Genomewide association study of acute anterior uveitis identifies new susceptibility loci

Acknowledgments The authors thank all participating subjects with AS and healthy individuals who provided the DNA and clinical information necessary for this study. We would like to acknowledge the contributions of Anna Deminger, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, and Urban Hellman, Umeå University, for their assistance in case recruitment and assessment and handling biological samples Funding Information: The survey was conducted by NatCen and the genomewide scan data were analyzed and deposited by the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute. Information on how to access the data can be found on the Understanding Society website https: www. understandingsociety.ac.uk/ . We acknowledge and thank the TCRA AS Group for their support in recruiting patients for the study. M.A.B. is funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) Senior Principal Research Fellowship, and support for this study was received from a National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) program Grant (566938) and project Grant (569829), and from the Australian Cancer Research Foundation and Rebecca Cooper Medical Research Foundation. We are also very grateful for the invaluable support received from the National Ankylosing Spondylitis Society (UK) and Spondyloarthritis Association of America in case recruitment. Additional financial and technical support for patient recruitment was provided by the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit and NIHR Thames Valley Comprehensive Local Research and an unrestricted educational grant from Abbott Laboratories. The authors acknowledge the sharing of data and samples by the BSRBR-AS Register in Aberdeen. Chief Investigator, Prof Gary Macfarlane and Dr Gareth Jones, Deputy Chief Investigator, created the BSRBR-AS study, which was commissioned by the British Society for Rheumatology, funded in part by Abbvie, Pfizer, and UCB. We are grateful to every patient, past and present staff of the BSRBR-AS register team, and to all clinical staff who recruited patients, followed them up and entered data – details here: https://www.abdn.ac.uk/iahs/research/ epidemiology/spondyloarthritis.php#panel1011. Funding was also received from the Swedish Research Council and The Swedish state under the agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils, the ALF agreement. The Irish data was derived from participants in ASRI – The Ankylosing Spondylitis Registry of Ireland, which is funded by unrestricted grants from Abbvie and Pfizer. Funding bodies involved played no role in the study design, performance, or preparation of this manuscript. Funding Information: X.F.H. was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31771390). The TASC study was funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) grants P01-052915, R01-AR046208. Funding was also received from the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston CTSA grant UL1RR02418, Cedars-Sinai GCRC grant MO1-RR00425, Intramural Research Program, NIAMS/NIH, and Rebecca Cooper Foundation (Australia). This study was funded, in part, by Arthritis Research UK (Grants 19536 and 18797), by the Wellcome Trust (Grant number 076113), and by the Oxford Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre ankylosing spondylitis chronic disease cohort (Theme Code: A91202). The New Zealand data was derived from participants in the Spondyloarthritis Genetics and the Environment Study (SAGE) and was funded by The Health Research Council, New Zealand. H.X. was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China Grant 81020108029 and 30872339. French sample collection was performed by the Groupe Française d’Etude Génétique des Spondylarthrites, coordinated by Professor Maxime Breban, and funded by the Agence Nationale de Recherche GEMISA grant reference ANR-10-MIDI-0002. We acknowledge the Understanding Society: The UK Household Longitudinal Study. This is led by the Institute for Social and Economic Research at the University of Essex and funded by the Economic and Social Research Council. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology Inc.. All rights reserved.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Iconic dishes, culture and identity: the Christmas pudding and its hundred years’ journey in the USA, Australia, New Zealand and India

Asserting that recipes are textual evidences reflecting the society that produced them, this article explores the evolution of the recipes of the iconic Christmas pudding in the United States, Australia, New Zealand and India between the mid-nineteenth and the mid-twentieth centuries. Combining a micro-analysis of the recipes and the cookbook that provided them with contemporary testimonies, the article observes the dynamics revealed by the preparation and consumption of the pudding in these different societies. The findings demonstrate the relevance of national iconic dishes to the study of notions of home, migration and colonization, as well as the development of a new society and identity. They reveal how the preservation, transformation and even rejection of a traditional dish can be representative of the complex and sometimes conflicting relationships between colonists, migrants or new citizens and the places they live in

Global Health Governance and the Commercial Sector: A Documentary Analysis of Tobacco Company Strategies to Influence the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

Heide Weishaar and colleagues did an analysis of internal tobacco industry documents together with other data and describe the industry's strategic response to the proposed World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control

Association of Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder and Depression Polygenic Scores with Lithium Response: A Consortium for Lithium Genetics Study

Response to lithium varies widely between individuals with bipolar disorder (BD). Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) can uncover pharmacogenomics effects and may help predict drug response. Patients (N = 2,510) with BD were assessed for long-term lithium response in the Consortium on Lithium Genetics using the Retrospective Criteria of Long-Term Treatment Response in Research Subjects with Bipolar Disorder score. PRSs for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), major depressive disorder (MDD), and schizophrenia (SCZ) were computed using lassosum and in a model including all three PRSs and other covariates, and the PRS of ADHD (β = −0.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.24 to −0.03; p value = 0.010) and MDD (β = −0.16; 95% CI: −0.27 to −0.04; p value = 0.005) predicted worse quantitative lithium response. A higher SCZ PRS was associated with higher rates of medication nonadherence (OR = 1.61; 95% CI: 1.34–1.93; p value = 2e−7). This study indicates that genetic risk for ADHD and depression may influence lithium treatment response. Interestingly, a higher SCZ PRS was associated with poor adherence, which can negatively impact treatment response. Incorporating genetic risk of ADHD, depression, and SCZ in combination with clinical risk may lead to better clinical care for patients with BD

Dissecting the Shared Genetic Architecture of Suicide Attempt, Psychiatric Disorders, and Known Risk Factors

Background Suicide is a leading cause of death worldwide, and nonfatal suicide attempts, which occur far more frequently, are a major source of disability and social and economic burden. Both have substantial genetic etiology, which is partially shared and partially distinct from that of related psychiatric disorders. Methods We conducted a genome-wide association study (GWAS) of 29,782 suicide attempt (SA) cases and 519,961 controls in the International Suicide Genetics Consortium (ISGC). The GWAS of SA was conditioned on psychiatric disorders using GWAS summary statistics via multitrait-based conditional and joint analysis, to remove genetic effects on SA mediated by psychiatric disorders. We investigated the shared and divergent genetic architectures of SA, psychiatric disorders, and other known risk factors. Results Two loci reached genome-wide significance for SA: the major histocompatibility complex and an intergenic locus on chromosome 7, the latter of which remained associated with SA after conditioning on psychiatric disorders and replicated in an independent cohort from the Million Veteran Program. This locus has been implicated in risk-taking behavior, smoking, and insomnia. SA showed strong genetic correlation with psychiatric disorders, particularly major depression, and also with smoking, pain, risk-taking behavior, sleep disturbances, lower educational attainment, reproductive traits, lower socioeconomic status, and poorer general health. After conditioning on psychiatric disorders, the genetic correlations between SA and psychiatric disorders decreased, whereas those with nonpsychiatric traits remained largely unchanged. Conclusions Our results identify a risk locus that contributes more strongly to SA than other phenotypes and suggest a shared underlying biology between SA and known risk factors that is not mediated by psychiatric disorders.Peer reviewe

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca