Association of Serum Brain-Derived Tau With Clinical Outcome and Longitudinal Change in Patients With Severe Traumatic Brain Injury

Importance: Blood-based measurements of total tau (T-tau) are commonly used to examine neuronal injury in patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI), but current assays do not differentiate between brain-derived tau (BD-tau) and tau produced in peripheral tissues. A novel assay for BD-tau has recently been reported that selectively quantifies nonphosphorylated tau of central nervous system origin in blood samples. Objectives: To examine the association of serum BD-tau with clinical outcomes in patients with severe TBI (sTBI) and its longitudinal changes over 1 year. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study was conducted at the neurointensive unit at the Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden, between September 1, 2006, and July 1, 2015. The study included 39 patients with sTBI followed up for up to 1 year. Statistical analysis was performed between October and November 2021. Exposures: Serum BD-tau, T-tau, phosphorylated tau231 (p-tau231), and neurofilament light chain (NfL) measured on days 0, 7, and 365 after injury. Main Outcomes and Measures: Associations of serum biomarkers with clinical outcome and longitudinal change in sTBI. Severity of sTBI was evaluated using the Glasgow Coma Scale at hospital admission, while clinical outcome was assessed with the Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) at 1-year follow-up. Participants were classified as having a favorable outcome (GOS score, 4-5) or unfavorable outcome (GOS score, 1-3). Results: Among the 39 patients (median age at admission, 36 years [IQR, 22-54 years]; 26 men [66.7%]) in the study on day 0, the mean (SD) serum BD-tau level was higher among patients with unfavorable outcomes vs those with favorable outcomes (191.4 [190.8] pg/mL vs 75.6 [60.3] pg/mL; mean difference, 115.9 pg/mL [95% CI, 25.7-206.1 pg/mL]), while the other markers had smaller between-group mean differences (serum T-tau, 60.3 pg/mL [95% CI, -22.0 to 142.7 pg/mL]; serum p-tau231, 8.3 pg/mL [95% CI, -6.4 to 23.0 pg/mL]; serum NfL, -5.4 pg/mL [95% CI, -99.0 to 88.3 pg/mL]). Similar results were recorded on day 7. Longitudinally, baseline serum BD-tau concentrations showed slower decreases in the whole cohort (42.2% on day 7 [from 138.6 to 80.1 pg/mL] and 93.0% on day 365 [from 138.6 to 9.7 pg/mL]) compared with serum T-tau (81.5% on day 7 [from 57.3 to 10.6 pg/mL] and 99.0% on day 365 [from 57.3 to 0.6 pg/mL]) and p-tau231 (92.5% on day 7 [from 20.1 to 1.5 pg/mL] and 95.0% on day 365 [from 20.1 to 1.0 pg/mL]). These results did not change when considering clinical outcome, where T-tau decreased twice as fast as BD-tau in both groups. Similar results were obtained for p-tau231. Furthermore, the biomarker levels on day 365 were lower, compared with day 7, for BD-tau but not T-tau or p-tau231. Serum NfL had a different trajectory to the tau biomarkers, with levels increasing by 255.9% on day 7 compared with day 0 (from 86.8 to 308.9 pg/mL) but decreasing by 97.0% by day 365 vs day 7 (from 308.9 to 9.2 pg/mL). Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that serum BD-tau, T-tau, and p-tau231 have differential associations with clinical outcome and 1-year longitudinal change in patients with sTBI. Serum BD-tau demonstrated utility as a biomarker to monitor outcomes in sTBI and can provide valuable information regarding acute neuronal damage

The role of healthcare professionals in encouraging parents to see and hold their stillborn baby: a meta-synthesis of qualitative studies.

Background: Globally, during 2013 there were three million recorded stillbirths. Where clinical guidelines exist some recommend that professionals do not encourage parental contact. The guidance is based on quantitative evidence that seeing and holding the baby is not beneficial for everyone, but has been challenged by bereaved parents' organisations. We aim to inform future guideline development through a synthesis of qualitative studies reporting data relevant to the research question; how does the approach of healthcare professionals to seeing and holding the baby following stillbirth impact parents views and experiences? Methods/Findings: Using a predetermined search strategy of PubMed and PsychINFO we identified robust qualitative studies reporting bereaved parental views and/or experiences relating to seeing and holding their stillborn baby (final search 24 February, 2014). Eligible studies were English language, reporting parental views, with gestational loss >20weeks. Quality was independently assessed by three authors using a validated tool. We used meta-ethnographic techniques to identify key themes and a line of argument synthesis. We included 12 papers, representing the views of 333 parents (156 mothers, 150 fathers, and 27 couples) from six countries. The final themes were: "[Still]birth: Nature of care is paramount", "Real babies: Perfect beauties, monsters and spectres", and "Opportunity of a lifetime lost." Our line-of-argument synthesis highlights the contrast between all parents need to know their baby, with the time around birth being the only time memories can be made, and the variable ability that parents have to articulate their preferences at that time. Thus, we hypothesised that how health professionals approach contact between parents and their stillborn baby demands a degree of active management. An important limitation of this paper is all included studies originated from high income, westernised countries raising questions about the findings transferability to other cultural contexts. We do not offer new evidence to answer the question "Should parents see and hold their stillborn baby?", instead our findings advance understanding of how professionals can support parents to make appropriate decisions in a novel, highly charged and dynamic situation. Conclusions: Guidelines could be more specific in their recommendations regarding parental contact. The role of healthcare professionals in encouraging parents to see and hold their stillborn baby is paramount. Parental choice not to see their baby, apprehension, or uncertainty should be continuously revisited in the hours after birth as the opportunity for contact is fleeting and final

Genomic epidemiology of a protracted hospital outbreak caused by multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii in Birmingham, England

BACKGROUND: Multidrug-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii commonly causes hospital outbreaks. However, within an outbreak, it can be difficult to identify the routes of cross-infection rapidly and accurately enough to inform infection control. Here, we describe a protracted hospital outbreak of multidrug-resistant A. baumannii, in which whole-genome sequencing (WGS) was used to obtain a high-resolution view of the relationships between isolates. METHODS: To delineate and investigate the outbreak, we attempted to genome-sequence 114 isolates that had been assigned to the A. baumannii complex by the Vitek2 system and obtained informative draft genome sequences from 102 of them. Genomes were mapped against an outbreak reference sequence to identify single nucleotide variants (SNVs). RESULTS: We found that the pulsotype 27 outbreak strain was distinct from all other genome-sequenced strains. Seventy-four isolates from 49 patients could be assigned to the pulsotype 27 outbreak on the basis of genomic similarity, while WGS allowed 18 isolates to be ruled out of the outbreak. Among the pulsotype 27 outbreak isolates, we identified 31 SNVs and seven major genotypic clusters. In two patients, we documented within-host diversity, including mixtures of unrelated strains and within-strain clouds of SNV diversity. By combining WGS and epidemiological data, we reconstructed potential transmission events that linked all but 10 of the patients and confirmed links between clinical and environmental isolates. Identification of a contaminated bed and a burns theatre as sources of transmission led to enhanced environmental decontamination procedures. CONCLUSIONS: WGS is now poised to make an impact on hospital infection prevention and control, delivering cost-effective identification of routes of infection within a clinically relevant timeframe and allowing infection control teams to track, and even prevent, the spread of drug-resistant hospital pathogens

Resistance to chemotherapy: new treatments and novel insights into an old problem

Resistance to cancer chemotherapeutic treatment is a common phenomenon, especially in progressive disease. The generation of cellular models of drug resistance has been pivotal in unravelling the main effectors of resistance to traditional chemotherapy at the molecular level (i.e. intracellular drug inactivation, detoxifying systems, defects in DNA repair, apoptosis evasion, membrane transporters and cell adhesion). The development of targeted therapies has also been followed by resistance, reminiscent of an evolutionary arms race, as exemplified by imatinib and other BCR-ABL inhibitors for the treatment of chronic myelogenous leukaemia. Although traditionally associated with the last stages of the disease, recent findings with minimally transformed pretumorigenic primary human cells indicate that the ability to generate drug resistance arises early during the tumorigenic process, before the full transformation. Novel technologies, such as genome profiling, have in certain cases predicted the outcome of chemotherapy and undoubtedly have tremendous potential for the future. In addition, the novel cancer stem cell paradigm raises the prospect of cell-targeted therapies instead of treatment directed against the whole tumour

