O31 Integrative analysis reveals a molecular stratification of systemic autoimmune diseases

n/

A novel speech analysis algorithm to detect cognitive impairment in a Spanish population

Peer reviewed: TrueObjectiveEarly detection of cognitive impairment in the elderly is crucial for diagnosis and appropriate care. Brief, cost-effective cognitive screening instruments are needed to help identify individuals who require further evaluation. This study presents preliminary data on a new screening technology using automated voice recording analysis software in a Spanish population.MethodData were collected from 174 Spanish-speaking individuals clinically diagnosed as cognitively normal (CN, n = 87) or impaired (mild cognitive impairment [MCI], n = 63; all-cause dementia, n = 24). Participants were recorded performing four common language tasks (Animal fluency, alternating fluency [sports and fruits], phonemic “F” fluency, and Cookie Theft Description). Recordings were processed via text-transcription and digital-signal processing techniques to capture neuropsychological variables and audio characteristics. A training sample of 122 subjects with similar demographics across groups was used to develop an algorithm to detect cognitive impairment. Speech and task features were used to develop five independent machine learning (ML) models to compute scores between 0 and 1, and a final algorithm was constructed using repeated cross-validation. A socio-demographically balanced subset of 52 participants was used to test the algorithm. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), covarying for demographic characteristics, was used to predict logistically-transformed algorithm scores.ResultsMean logit algorithm scores were significantly different across groups in the testing sample (p &amp;lt; 0.01). Comparisons of CN with impaired (MCI + dementia) and MCI groups using the final algorithm resulted in an AUC of 0.93/0.90, with overall accuracy of 88.4%/87.5%, sensitivity of 87.5/83.3, and specificity of 89.2/89.2, respectively.ConclusionFindings provide initial support for the utility of this automated speech analysis algorithm as a screening tool for cognitive impairment in Spanish speakers. Additional study is needed to validate this technology in larger and more diverse clinical populations.</jats:sec

Vitamin D3 Supplementation Increases Spine Bone Mineral Density in Adolescents and Young Adults With Human Immunodeficiency Virus Infection Being Treated With Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

BackgroundTenofovir disoproxil fumarate (TDF) decreases bone mineral density (BMD). We hypothesized that vitamin D3 (VITD3) would increase BMD in youth receiving TDF.MethodsThis was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of directly observed VITD3 vs placebo every 4 weeks for 48 weeks in youth aged 16-24 years with HIV, RNA load &lt;200 copies/mL, taking TDF-containing combination antiretroviral therapy (TDF-cART) for ≥180 days. Participants (N = 214) received a daily multivitamin containing VITD3 400 IU and calcium 162 mg, plus monthly randomized VITD3 50000 IU (n = 109) or placebo (n = 105). Outcome was change from baseline to week 48 in lumbar spine BMD (LSBMD). Data presented are median (Q1, Q3).ResultsParticipants were aged 22.0 (21.0, 23.0) years, 84% were male, and 74% were black/African American. At baseline, 62% had 25-hydroxy vitamin D (25-OHD) &lt;20 ng/mL. Multivitamin adherence was 49% (29%, 69%), and VITD3/placebo adherence 100% (100%, 100%). Vitamin D intake was 2020 (1914, 2168) and 284 (179, 394) IU/day, and serum 25-OHD concentration was 36.9 (30.5, 42.4) and 20.6 (14.4, 25.8) ng/mL at 48 weeks in VITD3 and placebo groups, respectively (P &lt; .001). From baseline to week 48, LSBMD increased by 1.15% (-0.75% to 2.74%) in the VITD3 group (n = 99; P &lt; .001) and 0.09% (-1.49% to 2.61%) in the placebo group (n = 89; P = .25), without between-group difference (P = .12). VITD3 group changes occurred with baseline 25-OHD &lt;20 ng/mL (1.17% [-.82% to 2.90%]; P = .004) and ≥20 ng/mL (0.93% [-.26% to 2.15%]; P = .033).ConclusionsFor youth taking TDF-cART, LSBMD increased through 48 weeks with VITD3 plus multivitamin, but not with placebo plus multivitamin, independent of baseline vitamin D status.Clinical trials registrationNCT01751646

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Risk of COVID-19 after natural infection or vaccinationResearch in context

Summary: Background: While vaccines have established utility against COVID-19, phase 3 efficacy studies have generally not comprehensively evaluated protection provided by previous infection or hybrid immunity (previous infection plus vaccination). Individual patient data from US government-supported harmonized vaccine trials provide an unprecedented sample population to address this issue. We characterized the protective efficacy of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection and hybrid immunity against COVID-19 early in the pandemic over three-to six-month follow-up and compared with vaccine-associated protection. Methods: In this post-hoc cross-protocol analysis of the Moderna, AstraZeneca, Janssen, and Novavax COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, we allocated participants into four groups based on previous-infection status at enrolment and treatment: no previous infection/placebo; previous infection/placebo; no previous infection/vaccine; and previous infection/vaccine. The main outcome was RT-PCR-confirmed COVID-19 >7–15 days (per original protocols) after final study injection. We calculated crude and adjusted efficacy measures. Findings: Previous infection/placebo participants had a 92% decreased risk of future COVID-19 compared to no previous infection/placebo participants (overall hazard ratio [HR] ratio: 0.08; 95% CI: 0.05–0.13). Among single-dose Janssen participants, hybrid immunity conferred greater protection than vaccine alone (HR: 0.03; 95% CI: 0.01–0.10). Too few infections were observed to draw statistical inferences comparing hybrid immunity to vaccine alone for other trials. Vaccination, previous infection, and hybrid immunity all provided near-complete protection against severe disease. Interpretation: Previous infection, any hybrid immunity, and two-dose vaccination all provided substantial protection against symptomatic and severe COVID-19 through the early Delta period. Thus, as a surrogate for natural infection, vaccination remains the safest approach to protection. Funding: National Institutes of Health

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field