Seizures as an early symptom of autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease

Our objective was to assess the reported history of seizures in cognitively asymptomatic mutation carriers for autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease (ADAD) and the predictive value of seizures for mutation carrier status in cognitively asymptomatic first-degree relatives of ADAD patients. Seizure occurrence in the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network observational study was correlated with mutation carrier status in cognitively asymptomatic subjects. Of 276 cognitively asymptomatic individuals, 11 (4%) had experienced seizures, and nine of these carried an ADAD mutation. Thus, in the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network population, seizure frequency in mutation carriers was significantly higher than in noncarriers (p = 0.04), and the positive predictive value of seizures for the presence of a pathogenic mutation was 81.8%. Among cognitively asymptomatic ADAD family members, the occurrence of seizures increases the a priori risk of 50% mutation-positive status to about 80%. This finding suggests that ADAD mutations increase the risk of seizures

Decision making and experiences of young adults undergoing presymptomatic genetic testing for familial cancer: A longitudinal grounded theory study

Enabling informed choice is an essential component of care when offering young adults presymptomatic testing for a genetic condition. A systematic review on this topic revealed that many young adults grew up with little information regarding their genetic risk and that parents had applied pressure to them during the testing decision-making process. However, none of the studies retrieved were conducted in South European countries. To address this gap, we undertook a qualitative study based on grounded theory to explore the psychosocial implications of presymptomatic testing for hereditary cancer in Italian young adults aged 18-30 years. Interviews were conducted on three occasions: 1 month before counselling, and 2 weeks and 6 months after results. Data were coded and grouped under themes. A total of 42 interviews were conducted. Four themes emerged: knowledge, genetic counselling process, decision making and dealing with test results. Although participants grew up with little or no information about their genetic risk, none expressed regret at having the test at a young age. Pre-test counselling was appreciated as a source of information, rather than support for decision making. Decisions were often made autonomously and sometimes conflicted with parents' wishes. Participants reported no changes in health behaviours after testing. This evidence highlights the need for a comprehensive, longitudinal counselling process with appropriate timing and setting, which supports 'parent-to-offspring' risk communication first and decision making by young adults about presymptomatic testing and risk management afterwards. In conclusion, it is clear that counselling approaches for presymptomatic testing may require modification both for young adults and their parents. © 2017 European Society of Human Genetics

Protocol for stage 1 of the GaP study (Genetic testing acceptability for Paget's disease of bone): an interview study about genetic testing and preventive treatment: would relatives of people with Paget's disease want testing and treatment if they were available?

BACKGROUND: Paget's disease of bone (PDB) is characterised by focal increases in bone turnover, affecting one or more bones throughout the skeleton. This disrupts normal bone architecture and causes pain, deformity, deafness, osteoarthritis, and fractures. Genetic factors are recognised to play a role in PDB and it is now possible to carry out genetic tests for research. In view of this, it is timely to investigate the clinical potential for a programme of genetic testing and preventative treatment for people who have a family history of PDB, to prevent or delay the development of PDB. Evidence from non-genetic conditions, that have effective treatments, demonstrates that patients' beliefs may affect the acceptability and uptake of treatment. Two groups of beliefs (illness and treatment representations) are likely to be influential. Illness representations describe how people see their illness, as outlined in Leventhal's Self-Regulation Model. Treatment representations describe how people perceive potential treatment for their disease. People offered a programme of genetic testing and treatment will develop their own treatment representations based on what is offered, but the beliefs rather than the objective programme of treatment are likely to determine their willingness to participate. The Theory of Planned Behaviour is a theoretical model that predicts behaviours from people's beliefs about the consequences, social pressures and perceived control over the behaviour, including uptake of treatment. METHODS/DESIGN: This study aims to examine the acceptability of genetic testing, followed by preventative treatment, to relatives of people with PDB. We aim to interview people with Paget's disease, and their families, from the UK. Our research questions are: 1. What do individuals with Paget's disease think would influence the involvement of their relatives in a programme of genetic testing and preventative treatment? 2. What do relatives of Paget's disease sufferers think would influence them in accepting an offer of a programme of genetic testing and preventative treatment? DISCUSSION: Our research will be informed by relevant psychological theory: primarily the Self-Regulation Model and the Theory of Planned Behaviour. The results of these interviews will inform the development of a separate questionnaire-based study to explore these research questions in greater detail