Meta-analysis of genetic association with diagnosed Alzheimer’s disease identifies novel risk loci and implicates Abeta, Tau, immunity and lipid processing

Introduction Late-onset Alzheimer’s disease (LOAD, onset age > 60 years) is the most prevalent dementia in the elderly 1 , and risk is partially driven by genetics 2 . Many of the loci responsible for this genetic risk were identified by genome-wide association studies (GWAS) 3–8 . To identify additional LOAD risk loci, the we performed the largest GWAS to date (89,769 individuals), analyzing both common and rare variants. We confirm 20 previous LOAD risk loci and identify four new genome-wide loci ( IQCK , ACE , ADAM10 , and ADAMTS1 ). Pathway analysis of these data implicates the immune system and lipid metabolism, and for the first time tau binding proteins and APP metabolism. These findings show that genetic variants affecting APP and Aβ processing are not only associated with early-onset autosomal dominant AD but also with LOAD. Analysis of AD risk genes and pathways show enrichment for rare variants ( P = 1.32 × 10 −7 ) indicating that additional rare variants remain to be identified.ADGC. The National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging (NIH-NIA) supported this work through the following grants: ADGC, U01 AG032984, RC2 AG036528; Samples from the National Cell Repository for Alzheimer’s Disease (NCRAD), which receives government support under a cooperative agreement grant (U24 AG21886) awarded by the National Institute on Aging (NIA), were used in this study. We thank contributors who collected samples used in this study, as well as patients and their families, whose help and participation made this work possible; Data for this study were prepared, archived, and distributed by the National Institute on Aging Alzheimer’s Disease Data Storage Site (NIAGADS) at the University of Pennsylvania (U24-AG041689-01); NACC, U01 AG016976; NIA LOAD (Columbia University), U24 AG026395, U24 AG026390, R01AG041797; Banner Sun Health Research Institute P30 AG019610; Boston University, P30 AG013846, U01 AG10483, R01 CA129769, R01 MH080295, R01 AG017173, R01 AG025259, R01 AG048927, R01AG33193, R01 AG009029; Columbia University, P50 AG008702, R37 AG015473, R01 AG037212, R01 AG028786; Duke University, P30 AG028377, AG05128; Emory University, AG025688; Group Health Research Institute, UO1 AG006781, UO1 HG004610, UO1 HG006375, U01 HG008657; Indiana University, P30 AG10133, R01 AG009956, RC2 AG036650; Johns Hopkins University, P50 AG005146, R01 AG020688; Massachusetts General Hospital, P50 AG005134; Mayo Clinic, P50 AG016574, R01 AG032990, KL2 RR024151; Mount Sinai School of Medicine, P50 AG005138, P01 AG002219; New York University, P30 AG08051, UL1 RR029893, 5R01AG012101, 5R01AG022374, 5R01AG013616, 1RC2AG036502, 1R01AG035137; North Carolina A&T University, P20 MD000546, R01 AG28786-01A1; Northwestern University, P30 AG013854; Oregon Health & Science University, P30 AG008017, R01 AG026916; Rush University, P30 AG010161, R01 AG019085, R01 AG15819, R01 AG17917, R01 AG030146, R01 AG01101, RC2 AG036650, R01 AG22018; TGen, R01 NS059873; University of Alabama at Birmingham, P50 AG016582; University of Arizona, R01 AG031581; University of California, Davis, P30 AG010129; University of California, Irvine, P50 AG016573; University of California, Los Angeles, P50 AG016570; University of California, San Diego, P50 AG005131; University of California, San Francisco, P50 AG023501, P01 AG019724; University of Kentucky, P30 AG028383, AG05144; University of Michigan, P50 AG008671; University of Pennsylvania, P30 AG010124; University of Pittsburgh, P50 AG005133, AG030653, AG041718, AG07562, AG02365; University of Southern California, P50 AG005142; University of Texas Southwestern, P30 AG012300; University of Miami, R01 AG027944, AG010491, AG027944, AG021547, AG019757; University of Washington, P50 AG005136, R01 AG042437; University of Wisconsin, P50 AG033514; Vanderbilt University, R01 AG019085; and Washington University, P50 AG005681, P01 AG03991, P01 AG026276. The Kathleen Price Bryan Brain Bank at Duke University Medical Center is funded by NINDS grant # NS39764, NIMH MH60451 and by Glaxo Smith Kline. Support was also from the Alzheimer’s Association (LAF, IIRG-08-89720; MP-V, IIRG-05-14147), the US Department of Veterans Affairs Administration, Office of Research and Development, Biomedical Laboratory Research Program, and BrightFocus Foundation (MP-V, A2111048). P.S.G.-H. is supported by Wellcome Trust, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and the Canadian Institute of Health Research. Genotyping of the TGEN2 cohort was supported by Kronos Science. The TGen series was also funded by NIA grant AG041232 to AJM and MJH, The Banner Alzheimer’s Foundation, The Johnnie B. Byrd Sr. Alzheimer’s Institute, the Medical Research Council, and the state of Arizona and also includes samples from the following sites: Newcastle Brain Tissue Resource (funding via the Medical Research Council, local NHS trusts and Newcastle University), MRC London Brain Bank for Neurodegenerative Diseases (funding via the Medical Research Council),South West Dementia Brain Bank (funding via numerous sources including the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE), Alzheimer’s Research Trust (ART), BRACE as well as North Bristol NHS Trust Research and Innovation Department and DeNDRoN), The Netherlands Brain Bank (funding via numerous sources