Complex aetiology of an apparently Mendelian form of Mental Retardation

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Mental Retardation is a common heterogeneous neurodevelopment condition, which causes are still largely elusive. It has been suggested that half of the phenotypic variation of intelligence is explained by genetic variation. And genetic or inherited factors indeed account for most of the cases of mental retardation with an identifiable cause. However, only a few autosomal genes have been mapped and identified to date. In this report, the genetic causes for an apparently recessive form of mental retardation, in a large nordern swedish pedigree, are investigated.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>After extensive evaluation of the patients, which ruled out recognizable patterns of malformation and excluded known causes of MR, a comprehensive genome-wide linkage analysis, with 500 microsatellite markers, was performed in 24 members of this family. Additionally, a genome-wide copy number analysis, using an affimetrix 250 K SNP chip, was performed in this pedigree.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>No significant LOD score was found with either parametric and non-parametric linkage analysis. The highest scores are located at chromosomes 13, 15 and 17. Genome-wide copy number analysis identified no clear cause for the disorder; but rather, several variants were present in the family members, irrespective of their affected status.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These results suggest that mental retardation in this family, unlikely what was expected, has a heterogeneous aetiology; and that several lower effect genes variants might be involved. To demonstrate such effects, our family may be too small. This study also indicates that the ascertainment of the cause of MR may be challenging, and that a complex aetiology may be present even within a pedigree, constituting an additional obstacle for genetic counselling. Variants in genes involved in molecular mechanisms of cellular plasticity, in genes involved in the development of underlying neural architectures, and in genes involved in neurodevelopment and in the ongoing function of terminally differentiated neurons may underlie the phenotypic variation of intelligence and explain instances of intellectual impairment.</p

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