Presymptomatic genetic testing for hereditary cancer in young adults: a survey of young adults and parents

Presymptomatic testing for hereditary cancer syndromes should involve a considered choice. This may be particularly challenging when testing is undertaken in early adulthood. With the aim of exploring the psychosocial implications of presymptomatic testing for hereditary cancer in young adults and their parents, a cross-sectional survey was designed. Two questionnaires were developed (one for young adults who had considered presymptomatic testing, one for parents). Questionnaires were completed by 152 (65.2%) young adults and 42 (73.7%) parents. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics, inferential testing, and exploratory factor analysis and linear regression analysis. Young adults were told about their potential genetic risk at a mean age of 20 years; in most cases, information was given by a parent, often in an unplanned conversation. Although testing requests were usually made by young adults, the majority of parents felt they had control over the young adult’s decision and all felt their children should be tested. Results suggest that some young adults did not understand the implications of the genetic test but complied with parental pressure. Counselling approaches for presymptomatic testing may require modification both for young adults and their parents. Those offering testing need to be aware of the complex pressures that young adults can experience, which can influence their autonomous choices. It is therefore important to emphasise to both parents and young adults that, although testing can bring benefits in terms of surveillance and prevention, young adults have a choice

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

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

Clinical characteristics with inflammation profiling of long COVID and association with 1-year recovery following hospitalisation in the UK: a prospective observational study

Background No effective pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions exist for patients with long COVID. We aimed to describe recovery 1 year after hospital discharge for COVID-19, identify factors associated with patient-perceived recovery, and identify potential therapeutic targets by describing the underlying inflammatory profiles of the previously described recovery clusters at 5 months after hospital discharge. Methods The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a prospective, longitudinal cohort study recruiting adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital with COVID-19 across the UK. Recovery was assessed using patient-reported outcome measures, physical performance, and organ function at 5 months and 1 year after hospital discharge, and stratified by both patient-perceived recovery and recovery cluster. Hierarchical logistic regression modelling was performed for patient-perceived recovery at 1 year. Cluster analysis was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach using clinical outcomes at 5 months. Inflammatory protein profiling was analysed from plasma at the 5-month visit. This study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry, ISRCTN10980107, and recruitment is ongoing. Findings 2320 participants discharged from hospital between March 7, 2020, and April 18, 2021, were assessed at 5 months after discharge and 807 (32·7%) participants completed both the 5-month and 1-year visits. 279 (35·6%) of these 807 patients were women and 505 (64·4%) were men, with a mean age of 58·7 (SD 12·5) years, and 224 (27·8%) had received invasive mechanical ventilation (WHO class 7–9). The proportion of patients reporting full recovery was unchanged between 5 months (501 [25·5%] of 1965) and 1 year (232 [28·9%] of 804). Factors associated with being less likely to report full recovery at 1 year were female sex (odds ratio 0·68 [95% CI 0·46–0·99]), obesity (0·50 [0·34–0·74]) and invasive mechanical ventilation (0·42 [0·23–0·76]). Cluster analysis (n=1636) corroborated the previously reported four clusters: very severe, severe, moderate with cognitive impairment, and mild, relating to the severity of physical health, mental health, and cognitive impairment at 5 months. We found increased inflammatory mediators of tissue damage and repair in both the very severe and the moderate with cognitive impairment clusters compared with the mild cluster, including IL-6 concentration, which was increased in both comparisons (n=626 participants). We found a substantial deficit in median EQ-5D-5L utility index from before COVID-19 (retrospective assessment; 0·88 [IQR 0·74–1·00]), at 5 months (0·74 [0·64–0·88]) to 1 year (0·75 [0·62–0·88]), with minimal improvements across all outcome measures at 1 year after discharge in the whole cohort and within each of the four clusters. Interpretation The sequelae of a hospital admission with COVID-19 were substantial 1 year after discharge across a range of health domains, with the minority in our cohort feeling fully recovered. Patient-perceived health-related quality of life was reduced at 1 year compared with before hospital admission. Systematic inflammation and obesity are potential treatable traits that warrant further investigation in clinical trials. Funding UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research