including Stichting MS Research, Brain Net Europe, Hersenstichting Nederland Breinbrekend Werk, International Parkinson Fonds, Internationale Stiching Alzheimer Onderzoek), Institut de Neuropatologia, Servei Anatomia Patologica, Universitat de Barcelona. ADNI data collection and sharing was funded by the National Institutes of Health Grant U01 AG024904 and Department of Defense award number W81XWH-12-2-0012. ADNI is funded by the National Institute on Aging, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, and through generous contributions from the following: AbbVie, Alzheimer’s Association; Alzheimer’s Drug Discovery Foundation; Araclon Biotech; BioClinica, Inc.; Biogen; Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; CereSpir, Inc.; Eisai Inc.; Elan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Eli Lilly and Company; EuroImmun; F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd and its affiliated company Genentech, Inc.; Fujirebio; GE Healthcare; IXICO Ltd.; Janssen Alzheimer Immunotherapy Research & Development, LLC.; Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development LLC.; Lumosity; Lundbeck; Merck & Co., Inc.; Meso Scale Diagnostics, LLC.; NeuroRx Research; Neurotrack Technologies; Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Pfizer Inc.; Piramal Imaging; Servier; Takeda Pharmaceutical Company; and Transition Therapeutics. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research is providing funds to support ADNI clinical sites in Canada. Private sector contributions are facilitated by the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (www.fnih.org). The grantee organization is the Northern California Institute for Research and Education, and the study is coordinated by the Alzheimer's Disease Cooperative Study at the University of California, San Diego. ADNI data are disseminated by the Laboratory for Neuro Imaging at the University of Southern California. We thank Drs. D. Stephen Snyder and Marilyn Miller from NIA who are ex-officio ADGC members. EADI. This work has been developed and supported by the LABEX (laboratory of excellence program investment for the future) DISTALZ grant (Development of Innovative Strategies for a Transdisciplinary approach to ALZheimer’s disease) including funding from MEL (Metropole européenne de Lille), ERDF (European Regional Development Fund) and Conseil Régional Nord Pas de Calais. This work was supported by INSERM, the National Foundation for Alzheimer’s disease and related disorders, the Institut Pasteur de Lille and the Centre National de Génotypage, the JPND PERADES, GENMED, and the FP7 AgedBrainSysBio. The Three-City Study was performed as part of collaboration between the Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale (Inserm), the Victor Segalen Bordeaux II University and Sanofi- Synthélabo. The Fondation pour la Recherche Médicale funded the preparation and initiation of the study. The 3C Study was also funded by the Caisse Nationale Maladie des Travailleurs Salariés, Direction Générale de la Santé, MGEN, Institut de la Longévité, Agence Française de Sécurité Sanitaire des Produits de Santé, the Aquitaine and Bourgogne Regional Councils, Agence Nationale de la Recherche, ANR supported the COGINUT and COVADIS projects. Fondation de France and the joint French Ministry of Research/INSERM “Cohortes et collections de données biologiques” programme. Lille Génopôle received an unconditional grant from Eisai. The Three-city biological bank was developed and maintained by the laboratory for genomic analysis LAG-BRC - Institut Pasteur de Lille. This work was further supported by the CoSTREAM project (http://www.costream.eu/) and funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program under grant agreement 667375. Belgium samples: Research at the Antwerp site is funded in part by the Belgian Science Policy Office Interuniversity Attraction Poles program, the Belgian Alzheimer Research Foundation, the Flemish government-initiated Flanders Impulse Program on Networks for Dementia Research (VIND) and the Methusalem excellence program, the Research Foundation Flanders (FWO), and the University of Antwerp Research Fund, Belgium. The Antwerp site authors thank the personnel of the VIB Neuromics Support Facility, the Biobank of the Institute Born-Bunge and neurology departments at the contributing hospitals. The authors acknowledge the members of the BELNEU consortium for their contributions to the clinical and pathological characterization of Belgium patients and the personnel of the Diagnostic Service Facility for the genetic testing. Finish sample collection: Financial support for this project was provided by Academy of Finland (grant number 307866), Sigrid Jusélius Foundation and the Strategic Neuroscience Funding of the University of Eastern Finland. Swedish sample collection: Financially supported in part by the Swedish Brain Power network, the Marianne and Marcus Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Research Council (521-2010-3134, 2015-02926), the King Gustaf V and Queen Victoria’s Foundation of Freemasons, the Regional Agreement on Medical Training and Clinical Research (ALF) between Stockholm County Council and the Karolinska Institutet, the Swedish Brain Foundation and the Swedish Alzheimer Foundation”. CHARGE. Infrastructure for the CHARGE Consortium is supported in part by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute grant HL105756 (Psaty) and