Multiple novel prostate cancer susceptibility signals identified by fine-mapping of known risk loci among Europeans

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified numerous common prostate cancer (PrCa) susceptibility loci. We have fine-mapped 64 GWAS regions known at the conclusion of the iCOGS study using large-scale genotyping and imputation in 25 723 PrCa cases and 26 274 controls of European ancestry. We detected evidence for multiple independent signals at 16 regions, 12 of which contained additional newly identified significant associations. A single signal comprising a spectrum of correlated variation was observed at 39 regions; 35 of which are now described by a novel more significantly associated lead SNP, while the originally reported variant remained as the lead SNP only in 4 regions. We also confirmed two association signals in Europeans that had been previously reported only in East-Asian GWAS. Based on statistical evidence and linkage disequilibrium (LD) structure, we have curated and narrowed down the list of the most likely candidate causal variants for each region. Functional annotation using data from ENCODE filtered for PrCa cell lines and eQTL analysis demonstrated significant enrichment for overlap with bio-features within this set. By incorporating the novel risk variants identified here alongside the refined data for existing association signals, we estimate that these loci now explain ∼38.9% of the familial relative risk of PrCa, an 8.9% improvement over the previously reported GWAS tag SNPs. This suggests that a significant fraction of the heritability of PrCa may have been hidden during the discovery phase of GWAS, in particular due to the presence of multiple independent signals within the same regio

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

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

Automated Internet-based pain coping skills training to manage osteoarthritis pain

Osteoarthritis (OA) is a leading cause of disability in the United States and globally, [14; 39] and the burdens it causes are expected to increase as the world’s population ages [14; 23]. Non-pharmacological treatments are a recommended component of current guidelines for treating OA pain [53]. Although evidence is mixed that people benefit from non-pharmacological treatments such self-management interventions and patient education [e.g., 17; 25; 38; 45], one non-pharmacological therapy—pain coping skills training (PCST)—has demonstrated more consistently positive outcomes [38]. PCST focuses specifically on educating people about cognitive and behavioral pain coping skills and helping them master those skills so they can become more actively involved in managing their pain--the most common and debilitating OA symptom [33]. It includes two main components: 1) a rationale linking pain to patterns of cognitive, emotional, and behavioral pain responses, and 2) training in skills such as attention diversion (e.g., relaxation), cognitive restructuring (to address catastrophizing and other maladaptive cognitive patterns), and activity patterns (e.g., activity-rest cycling). It has traditionally been delivered in-person by a trained therapist over 10-12 weeks. Randomized controlled trials demonstrate that PCST significantly improves pain and other outcomes [e.g., 24; 29; 30; 31; 63]. Moreover, interventions such as PCST have fewer adverse effects than pharmacological pain treatments and are well-received by patients. Thus, research supports the efficacy of in-person PCST. However, access to this intervention is limited by barriers such as lack of trained therapists, the substantial resources needed to deliver it, and the need for people to travel to in-person training held at scheduled times [22; 59] There is a clear need for an approach that makes PCST more accessible. The Internet—a proven method for delivering behavioral interventions—provides an avenue for meeting this need [15; 42; 58; 65], especially given older adults’ increasing use of the Internet [69]. The present pilot study was a two-arm randomized controlled trial conducted to evaluate the potential efficacy and acceptability of an eight-week, automated, Internet-based version of PCST called PainCOACH. This program was designed to retain key therapeutic features of the in-person PCST protocol, simulating in-person PCST while presenting training in an easy-to-use format with guided instruction, individualized feedback, interactive exercises, and animated demonstrations [57]. We hypothesized that: (1) PainCOACH would reduce pain (primary outcome) and improve pain-related interference with functioning, pain-related anxiety, self-efficacy for pain management, and positive and negative affect; and (2) acceptability would be high. Our overarching goal was to use findings from this early-stage research to refine the program and study protocol in preparation for a larger-scale trial. Additionally, we explored sex differences in responses to PainCOACH, based on evidence in our own lab and others showing significant sex differences in pain, pain responses, pain behavior, and pain coping in people with OA [e.g., 1; 19; 27; 32; see 54; 62; 67]. The potential for men and women to respond differently to pain interventions is important but rarely evaluated in research

The revised Approved Instructional Resources score:An improved quality evaluation tool for online educational resources

BACKGROUND: Free Open-Access Medical education (FOAM) use among residents continues to rise. However, it often lacks quality assurance processes and residents receive little guidance on quality assessment. The Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Approved Instructional Resources tool (AAT) was created for FOAM appraisal by and for expert educators and has demonstrated validity in this context. It has yet to be evaluated in other populations.OBJECTIVES: We assessed the AAT's usability in a diverse population of practicing emergency medicine (EM) physicians, residents, and medical students; solicited feedback; and developed a revised tool.METHODS: As part of the Medical Education Translational Resources: Impact and Quality (METRIQ) study, we recruited medical students, EM residents, and EM attendings to evaluate five FOAM posts with the AAT and provide quantitative and qualitative feedback via an online survey. Two independent analysts performed a qualitative thematic analysis with discrepancies resolved through discussion and negotiated consensus. This analysis informed development of an initial revised AAT, which was then further refined after pilot testing among the author group. The final tool was reassessed for reliability.RESULTS: Of 330 recruited international participants, 309 completed all ratings. The Best Evidence in Emergency Medicine (BEEM) score was the component most frequently reported as difficult to use. Several themes emerged from the qualitative analysis: for ease of use-understandable, logically structured, concise, and aligned with educational value. Limitations include deviation from questionnaire best practices, validity concerns, and challenges assessing evidence-based medicine. Themes supporting its use include evaluative utility and usability. The author group pilot tested the initial revised AAT, revealing a total score average measure intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of moderate reliability (ICC = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0 to 0.962). The final AAT's average measure ICC was 0.88 (95% CI = 0.77 to 0.95).CONCLUSIONS: We developed the final revised AAT from usability feedback. The new score has significantly increased usability, but will need to be reassessed for reliability in a broad population.</p

The Social Media Index as an Indicator of Quality for Emergency Medicine Blogs: A METRIQ Study

Study objective: Online educational resources such as blogs are increasingly used for education by emergency medicine clinicians. The Social Media Index was developed to quantify their relative impact. The Medical Education Translational Resources: Indicators of Quality (METRIQ) study was conducted in part to determine the association between the Social Media Index score and quality as measured by gestalt and previously derived quality instruments. Methods: Ten blogs were randomly selected from a list of emergency medicine and critical care Web sites. The 2 most recent clinically oriented blog posts published on these blogs were evaluated with gestalt, the Academic Life in Emergency Medicine Approved Instructional Resources (ALiEM AIR) score, and the METRIQ-8 score. Volunteer raters (including medical students, emergency medicine residents, and emergency medicine attending physicians) were identified with a multimodal recruitment methodology. The Social Media Index was calculated in February 2016, November 2016, April 2017, and December 2017. Pearson's correlations were calculated between the Social Media Index and the average rater gestalt, ALiEM AIR score, and METRIQ-8 score. Results: A total of 309 of 330 raters completed all ratings (93.6%). The Social Media Index correlated moderately to strongly with the mean rater gestalt ratings (range 0.69 to 0.76) and moderately with the mean rater ALiEM AIR score (range 0.55 to 0.61) and METRIQ-8 score (range 0.53 to 0.57) during the month of the blog post's selection and for 2 years after. Conclusion: The Social Media Index's correlation with multiple quality evaluation instruments over time supports the hypothesis that it is associated with overall Web site quality. It can play a role in guiding individuals to high-quality resources that can be reviewed with critical appraisal techniques