A simple method for co-segregation analysis to evaluate the pathogenicity of unclassified variants; BRCA1 and BRCA2 as an example

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the clinical significance of unclassified variants (UVs) identified in BRCA1 and BRCA2 is very important for genetic counselling. The analysis of co-segregation of the variant with the disease in families is a powerful tool for the classification of these variants. Statistical methods have been described in literature but these methods are not always easy to apply in a diagnostic setting. METHODS: We have developed an easy to use method which calculates the likelihood ratio (LR) of an UV being deleterious, with penetrance as a function of age of onset, thereby avoiding the use of liability classes. The application of this algorithm is publicly available http://www.msbi.nl/cosegregation. It can easily be used in a diagnostic setting since it requires only information on gender, genotype, present age and/or age of onset for breast and/or ovarian cancer. RESULTS: We have used the algorithm to calculate the likelihood ratio in favour of causality for 3 UVs in BRCA1 (p.M18T, p.S1655F and p.R1699Q) and 5 in BRCA2 (p.E462G p.Y2660D, p.R2784Q, p.R3052W and p.R3052Q). Likelihood ratios varied from 0.097 (BRCA2, p.E462G) to 230.69 (BRCA2, p.Y2660D). Typing distantly related individuals with extreme phenotypes (i.e. very early onset cancer or old healthy individuals) are most informative and give the strongest likelihood ratios for or against causality. CONCLUSION: Although co-segregation analysis on itself is in most cases insufficient to prove pathogenicity of an UV, this method simplifies the use of co-segregation as one of the key features in a multifactorial approach considerably

Effects of Once-Weekly Exenatide on Cardiovascular Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes.

Abstract BACKGROUND: The cardiovascular effects of adding once-weekly treatment with exenatide to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes are unknown. METHODS: We randomly assigned patients with type 2 diabetes, with or without previous cardiovascular disease, to receive subcutaneous injections of extended-release exenatide at a dose of 2 mg or matching placebo once weekly. The primary composite outcome was the first occurrence of death from cardiovascular causes, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or nonfatal stroke. The coprimary hypotheses were that exenatide, administered once weekly, would be noninferior to placebo with respect to safety and superior to placebo with respect to efficacy. RESULTS: In all, 14,752 patients (of whom 10,782 [73.1%] had previous cardiovascular disease) were followed for a median of 3.2 years (interquartile range, 2.2 to 4.4). A primary composite outcome event occurred in 839 of 7356 patients (11.4%; 3.7 events per 100 person-years) in the exenatide group and in 905 of 7396 patients (12.2%; 4.0 events per 100 person-years) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.00), with the intention-to-treat analysis indicating that exenatide, administered once weekly, was noninferior to placebo with respect to safety (P<0.001 for noninferiority) but was not superior to placebo with respect to efficacy (P=0.06 for superiority). The rates of death from cardiovascular causes, fatal or nonfatal myocardial infarction, fatal or nonfatal stroke, hospitalization for heart failure, and hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome, and the incidence of acute pancreatitis, pancreatic cancer, medullary thyroid carcinoma, and serious adverse events did not differ significantly between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes with or without previous cardiovascular disease, the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events did not differ significantly between patients who received exenatide and those who received placebo. (Funded by Amylin Pharmaceuticals; EXSCEL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01144338 .)

A non-BRCA1/2 hereditary breast cancer sub-group defined by aCGH profiling of genetically related patients

Item does not contain fulltextGermline mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 explain approximately 25% of all familial breast cancers. Despite intense efforts to find additional high-risk breast cancer genes (BRCAx) using linkage analysis, none have been reported thus far. Here we explore the hypothesis that BRCAx breast tumors from genetically related patients share a somatic genetic etiology that might be revealed by array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) profiling. As BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumors can be identified on the basis of specific genomic profiles, the same may be true for a subset of BRCAx families. Analyses used aCGH to compare 58 non-BRCA1/2 familial breast tumors (designated BRCAx) to sporadic (non-familiar) controls, BRCA1 and BRCA2 tumors. The selection criteria for BRCAx families included at least three cases of breast cancer diagnosed before the age of 60 in the family, and the absence of ovarian or male breast cancer. Hierarchical cluster analysis was performed to determine sub-groups within the BRCAx tumor class and family heterogeneity. Analysis of aCGH profiles of BRCAx tumors indicated that they constitute a heterogeneous class, but are distinct from both sporadic and BRCA1/2 tumors. The BRCAx class could be divided into sub-groups. One subgroup was characterized by a gain of chromosome 22. Tumors from family members were classified within the same sub-group in agreement with the hypothesis that tumors from the same family would harbor a similar genetic background. This approach provides a method to target a sub-group of BRCAx families for further linkage analysis studies

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors: a practical guide for the Dutch cardiologist based on real-world experience

Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors include a relatively new class of glucose-lowering drugs that reduce plasma glucose concentrations by inhibiting proximal tubular reabsorption of glucose in the kidney, while increasing its excretion in urine. Recent large randomised controlled trials have demonstrated that many of these agents reduce the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular events, hospitalisation for heart failure, cardiovascular death and/or chronic kidney disease progression in patients with and without type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM2). Given their unique insulin-independent mode of action and favourable efficacy and adverse-event profile, SGLT2 inhibitors are promising and they offer an interesting therapeutic approach for the cardiologist to incorporate into routine practice. However, despite accumulating data supporting this class of therapy, cardiologists infrequently prescribe SGLT2 inhibitors, potentially due to a lack of familiarity with their use and the reticence to change DM medication. Here, we provide an up-to-date practical guide highlighting important elements of treatment initiation based on real-world evidence and expert opinion. We describe how to change DM medication, including insulin dosing when appropriate, and how to anticipate any adverse events based on real-world experience in patients with DM2 in the Meander Medical Centre in Amersfoort, the Netherlands. This includes a simple algorithm showing how to initiate SGLT2 inhibitor treatment safely, while considering the consequence of the glucosuric effects of these inhibitors for the individual patient

The CHEK2*1100delC variant acts as a breast cancer risk modifier in non-BRCA1/BRCA2 multiple-case families.

Item does not contain fulltextThe frame-shifting mutation 1100delC in the cell-cycle-checkpoint kinase 2 gene (CHEK2) has been reported to be associated with familial breast cancer in families in which mutations in BRCA1 and BRCA2 were excluded. To investigate the role of this variant as a candidate breast cancer susceptibility allele, we determined its prevalence in 237 breast cancer patients and 331 healthy relatives derived from 71 non-BRCA1/BRCA2 multiple-case early onset breast cancer families. Twenty-seven patients (11.4%) were carrying the CHEK2*1100delC variant. At least one carrier was found in 15 of the 71 families (21.1%). There was no evidence of cosegregation between the variant and breast cancer, but carrier patients developed breast cancer earlier than did noncarriers. We studied CHEK2 protein expression in 111, and loss of heterozygosity at CHEK2 in 88 breast tumors from these patients. Twelve of 15 tumors from carriers showed absent protein expression as opposed to 3 of 76 tumors from noncarriers (P < 0.001). CHEK2 loss of heterozygosity was associated with absence of protein expression but not with 1100delC carrier status. Thus, selecting for breast cancer cases with a strong familial background not accounted for by BRCA1 or BRCA2 strongly enriches for carriers of CHEK2*1100delC. Our results support a model in which CHEK2*1100delC interacts with an as yet unknown gene (or genes) to increase breast cancer risk

A simple method for co-segregation analysis to evaluate the pathogenicity of unclassified variants; BRCA1 and BRCA2 as an example

Background: Assessment of the clinical significance of unclassified variants (UVs) identified in BRCA1 and BRCA2 is very important for genetic counselling. The analysis of co-segregation of the variant with the disease in families is a powerful tool for the classification of these variants. Statistical methods have been described in literature but these methods are not always easy to apply in a diagnostic setting. Methods: We have developed an easy to use method which calculates the likelihood ratio (LR) of an UV being deleterious, with penetrance as a function of age of onset, thereby avoiding the use of liability classes. The application of this algorithm is publicly available http://www.msbi.nl/cosegregation. It can easily be used in a diagnostic setting since it requires only information on gender, genotype, present age and/or age of onset for breast and/or ovarian cancer. Results: We have used the algorithm to calculate the likelihood ratio in favour of causality for 3 UVs in BRCA1 (p.M18T, p.S1655F and p.R1699Q) and 5 in BRCA2 (p.E462G p.Y2660D, p.R2784Q, p.R3052W and p.R3052Q). Likelihood ratios varied from 0.097 (BRCA2, p.E462G) to 230.69 (BRCA2, p.Y2660D). Typing distantly related individuals with extreme phenotypes (i.e. very early onset cancer or old healthy individuals) are most informative and give the strongest likelihood ratios for or against causality. Conclusion: Although co-segregation analysis on itself is in most cases insufficient to prove pathogenicity of an UV, this method simplifies the use of co-segregation as one of the key features in a multifactorial approach considerably