RC2HL102419 (Boerwinkle) and the neurology working group by grants from the National Institute on Aging, R01 AG033193, U01 AG049505 and U01AG52409. Rotterdam (RS). This study was funded by the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW) as part of the Joint Programming for Neurological Disease (JPND)as part of the PERADES Program (Defining Genetic Polygenic, and Environmental Risk for Alzheimer’s disease using multiple powerful cohorts, focused Epigenetics and Stem cell metabolomics), Project number 733051021. This work was funded also by the European Union Innovative Medicine Initiative (IMI) programme under grant agreement No. 115975 as part of the Alzheimer’s Disease Apolipoprotein Pathology for Treatment Elucidation and Development (ADAPTED, https://www.imi-adapted.eu);and the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme as part of the Common mechanisms and pathways in Stroke and Alzheimer’s disease CoSTREAM project (www.costream.eu, grant agreement No. 667375). The current study is supported by the Deltaplan Dementie and Memorabel supported by ZonMW (Project number 733050814) and Alzheimer Nederland. The Rotterdam Study is funded by Erasmus Medical Center and Erasmus University, Rotterdam, Netherlands Organization for the Health Research and Development (ZonMw), the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly (RIDE), the Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, the Ministry for Health, Welfare and Sports, the European Commission (DG XII), and the Municipality of Rotterdam. The authors are grateful to the study participants, the staff from the Rotterdam Study and the participating general practitioners and pharmacists. The generation and management of GWAS genotype data for the Rotterdam Study (RS-I, RS-II, RS-III) was executed by the Human Genotyping Facility of the Genetic Laboratory of the Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. The GWAS datasets are supported by the Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research NWO Investments (Project number 175.010.2005.011, 911-03-012), the Genetic Laboratory of the Department of Internal Medicine, Erasmus MC, the Research Institute for Diseases in the Elderly (014-93-015; RIDE2), the Netherlands Genomics Initiative (NGI)/Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) Netherlands Consortium for Healthy Aging (NCHA), project number 050-060-810. We thank Pascal Arp, Mila Jhamai, Marijn Verkerk, Lizbeth Herrera and Marjolein Peters, MSc, and Carolina Medina-Gomez, MSc, for their help in creating the GWAS database, and Karol Estrada, PhD, Yurii Aulchenko, PhD, and Carolina Medina-Gomez, MSc, for the creation and analysis of imputed data. AGES. The AGES study has been funded by NIA contracts N01-AG-12100 and HHSN271201200022C with contributions from NEI, NIDCD, and NHLBI, the NIA Intramural Research Program, Hjartavernd (the Icelandic Heart Association), and the Althingi (the Icelandic Parliament). Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS). This research was supported by contracts HHSN268201200036C, HHSN268200800007C, N01HC55222, N01HC85079, N01HC85080, N01HC85081, N01HC85082, N01HC85083, and N01HC85086 and grant U01HL080295 and U01HL130114 from the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), with additional contribution from the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Additional support was provided by R01AG033193, R01AG023629, R01AG15928, and R01AG20098 and by U01AG049505 from the National Institute on Aging (NIA). The provision of genotyping data was supported in part by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, CTSI grant UL1TR000124, and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Disease Diabetes Research Center (DRC) grant DK063491 to the Southern California Diabetes Endocrinology Research Center. A full list of CHS principal investigators and institutions can be found at https://chs-nhlbi.org/. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the US National Institutes of Health. Framingham Heart Study. This work was supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's Framingham Heart Study (contracts N01-HC-25195 and HHSN268201500001I). This study was also supported by grants from the National Institute on Aging: R01AG033193, U01AG049505, U01AG52409, R01AG054076 (S. Seshadri). S. Seshadri and A.L.D. were also supported by additional grants from the National Institute on Aging (R01AG049607, R01AG033040) and the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01- NS017950, NS100605). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the US National Institutes of Health. GR@ACE cohort. Fundació ACE We would like to thank patients and controls who participated in this project. Genome Resesarch @ Fundació ACE project (GR@ACE) is supported by Fundación bancaria “La Caixa”, Grifols SA, Fundació ACE and ISCIII. We also want to thank other private sponsors supporting the basic and clinical projects of our institution (Piramal AG, Laboratorios Echevarne, Araclon Biotech S.A. and Fundació ACE). We are indebted to Trinitat Port-Carbó legacy and her family for their support of Fundació ACE research programs. Fundació ACE collaborates with the Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red sobreEnfermedades Neurodegenerativas (CIBERNED, Spain) and is one of the participating centers of the Dementia Genetics Spanish Consortium (DEGESCO). A.R. and M.B. are receiving support from the European Union/EFPIA Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking ADAPTED and MOPEAD projects (Grants No. 115975 and 115985 respectively). M.B. and A.R. are also supported by national grants PI13/02434, PI16/01861 and PI17/01474. Acción Estratégica en Salud integrated in the Spanish National R + D + I Plan and funded by ISCIII (Instituto de Salud Carlos III)-Subdirección General de Evaluación and the Fondo Europeo de Desarrollo Regional (FEDER- “Una manera de Hacer Europa”). Control samples and data from patients included in this study were provided in part by the National DNA Bank Carlos III (www.bancoadn.org, University of Salamanca, Spain) and Hospital Universitario Virgen de Valme (Sevilla, Spain) and they were processed following standard operating procedures with the appropriate approval of the Ethical and Scientific Committee. GERAD/PERADES. We thank all individuals who participated in this study. Cardiff University was supported by the Wellcome Trust, Alzheimer’s Society (AS; grant RF014/164), the Medical Research Council (MRC; grants G0801418/1, MR/K013041/1, MR/L023784/1), the European Joint Programme for Neurodegenerative Disease (JPND, grant MR/L501517/1), Alzheimer’s Research UK (ARUK, grant ARUK-PG2014-1), Welsh Assembly Government (grant SGR544:CADR), a donation from the Moondance Charitable Foundation, and the UK Dementia Research Institute at Cardiff. Cambridge University acknowledges support from the MRC. ARUK supported sample collections at the Kings College London, the South West Dementia Bank, Universities of Cambridge, Nottingham, Manchester and Belfast. King’s College London was supported by the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health and Biomedical Research Unit for Dementia at the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Kings College London and the MRC. Alzheimer’s Research UK (ARUK) and the Big Lottery Fund provided support to Nottingham University. Ulster Garden Villages, AS, ARUK, American Federation for Aging Research, NI R&D Office and the Royal College of Physicians/Dunhill Medical Trust provided support for Queen’s University, Belfast. The University of Southampton acknowledges support from the AS. The MRC and Mercer’s Institute for Research on Ageing supported the Trinity College group. DCR is a Wellcome Trust Principal Research fellow. The South West Dementia Brain Bank acknowledges support from Bristol Research into Alzheimer’s and Care of the Elderly. The Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust supported the OPTIMA group. Washington University was funded by NIH grants, Barnes Jewish Foundation and the Charles and Joanne Knight Alzheimer’s Research Initiative. Patient recruitment for the MRC Prion Unit/UCL Department of Neurodegenerative Disease collection was supported by the UCLH/UCL Biomed- ical Centre and their work was supported by the NIHR Queen Square Dementia BRU. LASER-AD was funded by Lundbeck SA. The Bonn group would like to thank Dr. Heike Koelsch for her scientific support. The Bonn group was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF): Competence Network Dementia (CND) grant number 01GI0102, 01GI0711, 01GI0420. The AgeCoDe study group was supported by the German Federal Ministry for Education and Research grants 01 GI 0710, 01 GI 0712, 01 GI 0713, 01 GI 0714, 01 GI 0715, 01 GI 0716, 01 GI 0717. Genotyping of the Bonn case-control sample was funded by the German centre for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE), Germany. The GERAD Consortium also used samples ascertained by the NIMH AD Genetics Initiative. HH was supported by a grant of the Katharina-Hardt-Foundation, Bad Homburg vor der Höhe, Germany. The KORA F4 studies were financed by Helmholtz Zentrum München; German Research Center for Environmental Health; BMBF; German National Genome Research Network and the Munich Center of Health Sciences. The Heinz Nixdorf Recall cohort was funded by the Heinz Nixdorf Foundation (Dr. Jur. G.Schmidt, Chairman) and BMBF. Coriell Cell Repositories is supported by NINDS and the Intramural Research Program of the National Institute on Aging. We acknowledge use of genotype data from the 1958 Birth Cohort collection, funded by the MRC and the Wellcome Trust which was genotyped by the Wellcome Trust Case Control Consortium and the Type-1 Diabetes Genetics Consortium, sponsored by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Human Genome Research Institute, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation International. The Bonn samples are part of the German Dementia Competance Network (DCN) and the German Research Network on Degenerative Dementia (KNDD), which are funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (grants KND: 01G10102, 01GI0420, 01GI0422, 01GI0423, 01GI0429, 01GI0431, 01GI0433, 04GI0434; grants KNDD: 01GI1007A, 01GI0710, 01GI0711, 01GI0712, 01GI0713, 01GI0714, 01GI0715, 01GI0716, 01ET1006B). Markus M Nothen is a member of the German Research Foundation (DFG) cluster of excellence ImmunoSensation. Funding for Saarland University was provided by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF), grant number 01GS08125 to Matthias Riemenschneider. The University of Washington was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (R01-NS085419 and R01-AG044546), the Alzheimer’s Association (NIRG-11-200110) and the American Federation for Aging Research (Carlos Cruchaga was recipient of a New Investigator Award in Alzhei

