Prediction of the Gene Expression in Normal Lung Tissue by the Gene Expression in Blood

Background: Comparative analysis of gene expression in human tissues is important for understanding the molecular mechanisms underlying tissue-specific control of gene expression. It can also open an avenue for using gene expression in blood (which is the most easily accessible human tissue) to predict gene expression in other (less accessible) tissues, which would facilitate the development of novel gene expression based models for assessing disease risk and progression. Until recently, direct comparative analysis across different tissues was not possible due to the scarcity of paired tissue samples from the same individuals. Methods: In this study we used paired whole blood/lung gene expression data from the Genotype-Tissue Expression (GTEx) project. We built a generalized linear regression model for each gene using gene expression in lung as the outcome and gene expression in blood, age and gender as predictors. Results: For ~18 % of the genes, gene expression in blood was a significant predictor of gene expression in lung. We found that the number of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) influencing expression of a given gene in either blood or lung, also known as the number of quantitative trait loci (eQTLs), was positively associated with efficacy of blood-based prediction of that gene’s expression in lung. This association was strongest for shared eQTLs: those influencing gene expression in both blood and lung. Conclusions: In conclusion, for a considerable number of human genes, their expression levels in lung can be predicted using observable gene expression in blood. An abundance of shared eQTLs may explain the strong blood/lung correlations in the gene expression

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

Seven challenges for model-driven data collection in experimental and observational studies

Infectious disease models are both concise statements of hypotheses and powerful techniques for creating tools from hypotheses and theories. As such, they have tremendous potential for guiding data collection in experimental and observational studies, leading to more efficient testing of hypotheses and more robust study designs. In numerous instances, infectious disease models have played a key role in informing data collection, including the Garki project studying malaria, the response to the 2009 pandemic of H1N1 influenza in the United Kingdom and studies of T-cell immunodynamics in mammals. However, such synergies remain the exception rather than the rule; and a close marriage of dynamic modeling and empirical data collection is far from the norm in infectious disease research. Overcoming the challenges to using models to inform data collection has the potential to accelerate innovation and to improve practice in how we deal with infectious disease threats