Characterization of alcohol polygenic risk scores in the context of mental health outcomes:Within-individual and intergenerational analyses in the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children

Background: Heavy alcohol consumption often co-occurs with mental health problems; this could be due to confounding, shared biological mechanisms, or causal effects. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) for alcohol use can be used to explore this association at critical life stages. Design: We characterized a PRS reliably associated with patterns of adult alcohol consumption by 1) validating whether it predicts own alcohol use at different life-stages (pregnancy, adolescence) of interest for mental health impact. Additionally, we explored associations of alcohol PRS on mental health phenotypes 2) within-individuals (using own alcohol PRS on own phenotypes) and 3) intergenerationally (using maternal alcohol PRS on offspring phenotypes). We used data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) (n = 960–7841). Additional substance abuse behaviors and mental health/behavioral outcomes were investigated (alcohol phenotypes n = 22; health phenotypes n = 91). Findings: Maternal alcohol PRS was associated with consumption during pregnancy (strongest signal: alcohol frequency at 18 weeks’ gestation: β = 0.041, 95%CI = 0.0.02–0.06), p = 1.01 × 10−5, adjusted R2 = 1.6 %), offspring alcohol PRS did not predict offspring alcohol consumption. We found evidence for an association of maternal alcohol PRS with own perinatal depression (OR = 1.10, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.18, p = 0.022) and decreased offspring intellectual ability (β=-0.209, 95% CI -0.38 to -0.04, p= 0.016). Conclusions: These alcohol PRS are a valid proxy for maternal alcohol use in pregnancy. Offspring alcohol PRS was not associated with drinking in adolescence. Consistently with results from different study designs, we found evidence that maternal alcohol PRS are associated with both prenatal depression and decreased offspring intellectual ability

Impact of the government's restrictions and guidance in relation to “social distancing” on the lives of ethnic minority populations:A mixed methods study

Background and Aims: The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have not been equal, with a disproportionate impact among ethnic minority communities. Structural inequalities in social determinants of health such as housing and employment have contributed to COVID-19's impact on deprived communities, including many ethnic minority communities. To compare (1) how the UK government's “social distancing” restrictions and guidance were perceived and implemented by ethnic minority populations compared to white populations, (2) the impact of restrictions and guidance upon these groups. Methods: An explanatory sequential mixed methods study incorporated a quantitative survey and qualitative semi-structured interviews to explore individual perceptions and experiences of COVID-19 and the national restrictions. Survey participants (n = 1587) were recruited from North West England; 60 (4%) participants were from ethnic minority communities. Forty-nine interviews were conducted; 19 (39%) participants were from ethnic minority communities. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach. Data collection was between April and August 2020. Results: Significant differences in demographics and household overcrowding were observed between white vs ethnic minority survey respondents, who were also significantly less confident in their knowledge of COVID-19, less likely to be high-risk drinkers, and marginally more likely to have experienced job loss and/or reduced household income. There were no group differences in wellbeing, perceptions, or nonfinancial impacts. Two inter-related themes included: (1) government guidance, incorporating people's knowledge and understanding of the guidance and their confusion/frustration over messaging; (2) the impacts of restrictions on keyworkers, home-schooling, working from home and changes in lifestyle/wellbeing. Conclusions: Further research is needed on the long-term impacts of COVID-19 on ethnic minority communities. If policy responses to COVID-19 are to benefit ethnic minority communities, there is a need for future studies to consider fundamental societal issues, such as the role of housing and economic disadvantage.</p

Impact of the government's restrictions and guidance in relation to "social distancing" on the lives of ethnic minority populations:A mixed methods study

Background and Aims: The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic have not been equal, with a disproportionate impact among ethnic minority communities. Structural inequalities in social determinants of health such as housing and employment have contributed to COVID-19's impact on deprived communities, including many ethnic minority communities. To compare (1) how the UK government's “social distancing” restrictions and guidance were perceived and implemented by ethnic minority populations compared to white populations, (2) the impact of restrictions and guidance upon these groups. