID-19, evaluate their determinants, and explore associations with patient-related outcome measures. Methods: In a prospective, UK-wide, multicentre MRI follow-up study (C-MORE), adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital following COVID-19 who were included in Tier 2 of the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) and contemporary controls with no evidence of previous COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid antibody negative) underwent multiorgan MRI (lungs, heart, brain, liver, and kidneys) with quantitative and qualitative assessment of images and clinical adjudication when relevant. Individuals with end-stage renal failure or contraindications to MRI were excluded. Participants also underwent detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical tests. The primary outcome was the excess burden of multiorgan abnormalities (two or more organs) relative to controls, with further adjustments for potential confounders. The C-MORE study is ongoing and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04510025. Findings: Of 2710 participants in Tier 2 of PHOSP-COVID, 531 were recruited across 13 UK-wide C-MORE sites. After exclusions, 259 C-MORE patients (mean age 57 years [SD 12]; 158 [61%] male and 101 [39%] female) who were discharged from hospital with PCR-confirmed or clinically diagnosed COVID-19 between March 1, 2020, and Nov 1, 2021, and 52 non-COVID-19 controls from the community (mean age 49 years [SD 14]; 30 [58%] male and 22 [42%] female) were included in the analysis. Patients were assessed at a median of 5·0 months (IQR 4·2–6·3) after hospital discharge. Compared with non-COVID-19 controls, patients were older, living with more obesity, and had more comorbidities. Multiorgan abnormalities on MRI were more frequent in patients than in controls (157 [61%] of 259 vs 14 [27%] of 52; p&lt;0·0001) and independently associated with COVID-19 status (odds ratio [OR] 2·9 [95% CI 1·5–5·8]; padjusted=0·0023) after adjusting for relevant confounders. Compared with controls, patients were more likely to have MRI evidence of lung abnormalities (p=0·0001; parenchymal abnormalities), brain abnormalities (p&lt;0·0001; more white matter hyperintensities and regional brain volume reduction), and kidney abnormalities (p=0·014; lower medullary T1 and loss of corticomedullary differentiation), whereas cardiac and liver MRI abnormalities were similar between patients and controls. Patients with multiorgan abnormalities were older (difference in mean age 7 years [95% CI 4–10]; mean age of 59·8 years [SD 11·7] with multiorgan abnormalities vs mean age of 52·8 years [11·9] without multiorgan abnormalities; p&lt;0·0001), more likely to have three or more comorbidities (OR 2·47 [1·32–4·82]; padjusted=0·0059), and more likely to have a more severe acute infection (acute CRP &gt;5mg/L, OR 3·55 [1·23–11·88]; padjusted=0·025) than those without multiorgan abnormalities. Presence of lung MRI abnormalities was associated with a two-fold higher risk of chest tightness, and multiorgan MRI abnormalities were associated with severe and very severe persistent physical and mental health impairment (PHOSP-COVID symptom clusters) after hospitalisation. Interpretation: After hospitalisation for COVID-19, people are at risk of multiorgan abnormalities in the medium term. Our findings emphasise the need for proactive multidisciplinary care pathways, with the potential for imaging to guide surveillance frequency and therapeutic stratification

    Atrial fibrillation genetic risk differentiates cardioembolic stroke from other stroke subtypes

    Get PDF
    AbstractObjectiveWe sought to assess whether genetic risk factors for atrial fibrillation can explain cardioembolic stroke risk.MethodsWe evaluated genetic correlations between a prior genetic study of AF and AF in the presence of cardioembolic stroke using genome-wide genotypes from the Stroke Genetics Network (N = 3,190 AF cases, 3,000 cardioembolic stroke cases, and 28,026 referents). We tested whether a previously-validated AF polygenic risk score (PRS) associated with cardioembolic and other stroke subtypes after accounting for AF clinical risk factors.ResultsWe observed strong correlation between previously reported genetic risk for AF, AF in the presence of stroke, and cardioembolic stroke (Pearson’s r=0.77 and 0.76, respectively, across SNPs with p &lt; 4.4 × 10−4 in the prior AF meta-analysis). An AF PRS, adjusted for clinical AF risk factors, was associated with cardioembolic stroke (odds ratio (OR) per standard deviation (sd) = 1.40, p = 1.45×10−48), explaining ∼20% of the heritable component of cardioembolic stroke risk. The AF PRS was also associated with stroke of undetermined cause (OR per sd = 1.07, p = 0.004), but no other primary stroke subtypes (all p &gt; 0.1).ConclusionsGenetic risk for AF is associated with cardioembolic stroke, independent of clinical risk factors. Studies are warranted to determine whether AF genetic risk can serve as a biomarker for strokes caused by AF.</jats:sec

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

    Get PDF
    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

    Get PDF
    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

    Search for single production of vector-like quarks decaying into Wb in pp collisions at s=8\sqrt{s} = 8 TeV with the ATLAS detector

    Get PDF

    Measurement of the charge asymmetry in top-quark pair production in the lepton-plus-jets final state in pp collision data at s=8TeV\sqrt{s}=8\,\mathrm TeV{} with the ATLAS detector

    Get PDF

    ATLAS Run 1 searches for direct pair production of third-generation squarks at the Large Hadron Collider

    Get PDF

    The ambiguities of uncertainty: A review of uncertainty frameworks relevant to the assessment of environmental change

    No full text
    As awareness of deep uncertainties in many disciplines has grown over the last half-century, researchers have developed many frameworks, typologies, and taxonomies to understand, analyse, and communicate them. Uncertainty analysis is critically important in fields of study that deal with large, complex, societally-coupled problems, such as those dealing with environmental change. However, as of yet, no wide-ranging review exists that systematically compares the features of these frameworks. This paper surveys a very large number of uncertainty frameworks (N = 156) relevant to the assessment of environmental change, identifying their key features and highlighting the conceptual foundations of these frameworks. It shows that although many authors have employed very similar methods of classification, significant ambiguities may exist because of overlapping concepts or polysemous terminology. Further to this, philosophical inconsistencies are pervasive in the frameworks. This paper argues that the synthesis of these frameworks into one with general applicability is likely unachievable, and given the ambiguity of the meaning of much of the uncertainty lexicon, a more fruitful approach would be to start by examining the conceptual understandings of practitioners themselves
    corecore