Risk of COVID-19-related death among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or asthma prescribed inhaled corticosteroids: an observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform

BACKGROUND: Early descriptions of patients admitted to hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic showed a lower prevalence of asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) than would be expected for an acute respiratory disease like COVID-19, leading to speculation that inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) might protect against infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 or the development of serious sequelae. We assessed the association between ICS and COVID-19-related death among people with COPD or asthma using linked electronic health records (EHRs) in England, UK. METHODS: In this observational study, we analysed patient-level data for people with COPD or asthma from primary care EHRs linked with death data from the Office of National Statistics using the OpenSAFELY platform. The index date (start of follow-up) for both cohorts was March 1, 2020; follow-up lasted until May 6, 2020. For the COPD cohort, individuals were eligible if they were aged 35 years or older, had COPD, were a current or former smoker, and were prescribed an ICS or long-acting β agonist plus long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LABA-LAMA) as combination therapy within the 4 months before the index date. For the asthma cohort, individuals were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had been diagnosed with asthma within 3 years of the index date, and were prescribed an ICS or short-acting β agonist (SABA) only within the 4 months before the index date. We compared the outcome of COVID-19-related death between people prescribed an ICS and those prescribed alternative respiratory medications: ICSs versus LABA-LAMA for the COPD cohort, and low-dose or medium-dose and high-dose ICSs versus SABAs only in the asthma cohort. We used Cox regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for the association between exposure categories and the outcome in each population, adjusted for age, sex, and all other prespecified covariates. We calculated e-values to quantify the effect of unmeasured confounding on our results. FINDINGS: We identified 148 557 people with COPD and 818 490 people with asthma who were given relevant respiratory medications in the 4 months before the index date. People with COPD who were prescribed ICSs were at increased risk of COVID-19-related death compared with those prescribed LABA-LAMA combinations (adjusted HR 1·39 [95% CI 1·10-1·76]). Compared with those prescribed SABAs only, people with asthma who were prescribed high-dose ICS were at an increased risk of death (1·55 [1·10-2·18]), whereas those given a low or medium dose were not (1·14 [0·85-1·54]). Sensitivity analyses showed that the apparent harmful association we observed could be explained by relatively small health differences between people prescribed ICS and those not prescribed ICS that were not recorded in the database (e value lower 95% CI 1·43). INTERPRETATION: Our results do not support a major role for regular ICS use in protecting against COVID-19-related death among people with asthma or COPD. Observed increased risks of COVID-19-related death can be plausibly explained by unmeasured confounding due to disease severity. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council

Ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19-related hospitalisation, intensive care unit admission, and death in 17 million adults in England: an observational cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has disproportionately affected minority ethnic populations in the UK. Our aim was to quantify ethnic differences in SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 outcomes during the first and second waves of the COVID-19 pandemic in England. METHODS: We conducted an observational cohort study of adults (aged ≥18 years) registered with primary care practices in England for whom electronic health records were available through the OpenSAFELY platform, and who had at least 1 year of continuous registration at the start of each study period (Feb 1 to Aug 3, 2020 [wave 1], and Sept 1 to Dec 31, 2020 [wave 2]). Individual-level primary care data were linked to data from other sources on the outcomes of interest: SARS-CoV-2 testing and positive test results and COVID-19-related hospital admissions, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and death. The exposure was self-reported ethnicity as captured on the primary care record, grouped into five high-level census categories (White, South Asian, Black, other, and mixed) and 16 subcategories across these five categories, as well as an unknown ethnicity category. We used multivariable Cox regression to examine ethnic differences in the outcomes of interest. Models were adjusted for age, sex, deprivation, clinical factors and comorbidities, and household size, with stratification by geographical region. FINDINGS: Of 17 288 532 adults included in the study (excluding care home residents), 10 877 978 (62·9%) were White, 1 025 319 (5·9%) were South Asian, 340 912 (2·0%) were Black, 170 484 (1·0%) were of mixed ethnicity, 320 788 (1·9%) were of other ethnicity, and 4 553 051 (26·3%) were of unknown ethnicity. In wave 1, the likelihood of being tested for SARS-CoV-2 infection was slightly higher in the South Asian group (adjusted hazard ratio 1·08 [95% CI 1·07-1·09]), Black group (1·08 [1·06-1·09]), and mixed ethnicity group (1·04 [1·02-1·05]) and was decreased in the other ethnicity group (0·77 [0·76-0·78]) relative to the White group. The risk of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection was higher in the South Asian group (1·99 [1·94-2·04]), Black group (1·69 [1·62-1·77]), mixed ethnicity group (1·49 [1·39-1·59]), and other ethnicity group (1·20 [1·14-1·28]). Compared with the White group, the four remaining high-level ethnic groups had an increased risk of COVID-19-related hospitalisation (South Asian group 1·48 [1·41-1·55], Black group 1·78 [1·67-1·90], mixed ethnicity group 1·63 [1·45-1·83], other ethnicity group 1·54 [1·41-1·69]), COVID-19-related ICU admission (2·18 [1·92-2·48], 3·12 [2·65-3·67], 2·96 [2·26-3·87], 3·18 [2·58-3·93]), and death (1·26 [1·15-1·37], 1·51 [1·31-1·71], 1·41 [1·11-1·81], 1·22 [1·00-1·48]). In wave 2, the risks of hospitalisation, ICU admission, and death relative to the White group were increased in the South Asian group but attenuated for the Black group compared with these risks in wave 1. Disaggregation into 16 ethnicity groups showed important heterogeneity within the five broader categories. INTERPRETATION: Some minority ethnic populations in England have excess risks of testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 and of adverse COVID-19 outcomes compared with the White population, even after accounting for differences in sociodemographic, clinical, and household characteristics. Causes are likely to be multifactorial, and delineating the exact mechanisms is crucial. Tackling ethnic inequalities will require action across many fronts, including reducing structural inequalities, addressing barriers to equitable care, and improving uptake of testing and vaccination. FUNDING: Medical Research Council

