The daily association between affect and alcohol use: a meta-analysis of individual participant data

Influential psychological theories hypothesize that people consume alcohol in response to the experience of both negative and positive emotions. Despite two decades of daily diary and ecological momentary assessment research, it remains unclear whether people consume more alcohol on days they experience higher negative and positive affect in everyday life. In this preregistered meta-analysis, we synthesized the evidence for these daily associations between affect and alcohol use. We included individual participant data from 69 studies (N = 12,394), which used daily and momentary surveys to assess affect and the number of alcoholic drinks consumed. Results indicate that people are not more likely to drink on days they experience high negative affect, but are more likely to drink and drink heavily on days high in positive affect. People self-reporting a motivational tendency to drink-to-cope and drink-to-enhance consumed more alcohol, but not on days they experienced higher negative and positive affect. Results were robust across different operationalizations of affect, study designs, study populations, and individual characteristics. These findings challenge the long-held belief that people drink more alcohol following increases in negative affect. Integrating these findings under different theoretical models and limitations of this field of research, we collectively propose an agenda for future research to explore open questions surrounding affect and alcohol use.The present study was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Grant MOP-115104 (Roisin M. O’Connor), Canadian Institutes of Health Research Grant MSH-122803 (Roisin M. O’Connor), John A. Hartford Foundation Grant (Paul Sacco), Loyola University Chicago Research Support Grant (Tracy De Hart), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Grant T03OH008435 (Cynthia Mohr), National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant F31AA023447 (Ryan W. Carpenter), NIH Grant R01AA025936 (Kasey G. Creswell), NIH Grant R01AA025969 (Catharine E. Fairbairn), NIH Grant R21AA024156 (Anne M. Fairlie), NIH Grant F31AA024372 (Fallon Goodman), NIH Grant R01DA047247 (Kevin M. King), NIH Grant K01AA026854 (Ashley N. Linden-Carmichael), NIH Grant K01AA022938 (Jennifer E. Merrill), NIH Grant K23AA024808 (Hayley Treloar Padovano), NIH Grant P60AA11998 (Timothy Trull), NIH Grant MH69472 (Timothy Trull), NIH Grant K01DA035153 (Nisha Gottfredson), NIH Grant P50DA039838 (Ashley N. Linden-Carmichael), NIH Grant K01DA047417 (David M. Lydon-Staley), NIH Grant T32DA037183 (M. Kushner), NIH Grant R21DA038163 (A. Moore), NIH Grant K12DA000167 (M. Potenza, Stephanie S. O’Malley), NIH Grant R01AA025451 (Bruce Bartholow, Thomas M. Piasecki), NIH Grant P50AA03510 (V. Hesselbrock), NIH Grant K01AA13938 (Kristina M. Jackson), NIH Grant K02AA028832 (Kevin M. King), NIH Grant T32AA007455 (M. Larimer), NIH Grant R01AA025037 (Christine M. Lee, M. Patrick), NIH Grant R01AA025611 (Melissa Lewis), NIH Grant R01AA007850 (Robert Miranda), NIH Grant R21AA017273 (Robert Miranda), NIH Grant R03AA014598 (Cynthia Mohr), NIH Grant R29AA09917 (Cynthia Mohr), NIH Grant T32AA07290 (Cynthia Mohr), NIH Grant P01AA019072 (P. Monti), NIH Grant R01AA015553 (J. Morgenstern), NIH Grant R01AA020077 (J. Morgenstern), NIH Grant R21AA017135 (J. Morgenstern), NIH Grant R01AA016621 (Stephanie S. O’Malley), NIH Grant K99AA029459 (Marilyn Piccirillo), NIH Grant F31AA022227 (Nichole Scaglione), NIH Grant R21AA018336 (Katie Witkiewitz), Portuguese State Budget Foundation for Science and Technology Grant UIDB/PSI/01662/2020 (Teresa Freire), University of Washington Population Health COVID-19 Rapid Response Grant (J. Kanter, Adam M. Kuczynski), U.S. Department of Defense Grant W81XWH-13-2-0020 (Cynthia Mohr), SANPSY Laboratory Core Support Grant CNRS USR 3413 (Marc Auriacombe), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Grant (N. Galambos), and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada Grant (Andrea L. Howard)

Impact of Coronary CT Angiography–derived Fractional Flow Reserve on Downstream Management and Clinical Outcomes in Individuals with and without Diabetes

