Sexual Orientation Disparities in BMI among US Adolescents and Young Adults in Three Race/Ethnicity Groups

Obesity is a key public health issue for US youth. Previous research with primarily white samples of youth has indicated that sexual minority females have higher body mass index (BMI) and sexual minority males have lower BMI than their same-gender heterosexual counterparts, with sexual orientation differences in males increasing across adolescence. This research explored whether gender and sexual orientation differences in BMI exist in nonwhite racial/ethnic groups. Using data from Waves I–IV (1995–2009) of the US National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (N = 13,306, ages 11–34 years), we examined associations between sexual orientation and BMI (kg/m2) over time, using longitudinal linear regression models, stratified by gender and race/ethnicity. Data were analyzed in 2013. Among males, heterosexual individuals showed greater one-year BMI gains than gay males across all race/ethnicity groups. Among females, white and Latina bisexual individuals had higher BMI than same-race/ethnicity heterosexual individuals regardless of age; there were no sexual orientation differences in black/African Americans. Sexual orientation disparities in BMI are a public health concern across race/ethnicity groups. Interventions addressing unhealthy weight gain in youth must be relevant for all sexual orientations and race/ethnicities

“Influence” In historical explanation: Mary morgan’s traveling facts and the context of influence

In my years as a student of Mary Morgan and later as her junior peer, I observed that one concept prompted her to react with caution and skepticism. That common notion was “influence.” In this chapter, I follow her cues to ask what are the legitimate grounds for claims of influence in historical explanation. Morgan’s writings have made us aware that the story of social science cannot be captured in simple reckonings of influence, and that long chains of actions are required to seat an idea in the mind, and longer still to set it to paper. My contribution to problematizing influence is to list the pitfalls of its uncritical use but also, once suitably redefined, its potential contribution to analysis. To illustrate my claims, I propose a test case, to study the “influence of Mary Morgan.

Deletion of the GABAA α2-subunit does not alter self dministration of cocaine or reinstatement of cocaine seeking

Rationale GABAA receptors containing α2-subunits are highly represented in brain areas that are involved in motivation and reward, and have been associated with addiction to several drugs, including cocaine. We have shown previously that a deletion of the α2-subunit results in an absence of sensitisation to cocaine. Objective We investigated the reinforcing properties of cocaine in GABAA α2-subunit knockout (KO) mice using an intravenous self-administration procedure. Methods α2-subunit wildtype (WT), heterozygous (HT) and KO mice were trained to lever press for a 30 % condensed milk solution. After implantation with a jugular catheter, mice were trained to lever press for cocaine (0.5 mg/kg/infusion) during ten daily sessions. Responding was extinguished and the mice tested for cue- and cocaine-primed reinstatement. Separate groups of mice were trained to respond for decreasing doses of cocaine (0.25, 0.125, 0.06 and 0.03 mg/kg). Results No differences were found in acquisition of lever pressing for milk. All genotypes acquired self-administration of cocaine and did not differ in rates of self-administration, dose dependency or reinstatement. However, whilst WT and HT mice showed a dose-dependent increase in lever pressing during the cue presentation, KO mice did not. Conclusions Despite a reported absence of sensitisation, motivation to obtain cocaine remains unchanged in KO and HT mice. Reinstatement of cocaine seeking by cocaine and cocaine-paired cues is also unaffected. We postulate that whilst not directly involved in reward perception, the α2-subunit may be involved in modulating the “energising” aspect of cocaine’s effects on reward-seeking

Development of a Prediction Model for COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Patients With Rheumatic Diseases: Results From the Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry

OBJECTIVE: Some patients with rheumatic diseases might be at higher risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to develop a prediction model for COVID-19 ARDS in this population and to create a simple risk score calculator for use in clinical settings. METHODS: Data were derived from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry from March 24, 2020, to May 12, 2021. Seven machine learning classifiers were trained on ARDS outcomes using 83 variables obtained at COVID-19 diagnosis. Predictive performance was assessed in a US test set and was validated in patients from four countries with independent registries using area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. A simple risk score calculator was developed using a regression model incorporating the most influential predictors from the best performing classifier. RESULTS: The study included 8633 patients from 74 countries, of whom 523 (6%) had ARDS. Gradient boosting had the highest mean AUC (0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.88) and was considered the top performing classifier. Ten predictors were identified as key risk factors and were included in a regression model. The regression model that predicted ARDS with 71% (95% CI: 61%-83%) sensitivity in the test set, and with sensitivities ranging from 61% to 80% in countries with independent registries, was used to develop the risk score calculator. CONCLUSION: We were able to predict ARDS with good sensitivity using information readily available at COVID-19 diagnosis. The proposed risk score calculator has the potential to guide risk stratification for treatments, such as monoclonal antibodies, that have potential to reduce COVID-19 disease progression

Association between Tumor Necrosis Factor Inhibitors and the Risk of Hospitalization or Death among Patients with Immune-Mediated Inflammatory Disease and COVID-19

Importance: Although tumor necrosis factor (TNF) inhibitors are widely prescribed globally because of their ability to ameliorate shared immune pathways across immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs), the impact of COVID-19 among individuals with IMIDs who are receiving TNF inhibitors remains insufficiently understood. Objective: To examine the association between the receipt of TNF inhibitor monotherapy and the risk of COVID-19-associated hospitalization or death compared with other commonly prescribed immunomodulatory treatment regimens among adult patients with IMIDs. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study was a pooled analysis of data from 3 international COVID-19 registries comprising individuals with rheumatic diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, and psoriasis from March 12, 2020, to February 1, 2021. Clinicians directly reported COVID-19 outcomes as well as demographic and clinical characteristics of individuals with IMIDs and confirmed or suspected COVID-19 using online data entry portals. Adults (age ≥18 years) with a diagnosis of inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, or psoriasis were included. Exposures: Treatment exposure categories included TNF inhibitor monotherapy (reference treatment), TNF inhibitors in combination with methotrexate therapy, TNF inhibitors in combination with azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine therapy, methotrexate monotherapy, azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine monotherapy, and Janus kinase (Jak) inhibitor monotherapy. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was COVID-19-associated hospitalization or death. Registry-level analyses and a pooled analysis of data across the 3 registries were conducted using multilevel multivariable logistic regression models, adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics and accounting for country, calendar month, and registry-level correlations. Results: A total of 6077 patients from 74 countries were included in the analyses; of those, 3215 individuals (52.9%) were from Europe, 3563 individuals (58.6%) were female, and the mean (SD) age was 48.8 (16.5) years. The most common IMID diagnoses were rheumatoid arthritis (2146 patients [35.3%]) and Crohn disease (1537 patients [25.3%]). A total of 1297 patients (21.3%) were hospitalized, and 189 patients (3.1%) died. In the pooled analysis, compared with patients who received TNF inhibitor monotherapy, higher odds of hospitalization or death were observed among those who received a TNF inhibitor in combination with azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine therapy (odds ratio [OR], 1.74; 95% CI, 1.17-2.58; P =.006), azathioprine/6-mercaptopurine monotherapy (OR, 1.84; 95% CI, 1.30-2.61; P =.001), methotrexate monotherapy (OR, 2.00; 95% CI, 1.57-2.56; P <.001), and Jak inhibitor monotherapy (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.21-2.73; P =.004) but not among those who received a TNF inhibitor in combination with methotrexate therapy (OR, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.85-1.63; P =.33). Similar findings were obtained in analyses that accounted for potential reporting bias and sensitivity analyses that excluded patients with a COVID-19 diagnosis based on symptoms alone. Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study, TNF inhibitor monotherapy was associated with a lower risk of adverse COVID-19 outcomes compared with other commonly prescribed immunomodulatory treatment regimens among individuals with IMIDs

Associations of baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs with COVID-19 severity in rheumatoid arthritis: Results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic (b/ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). METHODS: We analysed the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry (from 24 March 2020 to 12 April 2021). We investigated b/tsDMARD use for RA at the clinical onset of COVID-19 (baseline): abatacept (ABA), rituximab (RTX), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), interleukin 6 inhibitors (IL-6i) or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi, reference group). The ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome was (1) no hospitalisation, (2) hospitalisation without oxygen, (3) hospitalisation with oxygen/ventilation or (4) death. We used ordinal logistic regression to estimate the OR (odds of being one level higher on the ordinal outcome) for each drug class compared with TNFi, adjusting for potential baseline confounders. RESULTS: Of 2869 people with RA (mean age 56.7 years, 80.8% female) on b/tsDMARD at the onset of COVID-19, there were 237 on ABA, 364 on RTX, 317 on IL-6i, 563 on JAKi and 1388 on TNFi. Overall, 613 (21%) were hospitalised and 157 (5.5%) died. RTX (OR 4.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 5.44) and JAKi (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.65) were each associated with worse COVID-19 severity compared with TNFi. There were no associations between ABA or IL6i and COVID-19 severity. CONCLUSIONS: People with RA treated with RTX or JAKi had worse COVID-19 severity than those on TNFi. The strong association of RTX and JAKi use with poor COVID-19 outcomes highlights prioritisation of risk mitigation strategies for these people

