Chapter 1 An Introduction to Agricultural Biotechnology Regulation in the U.S.

The regulation of agricultural plant and microbial biotechnology products in the United States of America has a rich history that re fl ects the challenges the federal government has faced in the development of appropriate rules and standards needed to determine their safety to humans and the environment. Several factors – the insuf fi cient global food supply, loss or curtailment of the use of older chemistries to control pests due to risks and environmental persistence, the rising demand for safer food commodities, and the uncertainty surrounding the sustainability of agriculture in this and other countries – have added to these challenges. The chapter introduces the U.S. Coordinated Framework for the Regulation of Biotechnology (“Framework”), and the roles of its members: the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in regulating agricultural biotechnology in accordance with U.S. federal statutes. The Framework agencies use scienti fi c, risk-based approaches in carrying out their regulatory responsibilities for the products of biotechnology. Relying on their experiences with risk assessment and risk management policies and principles for more conventional products, the Framework agencies have adapted new risk and exposure scenarios into their evaluations to ensure the safe use of these products in agriculture

Maternal smoking during pregnancy and offspring overweight : is there a dose–response relationship? An individual patient data meta-analysis

We want to thank the funders of the individual studies: the UK Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust (Grant ref: 102215/2/13/2) and the University of Bristol, the Danish National Research Foundation, Pharmacy Foundation, the March of Dimes Birth Defects Foundation, the Augustinus Foundation, and the Health Foundation, the US NICHD (contracts no. 1-HD-4-2803 and no. 1-HD-1-3127, R01 HD HD034568), the NHMRC, the CNPq (Portuguese acronym for the National Research Council—grant 523474/96-2) and FAPESP (Portuguese acronym for the São Paulo State Research Council—grant 00/0908-7). We would like to thank the participating families of all studies for the use of data. For the ASPAC study, we want to thank the midwives for their help in recruiting families, and the whole ALSPAC team, which includes interviewers, computer and laboratory technicians, clerical workers, research scientists, volunteers, managers, receptionists, and nurses. This work was supported by the Deutschen Forschungsgesellschaft (German Research Foundation, DFG) [KR 1926/9-1, KU1443/4-1]. Dr. Gilman’s contribution was supported by the Intramural Research Program of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.Peer reviewedPostprin

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