Determinants of recovery from post-COVID-19 dyspnoea: analysis of UK prospective cohorts of hospitalised COVID-19 patients and community-based controls

Background The risk factors for recovery from COVID-19 dyspnoea are poorly understood. We investigated determinants of recovery from dyspnoea in adults with COVID-19 and compared these to determinants of recovery from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea. Methods We used data from two prospective cohort studies: PHOSP-COVID (patients hospitalised between March 2020 and April 2021 with COVID-19) and COVIDENCE UK (community cohort studied over the same time period). PHOSP-COVID data were collected during hospitalisation and at 5-month and 1-year follow-up visits. COVIDENCE UK data were obtained through baseline and monthly online questionnaires. Dyspnoea was measured in both cohorts with the Medical Research Council Dyspnoea Scale. We used multivariable logistic regression to identify determinants associated with a reduction in dyspnoea between 5-month and 1-year follow-up. Findings We included 990 PHOSP-COVID and 3309 COVIDENCE UK participants. We observed higher odds of improvement between 5-month and 1-year follow-up among PHOSP-COVID participants who were younger (odds ratio 1.02 per year, 95% CI 1.01–1.03), male (1.54, 1.16–2.04), neither obese nor severely obese (1.82, 1.06–3.13 and 4.19, 2.14–8.19, respectively), had no pre-existing anxiety or depression (1.56, 1.09–2.22) or cardiovascular disease (1.33, 1.00–1.79), and shorter hospital admission (1.01 per day, 1.00–1.02). Similar associations were found in those recovering from non-COVID-19 dyspnoea, excluding age (and length of hospital admission). Interpretation Factors associated with dyspnoea recovery at 1-year post-discharge among patients hospitalised with COVID-19 were similar to those among community controls without COVID-19. Funding PHOSP-COVID is supported by a grant from the MRC-UK Research and Innovation and the Department of Health and Social Care through the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) rapid response panel to tackle COVID-19. The views expressed in the publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the National Health Service (NHS), the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care. COVIDENCE UK is supported by the UK Research and Innovation, the National Institute for Health Research, and Barts Charity. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the funders

Development and evaluation of CARIES-QC: a caries-specific measure of quality of life for children.

BACKGROUND: Existing paediatric oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) measures are generic instruments designed to evaluate a range of oral conditions. It has been found that disease-specific measures may be more adept at detecting subtle changes which occur following treatment of the condition in question. Furthermore, existing self-report OHRQoL measures have not involved children at all stages of development of the measure. The aim of this study was to develop a caries-specific measure of quality of life for children. METHODS: The first stage of the study involved a qualitative enquiry with children, aged 5-16 years, to inform the development of the measure. Children generated the potential items, contributed to item reduction and questionnaire design and participated in the testing of face and content validity. The resulting measure was evaluated in a cross-sectional validation study. Ethical approval was granted for the study. RESULTS: The qualitative study found that children discussed a number of caries-related impacts which affected their daily lives. These were incorporated into a draft measure which was further refined following testing of face and content validity. This resulted in the production of the Caries Impacts and Experiences Questionnaire for Children (CARIES-QC), comprising 16 items and one global question. Two hundred participants with a mean (range) age of 8.1 (5-16) years took part in the further evaluation of CARIES-QC. Four items, which did not fit the Rasch model, were removed from further analysis. The remaining 12 items demonstrated good internal consistency (alpha = 0.9) and the total score showed significant correlations with the number of decayed teeth, presence of pain, pulpal involvement, the Child Perceptions Questionnaire (16-item short form) and the global score (p < 0.01, Spearman's rho). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, children's input allowed the development of a valid and reliable child-centred caries-specific quality of life measure. CARIES-QC can now be used to evaluate which interventions for dental caries are most effective in reducing impacts from the child's perspective

Polygenic risk and hazard scores for Alzheimer's disease prediction

OBJECTIVE: Genome‐wide association studies (GWAS) have identified over 30 susceptibility loci associated with Alzheimer's disease (AD). Using AD GWAS data from the International Genomics of Alzheimer's Project (IGAP), Polygenic Risk Score (PRS) was successfully applied to predict life time risk of AD development. A recently introduced Polygenic Hazard Score (PHS) is able to quantify individuals with age‐specific genetic risk for AD. The aim of this study was to quantify the age‐specific genetic risk for AD with PRS and compare the results generated by PRS with those from PHS. // METHODS: Quantification of individual differences in age‐specific genetic risk for AD identified by the PRS, was performed with Cox Regression on 9903 (2626 cases and 7277 controls) individuals from the Genetic and Environmental Risk in Alzheimer's Disease consortium (GERAD). Polygenic Hazard Scores were generated for the same individuals. The age‐specific genetic risk for AD identified by the PRS was compared with that generated by the PHS. This was repeated using varying SNPs P‐value thresholds for disease association. // RESULTS: Polygenic Risk Score significantly predicted the risk associated with age at AD onset when SNPs were preselected for association to AD at P ≤ 0.001. The strongest effect (B = 0.28, SE = 0.04, P = 2.5 × 10−12) was observed for PRS based upon genome‐wide significant SNPs (P ≤ 5 × 10−8). The strength of association was weaker with less stringent SNP selection thresholds. // INTERPRETATION: Both PRS and PHS can be used to predict an age‐specific risk for developing AD. The PHS approach uses SNP effect sizes derived with the Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model. When SNPs were selected based upon AD GWAS case/control P ≤ 10−3, we found no advantage of using SNP effects sizes calculated with the Cox Proportional Hazard Regression model in our study. When SNPs are selected for association with AD risk at P > 10−3, the age‐specific risk prediction results are not significant for either PRS or PHS. However PHS could be more advantageous than PRS of age specific AD risk predictions when SNPs are prioritized for association with AD age at onset (i.e., powerful Cox Regression GWAS study)