Understanding the nature and mechanism of foot pain

Approximately one-quarter of the population are affected by foot pain at any given time. It is often disabling and can impair mood, behaviour, self-care ability and overall quality of life. Currently, the nature and mechanism underlying many types of foot pain is not clearly understood. Here we comprehensively review the literature on foot pain, with specific reference to its definition, prevalence, aetiology and predictors, classification, measurement and impact. We also discuss the complexities of foot pain as a sensory, emotional and psychosocial experience in the context of clinical practice, therapeutic trials and the placebo effect. A deeper understanding of foot pain is needed to identify causal pathways, classify diagnoses, quantify severity, evaluate long term implications and better target clinical intervention

Associations of baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic DMARDs with COVID-19 severity in rheumatoid arthritis : Results from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry

Funding Information: Competing interests JAS is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Funding Information: Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (grant numbers K23 AR069688, R03 AR075886, L30 AR066953, P30 AR070253 and P30 AR072577), the Rheumatology Research Foundation (K Supplement Award and R Bridge Award), the Brigham Research Institute, and the R Bruce and Joan M Mickey Research Scholar Fund. JAS has received research support from Amgen and Bristol-Myers Squibb and performed consultancy for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Gilead, Inova, Janssen and Optum, unrelated to this work. ZSW reports grant support from Bristol-Myers Squibb and Principia/ Sanofi and performed consultancy for Viela Bio and MedPace, outside the submitted work. His work is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health. MG is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (grant numbers K01 AR070585 and K24 AR074534; JY). KLH reports she has received speaker’s fees from AbbVie and grant income from BMS, UCB and Pfizer, all unrelated to this study. KLH is also supported by the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. LC has not received fees or personal grants from any laboratory, but her institute works by contract for laboratories such as, among other institutions, AbbVie Spain, Eisai, Gebro Pharma, Merck Sharp & Dohme España, Novartis Farmaceutica, Pfizer, Roche Farma, Sanofi Aventis, Astellas Pharma, Actelion Pharmaceuticals España, Grünenthal and UCB Pharma. LG reports research grants from Amgen, Galapagos, Janssen, Lilly, Pfizer, Sandoz and Sanofi; consulting fees from AbbVie, Amgen, BMS, Biogen, Celgene, Galapagos, Gilead, Janssen, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Sanofi Aventis and UCB, all unrelated to this study. EFM reports that LPCDR received support for specific activities: grants from AbbVie, Novartis, Janssen-Cilag, Lilly Portugal, Sanofi, Grünenthal, MSD, Celgene, Medac, Pharma Kern and GAfPA; grants and non-financial support from Pfizer; and non-financial support from Grünenthal, outside the submitted work. AS reports grants from a consortium of 13 companies (among them AbbVie, BMS, Celltrion, Fresenius Kabi, Lilly, Mylan, Hexal, MSD, Pfizer, Roche, Samsung, Sanofi Aventis and UCB) supporting the German RABBIT register, and personal fees from lectures for AbbVie, MSD, Roche, BMS and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. AD-G has no disclosures relevant to this study. His work is supported by grants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. KMD is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (T32-AR-007258) and the Rheumatology Research Foundation. NJP is supported by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (T32-AR-007258). PD has received research support from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Chugai and Pfizer, and performed consultancy for Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Lilly, Sanofi, Pfizer, Chugai, Roche and Janssen, unrelated to this work. NS is supported by the RRF Investigator Award and the American Heart Association. MFU-G reports grant support from Janssen and Pfizer. SB reports no competing interests related to this work. He reports non-branded consulting fees for AbbVie, Horizon, Novartis and Pfizer (all <$10 000). RG reports no competing interests related to this work. Outside of this work she reports personal and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and Cornerstones, and travel assistance from Pfizer (all <$10 000). JH reports no competing interests related to this work. He is supported by grants from the Rheumatology Research Foundation and the Childhood Arthritis and Rheumatology Research Alliance. He has performed consulting for Novartis, Sobi and Biogen, all unrelated to this work (<$10 000). JL has received research funding from Pfizer, outside the submitted work. ES is a Board Member of the Canadian Arthritis Patient Alliance, a patient-run, volunteer-based organisation whose activities are largely supported by independent grants from pharmaceutical companies. PS reports no competing interests related to this work. He reports honorarium for doing social media for American College of Rheumatology journals (<$10 000). PMM has received consulting/speaker’s fees from AbbVie, BMS, Celgene, Eli Lilly, Janssen, MSD, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche and UCB, all unrelated to this study (all <$10 000). PMM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) University College London Hospitals (UCLH) Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). PCR reports no competing interests related to this work. Outside of this work he reports personal consulting and/or speaking fees from AbbVie, Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis, Pfizer and UCB, and travel assistance from Roche (all <$10 000). JY reports no competing interests related to this work. Her work is supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. She has performed consulting for Eli Lilly and AstraZeneca, unrelated to this project. Publisher Copyright: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.Objective To investigate baseline use of biologic or targeted synthetic (b/ts) disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (DMARDs) and COVID-19 outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Methods We analysed the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance physician registry (from 24 March 2020 to 12 April 2021). We investigated b/tsDMARD use for RA at the clinical onset of COVID-19 (baseline): abatacept (ABA), rituximab (RTX), Janus kinase inhibitors (JAKi), interleukin 6 inhibitors (IL-6i) or tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi, reference group). The ordinal COVID-19 severity outcome was (1) no hospitalisation, (2) hospitalisation without oxygen, (3) hospitalisation with oxygen/ventilation or (4) death. We used ordinal logistic regression to estimate the OR (odds of being one level higher on the ordinal outcome) for each drug class compared with TNFi, adjusting for potential baseline confounders. Results Of 2869 people with RA (mean age 56.7 years, 80.8% female) on b/tsDMARD at the onset of COVID-19, there were 237 on ABA, 364 on RTX, 317 on IL-6i, 563 on JAKi and 1388 on TNFi. Overall, 613 (21%) were hospitalised and 157 (5.5%) died. RTX (OR 4.15, 95% CI 3.16 to 5.44) and JAKi (OR 2.06, 95% CI 1.60 to 2.65) were each associated with worse COVID-19 severity compared with TNFi. There were no associations between ABA or IL6i and COVID-19 severity. Conclusions People with RA treated with RTX or JAKi had worse COVID-19 severity than those on TNFi. The strong association of RTX and JAKi use with poor COVID-19 outcomes highlights prioritisation of risk mitigation strategies for these people.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Results From the Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry

Funding Information: We acknowledge financial support from the ACR and EULAR. The ACR and EULAR were not involved in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication. Publisher Copyright: © 2022 The Authors. ACR Open Rheumatology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American College of Rheumatology.Objective: Some patients with rheumatic diseases might be at higher risk for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to develop a prediction model for COVID-19 ARDS in this population and to create a simple risk score calculator for use in clinical settings. Methods: Data were derived from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance Registry from March 24, 2020, to May 12, 2021. Seven machine learning classifiers were trained on ARDS outcomes using 83 variables obtained at COVID-19 diagnosis. Predictive performance was assessed in a US test set and was validated in patients from four countries with independent registries using area under the curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity. A simple risk score calculator was developed using a regression model incorporating the most influential predictors from the best performing classifier. Results: The study included 8633 patients from 74 countries, of whom 523 (6%) had ARDS. Gradient boosting had the highest mean AUC (0.78; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.67-0.88) and was considered the top performing classifier. Ten predictors were identified as key risk factors and were included in a regression model. The regression model that predicted ARDS with 71% (95% CI: 61%-83%) sensitivity in the test set, and with sensitivities ranging from 61% to 80% in countries with independent registries, was used to develop the risk score calculator. Conclusion: We were able to predict ARDS with good sensitivity using information readily available at COVID-19 diagnosis. The proposed risk score calculator has the potential to guide risk stratification for treatments, such as monoclonal antibodies, that have potential to reduce COVID-19 disease progression.publishersversionepub_ahead_of_prin

The pharmacokinetics of the interstitial space in humans

BACKGROUND: The pharmacokinetics of extracellular solutes is determined by the blood-tissue exchange kinetics and the volume of distribution in the interstitial space in the different organs. This information can be used to develop a general physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model applicable to most extracellular solutes. METHODS: The human pharmacokinetic literature was surveyed to tabulate the steady state and equilibrium volume of distribution of the solutes mannitol, EDTA, morphine-6-glucuronide, morphine-3-glucuronide, inulin and β-lactam antibiotics with a range of protein binding (amoxicillin, piperacillin, cefatrizine, ceforanide, flucloxacillin, dicloxacillin). A PBPK data set was developed for extracellular solutes based on the literature for interstitial organ volumes. The program PKQuest was used to generate the PBPK model predictions. The pharmacokinetics of the protein (albumin) bound β-lactam antibiotics were characterized by two parameters: 1) the free fraction of the solute in plasma; 2) the interstitial albumin concentration. A new approach to estimating the capillary permeability is described, based on the pharmacokinetics of the highly protein bound antibiotics. RESULTS: About 42% of the total body water is extracellular. There is a large variation in the organ distribution of this water – varying from about 13% of total tissue water for skeletal muscle, up to 70% for skin and connective tissue. The weakly bound antibiotics have flow limited capillary-tissue exchange kinetics. The highly protein bound antibiotics have a significant capillary permeability limitation. The experimental pharmacokinetics of the 11 solutes is well described using the new PBPK data set and PKQuest. CONCLUSIONS: Only one adjustable parameter (systemic clearance) is required to completely characterize the PBPK for these extracellular solutes. Knowledge of just this systemic clearance allows one to predict the complete time course of the absolute drug concentrations in the major organs. PKQuest is freely available