Troglitazone suppresses telomerase activity independently of PPARγ in estrogen-receptor negative breast cancer cells

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Breast cancer is one the highest causes of female cancer death worldwide. Many standard chemotherapeutic agents currently used to treat breast cancer are relatively non-specific and act on all rapidly dividing cells. In recent years, more specific targeted therapies have been introduced. It is known that telomerase is active in over 90% of breast cancer tumors but inactive in adjacent normal tissues. The prevalence of active telomerase in breast cancer patients makes telomerase an attractive therapeutic target. Recent evidence suggests that telomerase activity can be suppressed by peroxisome proliferator activated receptor gamma (PPARγ). However, its effect on telomerase regulation in breast cancer has not been investigated.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>In this study, we investigated the effect of the PPARγ ligand, troglitazone, on telomerase activity in the MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cell line. Real time RT-PCR and telomerase activity assays were used to evaluate the effect of troglitazone. MDA-MB-231 cells had PPARγ expression silenced using shRNA interference.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We demonstrated that troglitazone reduced the mRNA expression of hTERT and telomerase activity in the MDA-MB-231 breast cancer cell line. Troglitazone reduced telomerase activity even in the absence of PPARγ. In agreement with this result, we found no correlation between PPARγ and hTERT mRNA transcript levels in breast cancer patients. Statistical significance was determined using Pearson correlation and the paired Student's <it>t </it>test.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>To our knowledge, this is the first time that the effect of troglitazone on telomerase activity in breast cancer cells has been investigated. Our data suggest that troglitazone may be used as an anti-telomerase agent; however, the mechanism underlying this inhibitory effect remains to be determined.</p

Characterization of the Fecal Microbiome from Non-Human Wild Primates Reveals Species Specific Microbial Communities

BACKGROUND: Host-associated microbes comprise an integral part of animal digestive systems and these interactions have a long evolutionary history. It has been hypothesized that the gastrointestinal microbiome of humans and other non-human primates may have played significant roles in host evolution by facilitating a range of dietary adaptations. We have undertaken a comparative sequencing survey of the gastrointestinal microbiomes of several non-human primate species, with the goal of better understanding how these microbiomes relate to the evolution of non-human primate diversity. Here we present a comparative analysis of gastrointestinal microbial communities from three different species of Old World wild monkeys. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We analyzed fecal samples from three different wild non-human primate species (black-and-white colobus [Colubus guereza], red colobus [Piliocolobus tephrosceles], and red-tailed guenon [Cercopithecus ascanius]). Three samples from each species were subjected to small subunit rRNA tag pyrosequencing. Firmicutes comprised the vast majority of the phyla in each sample. Other phyla represented were Bacterioidetes, Proteobacteria, Spirochaetes, Actinobacteria, Verrucomicrobia, Lentisphaerae, Tenericutes, Planctomycetes, Fibrobacateres, and TM7. Bray-Curtis similarity analysis of these microbiomes indicated that microbial community composition within the same primate species are more similar to each other than to those of different primate species. Comparison of fecal microbiota from non-human primates with microbiota of human stool samples obtained in previous studies revealed that the gut microbiota of these primates are distinct and reflect host phylogeny. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: Our analysis provides evidence that the fecal microbiomes of wild primates co-vary with their hosts, and that this is manifested in higher intraspecies similarity among wild primate species, perhaps reflecting species specificity of the microbiome in addition to dietary influences. These results contribute to the limited body of primate microbiome studies and provide a framework for comparative microbiome analysis between human and non-human primates as well as a comparative evolutionary understanding of the human microbiome