Purpose: To compare the clinical use of coronary CT angiography (CCTA)–derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) in individuals with and without diabetes mellitus (DM). Materials and Methods: This secondary analysis included participants (enrolled July 2015 to October 2017) from the prospective, multicenter, international The Assessing Diagnostic Value of Noninvasive CT-FFR in Coronary Care (ADVANCE) registry (ClinicalTrials. gov identifier, NCT 02499679) who were evaluated for suspected coronary artery disease (CAD), with one or more coronary stenosis ≥30% on CCTA images, using CT-FFR. CCTA and CT-FFR findings, treatment strategies at 90 days, and clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up were compared in participants with and without DM. Results: The study included 4290 participants (mean age, 66 years ± 10 [SD]; 66% male participants; 22% participants with DM). Participants with DM had more obstructive CAD (one or more coronary stenosis ≥50%; 78.8% vs 70.6%, P &lt; .001), multivessel CAD (three-vessel obstructive CAD; 18.9% vs 11.2%, P &lt; .001), and proportionally more vessels with CT-FFR ≤ 0.8 (74.3% vs 64.6%, P &lt; .001). Treatment reclassification by CT-FFR occurred in two-thirds of participants which was consistent regardless of the presence of DM. There was a similar graded increase in coronary revascularization with declining CT-FFR in both groups. At 1 year, presence of DM was associated with higher rates of major adverse cardiovascular events (hazard ratio, 2.2; 95% CI: 1.2, 4.1; P = .01). However, no between group differences were observed when stratified by stenosis severity (&lt;50% or ≥50%) or CT-FFR positivity. Conclusion: Both anatomic CCTA findings and CT-FFR demonstrated a more complex pattern of CAD in participants with versus without DM. Rates of treatment reclassification were similar regardless of the presence of DM, and DM was not an adverse prognostic indicator when adjusted for diameter stenosis and CT-FFR.</p

Impact of Coronary CT Angiography-derived Fractional Flow Reserve on Downstream Management and Clinical Outcomes in Individuals with and without Diabetes

PurposeTo compare the clinical use of coronary CT angiography (CCTA)-derived fractional flow reserve (FFR) in individuals with and without diabetes mellitus (DM).Materials and methodsThis secondary analysis included participants (enrolled July 2015 to October 2017) from the prospective, multicenter, international The Assessing Diagnostic Value of Noninvasive CT-FFR in Coronary Care (ADVANCE) registry (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT02499679) who were evaluated for suspected coronary artery disease (CAD), with one or more coronary stenosis ≥30% on CCTA images, using CT-FFR. CCTA and CT-FFR findings, treatment strategies at 90 days, and clinical outcomes at 1-year follow-up were compared in participants with and without DM.ResultsThe study included 4290 participants (mean age, 66 years ± 10 [SD]; 66% male participants; 22% participants with DM). Participants with DM had more obstructive CAD (one or more coronary stenosis ≥50%; 78.8% vs 70.6%, P P P P = .01). However, no between group differences were observed when stratified by stenosis severity (ConclusionBoth anatomic CCTA findings and CT-FFR demonstrated a more complex pattern of CAD in participants with versus without DM. Rates of treatment reclassification were similar regardless of the presence of DM, and DM was not an adverse prognostic indicator when adjusted for diameter stenosis and CT-FFR.Clinical trial registration no. NCT 02499679Keywords: Fractional Flow Reserve, CT Angiography, Diabetes Mellitus, Coronary Artery Disease Supplemental material is available for this article. See also the commentary by Ghoshhajra in this issue.© RSNA, 2023

2003-2004 Research Honors Program Abstracts (for the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences Undergraduates)

Faculty in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell University mentor and guide undergraduate students who have chosen to pursue a research project and graduate with honors. These abstracts reflect the depth of their scholarship and intellectual ability. The research projects encompass work in animal science, biological science, entomology, landscape studies, natural resources, physical science, plant science, and social science

Effect of transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs surgical aortic valve replacement on all-cause mortality in patients with aortic stenosis

Importance: Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement and is the treatment of choice for patients at high operative risk. The role of TAVI in patients at lower risk is unclear. Objective: To determine whether TAVI is noninferior to surgery in patients at moderately increased operative risk. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this randomized clinical trial conducted at 34 UK centers, 913 patients aged 70 years or older with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and moderately increased operative risk due to age or comorbidity were enrolled between April 2014 and April 2018 and followed up through April 2019. Interventions: TAVI using any valve with a CE mark (indicating conformity of the valve with all legal and safety requirements for sale throughout the European Economic Area) and any access route (n = 458) or surgical aortic valve replacement (surgery; n = 455). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 1 year. The primary hypothesis was that TAVI was noninferior to surgery, with a noninferiority margin of 5% for the upper limit of the 1-sided 97.5% CI for the absolute between-group difference in mortality. There were 36 secondary outcomes (30 reported herein), including duration of hospital stay, major bleeding events, vascular complications, conduction disturbance requiring pacemaker implantation, and aortic regurgitation. Results: Among 913 patients randomized (median age, 81 years [IQR, 78 to 84 years]; 424 [46%] were female; median Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality risk score, 2.6% [IQR, 2.0% to 3.4%]), 912 (99.9%) completed follow-up and were included in the noninferiority analysis. At 1 year, there were 21 deaths (4.6%) in the TAVI group and 30 deaths (6.6%) in the surgery group, with an adjusted absolute risk difference of −2.0% (1-sided 97.5% CI, −∞ to 1.2%; P &lt; .001 for noninferiority). Of 30 prespecified secondary outcomes reported herein, 24 showed no significant difference at 1 year. TAVI was associated with significantly shorter postprocedural hospitalization (median of 3 days [IQR, 2 to 5 days] vs 8 days [IQR, 6 to 13 days] in the surgery group). At 1 year, there were significantly fewer major bleeding events after TAVI compared with surgery (7.2% vs 20.2%, respectively; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.33 [95% CI, 0.24 to 0.45]) but significantly more vascular complications (10.3% vs 2.4%; adjusted HR, 4.42 [95% CI, 2.54 to 7.71]), conduction disturbances requiring pacemaker implantation (14.2% vs 7.3%; adjusted HR, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.43 to 2.94]), and mild (38.3% vs 11.7%) or moderate (2.3% vs 0.6%) aortic regurgitation (adjusted odds ratio for mild, moderate, or severe [no instance of severe reported] aortic regurgitation combined vs none, 4.89 [95% CI, 3.08 to 7.75]). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients aged 70 years or older with severe, symptomatic aortic stenosis and moderately increased operative risk, TAVI was noninferior to surgery with respect to all-cause mortality at 1 year. Trial Registration: isrctn.com Identifier: ISRCTN57819173

Long-term safety and efficacy of tezacaftor–ivacaftor in individuals with cystic fibrosis aged 12 years or older who are homozygous or heterozygous for Phe508del CFTR (EXTEND): an open-label extension study

Background: Tezacaftor-ivacaftor is an approved cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator (CFTR) modulator shown to be efficacious and generally safe and well tolerated over 8-24 weeks in phase 3 clinical studies in participants aged 12 years or older with cystic fibrosis homozygous for the Phe508del CFTR mutation (F/F; study 661-106 [EVOLVE]) or heterozygous for the Phe508del CFTR mutation and a residual function mutation (F/RF; study 661-108 [EXPAND]). Longer-term (>24 weeks) safety and efficacy of tezacaftor-ivacaftor has not been assessed in clinical studies. Here, we present results of study 661-110 (EXTEND), a 96-week open-label extension study that assessed long-term safety, tolerability, and efficacy of tezacaftor-ivacaftor in participants aged 12 years or older with cystic fibrosis who were homozygous or heterozygous for the Phe508del CFTR mutation. Methods: Study 661-110 was a 96-week, phase 3, multicentre, open-label study at 170 clinical research sites in Australia, Europe, Israel, and North America. Participants were aged 12 years or older, had cystic fibrosis, were homozygous or heterozygous for Phe508del CFTR, and completed one of six parent studies of tezacaftor-ivacaftor: studies 661-103, 661-106, 661-107, 661-108, 661-109, and 661-111. Participants received oral tezacaftor 100 mg once daily and oral ivacaftor 150 mg once every 12 h for up to 96 weeks. The primary endpoint was safety and 'tolerability. Secondary endpoints were changes in lung function, nutritional parameters, and respiratory symptom scores; pulmonary exacerbations; and pharmacokinetic parameters. A post-hoc analysis assessed the rate of lung function decline in F/F participants who received up to 120 weeks of tezacaftor-ivacaftor in studies 661-106 (F/F) and/or 661-110 compared with a matched cohort of CFTR modulator-untreated historical F/F controls from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation Patient Registry. Primary safety analyses were done in all participants from all six parent studies who received at least one dose of study drug during this study. This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02565914). Findings: Between Aug 31, 2015, to May 31, 2019, 1044 participants were enrolled in study 661-110 from the six parent studies of whom 1042 participants received at least one dose of study drug and were included in the safety set. 995 (95%) participants had at least one TEAE; 22 (2%) had TEAEs leading to discontinuation; and 351 (34%) had serious TEAEs. No deaths occurred during the treatment-emergent period; after the treatment-emergent period, two deaths occurred, which were both deemed unrelated to study drug. F/F (106/110; n=459) and F/RF (108/110; n=226) participants beginning tezacaftor-ivacaftor in study 661-110 had improvements in efficacy endpoints consistent with parent studies; improvements in lung function and nutritional parameters and reductions in pulmonary exacerbations observed in the tezacaftor-ivacaftor groups in the parent studies were generally maintained in study 661-110 for an additional 96 weeks. Pharmacokinetic parameters were also similar to those in the parent studies. The annualised rate of lung function decline was 61·5% (95% CI 35·8 to 86·1) lower in tezacaftor-ivacaftor-treated F/F participants versus untreated matched historical controls. Interpretation: Tezacaftor-ivacaftor was generally safe, well tolerated, and efficacious for up to 120 weeks, and the safety profile of tezacaftor-ivacaftor in study 661-110 was consistent with cystic fibrosis manifestations and with the safety profiles of the parent studies. The rate of lung function decline was significantly reduced in F/F participants, consistent with cystic fibrosis disease modification. Our results support the clinical benefit of long-term tezacaftor-ivacaftor treatment for people aged 12 years or older with cystic fibrosis with F/F or F/RF genotypes. Funding: Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated