Azathioprine immunosuppression and disease modification in Parkinson’s disease (AZA-PD): a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled phase II trial protocol

Introduction: The immune system is implicated in the aetiology and progression of Parkinson’s disease (PD). Inflammation and immune activation occur both in the brain and in the periphery, and a proinflammatory cytokine profile is associated with more rapid clinical progression. Furthermore, the risk of developing PD is related to genetic variation in immune-related genes and reduced by the use of immunosuppressant medication. We are therefore conducting a ‘proof of concept’ trial of azathioprine, an immunosuppressant medication, to investigate whether suppressing the peripheral immune system has a disease-modifying effect in PD. Methods and analysis: AZA-PD is a phase II randomised placebo-controlled double-blind trial in early PD. Sixty participants, with clinical markers indicating an elevated risk of disease progression and no inflammatory or immune comorbidity, will be treated (azathioprine:placebo, 1:1) for 12 months, with a further 6-month follow-up. The primary outcome is the change in the Movement Disorder Society-Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale gait/axial score in the OFF state over the 12-month treatment period. Exploratory outcomes include additional measures of motor and cognitive function, non-motor symptoms and quality of life. In addition, peripheral and central immune markers will be investigated through analysis of blood, cerebrospinal fluid and PK-11195 positron emission tomography imaging. Ethics and dissemination: The study was approved by the London-Westminster research ethics committee (reference 19/LO/1705) and has been accepted by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for a clinical trials authorisation (reference CTA 12854/0248/001–0001). In addition, approval has been granted from the Administration of Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee. The results of this trial will be disseminated through publication in scientific journals and presentation at national and international conferences, and a lay summary will be available on our website. Trial registration numbers: ISRCTN14616801 and EudraCT- 2018-003089-14

SNP-SNP interactions in breast cancer susceptibility

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer predisposition genes identified to date (e.g., BRCA1 and BRCA2) are responsible for less than 5% of all breast cancer cases. Many studies have shown that the cancer risks associated with individual commonly occurring single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) are incremental. However, polygenic models suggest that multiple commonly occurring low to modestly penetrant SNPs of cancer related genes might have a greater effect on a disease when considered in combination. METHODS: In an attempt to identify the breast cancer risk conferred by SNP interactions, we have studied 19 SNPs from genes involved in major cancer related pathways. All SNPs were genotyped by TaqMan 5'nuclease assay. The association between the case-control status and each individual SNP, measured by the odds ratio and its corresponding 95% confidence interval, was estimated using unconditional logistic regression models. At the second stage, two-way interactions were investigated using multivariate logistic models. The robustness of the interactions, which were observed among SNPs with stronger functional evidence, was assessed using a bootstrap approach, and correction for multiple testing based on the false discovery rate (FDR) principle. RESULTS: None of these SNPs contributed to breast cancer risk individually. However, we have demonstrated evidence for gene-gene (SNP-SNP) interaction among these SNPs, which were associated with increased breast cancer risk. Our study suggests cross talk between the SNPs of the DNA repair and immune system (XPD-[Lys751Gln] and IL10-[G(-1082)A]), cell cycle and estrogen metabolism (CCND1-[Pro241Pro] and COMT-[Met108/158Val]), cell cycle and DNA repair (BARD1-[Pro24Ser] and XPD-[Lys751Gln]), and within carcinogen metabolism (GSTP1-[Ile105Val] and COMT-[Met108/158Val]) pathways. CONCLUSION: The importance of these pathways and their communication in breast cancer predisposition has been emphasized previously, but their biological interactions through SNPs have not been described. The strategy used here has the potential to identify complex biological links among breast cancer genes and processes. This will provide novel biological information, which will ultimately improve breast cancer risk management

Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review

Reporting bias represents a major problem in the assessment of health care interventions. Several prominent cases have been described in the literature, for example, in the reporting of trials of antidepressants, Class I anti-arrhythmic drugs, and selective COX-2 inhibitors. The aim of this narrative review is to gain an overview of reporting bias in the medical literature, focussing on publication bias and selective outcome reporting. We explore whether these types of bias have been shown in areas beyond the well-known cases noted above, in order to gain an impression of how widespread the problem is. For this purpose, we screened relevant articles on reporting bias that had previously been obtained by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care in the context of its health technology assessment reports and other research work, together with the reference lists of these articles

Multiple novel prostate cancer susceptibility signals identified by fine-mapping of known risk loci among Europeans

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous common prostate cancer (PrCa) susceptibility loci. We have fine-mapped 64 GWAS regions known at the conclusion of the iCOGS study using large-scale genotyping and imputation in 25 723 PrCa cases and 26 274 controls of European ancestry. We detected evidence for multiple independent signals at 16 regions, 12 of which contained additional newly identified significant associations. A single signal comprising a spectrum of correlated variation was observed at 39 regions; 35 of which are now described by a novel more significantly associated lead SNP, while the originally reported variant remained as the lead SNP only in 4 regions. We also confirmed two association signals in Europeans that had been previously reported only in East-Asian GWAS. Based on statistical evidence and linkage disequilibrium (LD) structure, we have curated and narrowed down the list of the most likely candidate causal variants for each region. Functional annotation using data from ENCODE filtered for PrCa cell lines and eQTL analysis demonstrated significant enrichment for overlap with bio-features within this set. By incorporating the novel risk variants identified here alongside the refined data for existing association signals, we estimate that these loci now explain ∼38.9% of the familial relative risk of PrCa, an 8.9% improvement over the previously reported GWAS tag SNPs. This suggests that a significant fraction of the heritability of PrCa may have been hidden during the discovery phase of GWAS, in particular due to the presence of multiple independent signals within the same regio

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

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

The Gastrointestinal Dysfunction Scale for Parkinson's Disease.

BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal dysfunction is an important feature of Parkinson's disease (PD), and there is increasing evidence that it may play a key role in the disease process. However, its assessment is limited by different tools and underlying differences in diagnostic criteria for gastrointestinal dysfunction. To date, there is no psychometric instrument for quantitative evaluation of gastrointestinal symptoms specifically designed for use in PD. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to develop a self-report questionnaire-based instrument, the Gastrointestinal Dysfunction Scale for Parkinson's Disease, and to evaluate its psychometric properties. METHODS: We performed a literature review and conducted 3 focus groups to develop the Gastrointestinal Dysfunction Scale for Parkinson's Disease. Three hundred and sixteen patients with PD and 55 controls completed the Gastrointestinal Dysfunction Scale for Parkinson's Disease, the Non-Motor Symptom Scale, the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and a stool diary adapted from the Bristol Stool Chart. RESULTS: The Gastrointestinal Dysfunction Scale for Parkinson's Disease demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's α = 0.82) and test-retest stability (0.79  0.94). Correlation analyses supported good convergent and divergent validity. Receiver operating characteristic analysis demonstrated that a cutoff score of ≥9 on the Gastrointestinal Dysfunction Scale for Parkinson's Disease Constipation subscale discriminates between PD patients with and without constipation. CONCLUSIONS: The Gastrointestinal Dysfunction Scale for Parkinson's Disease is a novel disease-specific self-report tool to quantitatively assess the presence and severity of gastrointestinal dysfunction features in patients with PD, with strong reliability and validity. Further longitudinal studies are needed to demonstrate its utility in tracking gastrointestinal dysfunction in PD clinical cohorts. © 2021 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

The clinical heterogeneity of Parkinson's disease and its therapeutic implications.

Although Parkinson's disease (PD) is primarily a movement disorder, there are a range of associated nonmotor symptoms, including cognitive impairment, depression and sleep disturbance. These can occur throughout the disease course, even predating the motor syndrome. However, both motor and nonmotor symptoms are variable between individual patients. Rate of disease progression is also heterogenous: although 50% have reached key milestones of either postural instability or dementia within 4 years from diagnosis, almost a quarter have a good prognosis at 10 years. In this review we discuss how a range of different factors including clinical features, pathology and genetics, have been used to describe the heterogeneity of PD. We explore the value of longitudinal studies of incident PD cohorts, based on our own experience in Cambridgeshire, to define differences in rates of disease progression and predictors of outcome, including how such studies have informed the development of prognostic models which can be used at an individual patient level. Finally, we discuss the benefits of better understanding the basis of heterogeneity of PD in terms of implications for the development and trialling of more targeted therapies for different subgroups of patients, including regenerative approaches

Huntington's disease: diagnosis and management.

Huntington's disease (HD) is an inherited neurodegenerative disease characterised by neuropsychiatric symptoms, a movement disorder (most commonly choreiform) and progressive cognitive impairment. The diagnosis is usually confirmed through identification of an increased CAG repeat length in the huntingtin gene in a patient with clinical features of the condition. Though diagnosis is usually straightforward, unusual presentations can occur, and it can be difficult to know when someone has transitioned from being an asymptomatic carrier into the disease state. This has become increasingly important recently, with several putative disease-modifying therapies entering trials. A growing number of conditions can mimic HD, including rare genetic causes, which must be considered in the event of a negative HD genetic test. Patients are best managed in specialist multidisciplinary clinics, including when considering genetic testing. Current treatments are symptomatic, and largely directed at the chorea and neurobehavioural problems, although supporting trial evidence for these is often limited