Role of HDL-Associated Proteins and Lipids in the Regulation of Inflammation

Lipoproteins are complexes of lipids and proteins that carry water‐insoluble cholesterol in the bloodstream. While cholesterol is required for normal cell function, hypercholesterolemia contributes to the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Increased low‐density lipoprotein (LDL) is a major risk factor for CVD. Reduced high‐density lipoprotein (HDL) levels are inversely related to CVD risk, suggesting a protective role for HDL. Several diseases, including atherosclerosis, diabetes, chronic kidney disease and rheumatoid arthritis, have been identified where HDL levels are decreased or function is compromised. HDLs are spherical particles with a hydrophobic core of cholesteryl esters surrounded by a monolayer of phospholipids, proteins and unesterified cholesterol. Apolipoprotein (apo) A‐I, the major protein component of HDL, plays an important role in the assembly and function of HDL. One of the major functions of HDL is to mediate cellular cholesterol efflux and the transfer of cholesterol from extrahepatic tissues to the liver for excretion into the bile. In addition to regulating cholesterol metabolism, HDL also exhibits antioxidative, antithrombotic and anti‐inflammatory properties. Under certain conditions, however, HDL may undergo biochemical modification resulting in the formation of a particle with pro‐inflammatory properties. This review will focus on the variable properties of HDL under normal physiological conditions and in the context of inflammation

The case for mild stimulation for IVF: recommendations from The International Society for Mild Approaches in Assisted Reproduction.

The practice of ovarian stimulation for IVF is undergoing a fundamental re-evaluation as recent data begin to successfully challenge the traditional paradigm that ovarian stimulation should be aimed at the retrieval of as many oocytes as possible, in the belief that this will increase pregnancy rates. An opposing view is that live birth rate should not be the only end-point in evaluating the success of IVF treatment and that equal emphasis should be placed on safety and affordability. The International Society for Mild Approaches in Assisted Reproduction (ISMAAR) committee has carried out an up-to-date literature search, with the evidence being graded according to the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The recommendations were formulated taking into account the quality of evidence on the efficacy, risk and cost of each intervention. ISMAAR recommends adopting a mild approach to ovarian stimulation in all clinical settings as an increasing body of evidence suggests that mild stimulation is as effective as conventional stimulation, while being safer and less expensive. Mild ovarian stimulation could replace conventional stimulation, thus making IVF safer and more accessible worldwide

"The fruits of independence": Satyajit Ray, Indian nationhood and the spectre of empire

Challenging the longstanding consensus that Satyajit Ray's work is largely free of ideological concerns and notable only for its humanistic richness, this article shows with reference to representations of British colonialism and Indian nationhood that Ray's films and stories are marked deeply and consistently by a distinctively Bengali variety of liberalism. Drawn from an ongoing biographical project, it commences with an overview of the nationalist milieu in which Ray grew up and emphasizes the preoccupation with colonialism and nationalism that marked his earliest unfilmed scripts. It then shows with case studies of Kanchanjangha (1962), Charulata (1964), First Class Kamra (First-Class Compartment, 1981), Pratidwandi (The Adversary, 1970), Shatranj ke Khilari (The Chess Players, 1977), Agantuk (The Stranger, 1991) and Robertsoner Ruby (Robertson's Ruby, 1992) how Ray's mature work continued to combine a strongly anti-colonial viewpoint with a shifting perspective on Indian nationhood and an unequivocal commitment to cultural cosmopolitanism. Analysing how Ray articulated his ideological positions through the quintessentially liberal device of complexly staged debates that were apparently free, but in fact closed by the scenarist/director on ideologically specific notes, this article concludes that Ray's reputation as an all-forgiving, ‘everybody-has-his-reasons’ humanist is based on simplistic or even tendentious readings of his work

Gabapentin for chronic pelvic pain in women (GaPP2):a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BackgroundChronic pelvic pain affects 2–24% of women worldwide and evidence for medical treatments is scarce. Gabapentin is effective in treating some chronic pain conditions. We aimed to measure the efficacy and safety of gabapentin in women with chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.MethodsWe performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised trial in 39 UK hospital centres. Eligible participants were women with chronic pelvic pain (with or without dysmenorrhoea or dyspareunia) of at least 3 months duration. Inclusion criteria were 18–50 years of age, use or willingness to use contraception to avoid pregnancy, and no obvious pelvic pathology at laparoscopy, which must have taken place at least 2 weeks before consent but less than 36 months previously. Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive gabapentin (titrated to a maximum dose of 2700 mg daily) or matching placebo for 16 weeks. The online randomisation system minimised allocations by presence or absence of dysmenorrhoea, psychological distress, current use of hormonal contraceptives, and hospital centre. The appearance, route, and administration of the assigned intervention were identical in both groups. Patients, clinicians, and research staff were unaware of the trial group assignments throughout the trial. Participants were unmasked once they had provided all outcome data at week 16–17, or sooner if a serious adverse event requiring knowledge of the study drug occurred. The dual primary outcome measures were worst and average pain scores assessed separately on a numerical rating scale in weeks 13–16 after randomisation, in the intention-to-treat population. Self-reported adverse events were assessed according to intention-to-treat principles. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN77451762.FindingsParticipants were screened between Nov 30, 2015, and March 6, 2019, and 306 were randomly assigned (153 to gabapentin and 153 to placebo). There were no significant between-group differences in both worst and average numerical rating scale (NRS) pain scores at 13–16 weeks after randomisation. The mean worst NRS pain score was 7·1 (standard deviation [SD] 2·6) in the gabapentin group and 7·4 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was −1·4 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and −1·2 (SD 2·1) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference −0·20 [97·5% CI −0·81 to 0·42]; p=0·47). The mean average NRS pain score was 4·3 (SD 2·3) in the gabapentin group and 4·5 (SD 2·2) in the placebo group. Mean change from baseline was −1·1 (SD 2·0) in the gabapentin group and −0·9 (SD 1·8) in the placebo group (adjusted mean difference −0·18 [97·5% CI −0·71 to 0·35]; p=0·45). More women had a serious adverse event in the gabapentin group than in the placebo group (10 [7%] of 153 in the gabapentin group compared with 3 [2%] of 153 in the placebo group; p=0·04). Dizziness, drowsiness, and visual disturbances were more common in the gabapentin group.InterpretationThis study was adequately powered, but treatment with gabapentin did not result in significantly lower pain scores in women with chronic pelvic pain, and was associated with higher rates of side-effects than placebo. Given the increasing reports of abuse and evidence of potential harms associated with gabapentin use, it is important that clinicians consider alternative treatment options to off-label gabapentin for the management of chronic pelvic pain and no obvious pelvic pathology.FundingNational Institute for Health Research

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Gender Bias in Intra-Household Allocation of Education in India: Has It Fallen over Time?

This paper asks whether gender bias in education expenditure in rural India fell over the two-decade period from 1995 to 2014. We find that instead of falling over time, the channel through which gender bias is practiced changed dramatically over the 20 years. Secondly, the paper demonstrates the usefulness of distinguishing between the two potential channels of gender bias, namely bias in the school enrolment decision, and bias in the conditional educational expenditure decision, rather than in the single unconditional education expenditure decision; this distinction is shown to be important because gender bias in the enrolment decision has greatly fallen but bias in the conditional expenditure decision has significantly risen over time. Thirdly, we find that individual child level data has much greater power to detect gender bias in education spending, compared to household level data. Lastly, household fixed effects analysis shows that the observed gender biases in education spending are a within-household phenomenon in rural India

Has Gender Bias in Intra-Household Allocation of Education in Rural India Fallen over Time? A Comparison of 1995 and 2017

This paper employs a hurdle model approach to ask whether the extent of gender bias in education expenditure within rural households in India changed over time from 1995 to 2017-18. Our most striking finding is that there has been a change over time in the way that gender bias is practiced within the household. In 1995, gender bias occurred through a significantly higher probability of school-enrolment of boys than girls, but by 2017-18, gender bias was practiced via significantly higher conditional education expenditure on boys than girls, and this was largely achieved via pro-male private school enrolment decisions. Households practicing gender equality in school enrolment by 2017-18 is a desirable trend. However, girls' significant disadvantage vis-à-vis boys in terms of lower education expenditure, achieved via their lower private school enrolment rate by 2017-18, is problematic if lower expenditure is associated with lower levels of cognitive skills (literacy, numeracy, etc.) since both individual economic returns and national economic growth accrue to cognitive skills and not independently to completing a given number of years in school. Household fixed effects analysis shows that the observed gender biases are a within-household phenomenon rather than an artefact of differences in unobservables across households

Inequality in Internet Access in India: Implications for Learning during COVID

During COVID school closures, learning become mostly restricted to young people who had internet access at home. This paper examines internet access in India using National Sample Survey 2017-18. It probes the extent of inequality in young people's internet access across gender, caste, religion, rural-urban sector, private-public schools, and income group. Our triple-hurdle model of internet use shows that, ceteris paribus, there is a very significant digital divide across many of the social and economic groups. Additionally, intra-household analysis using family fixed effects estimation shows that girls have significantly lower ability to use internet vis-à-vis their brothers within the household

Class Size and Learning: Has India Spent Too Much on Reducing Class Size?

Whether class-size reductions improve student learning outcomes is an important policy question for India. This paper investigates the issue using a credible identification strategy to address the endogeneity of class size. Pupil fixed effects combined with value-added estimation show no significant relationship between class size and student achievement, which suggests that under current teaching practices, there is no learning gain from reducing class size. If these findings, based on a small sample in one city, hold true for the entire country, they have important policy implications. When generalized, our findings suggest that India experienced a value-subtraction from spending on reducing class sizes, and that the US$3.6 billion it spends annually on the salaries of the 0.4 million new teachers appointed between 2010 and 2017 is wasteful spending rather than an investment in improving learning. These findings imply that India could save US$19.4 billion per annum by increasing PTR to 40, without any reduction in pupil learning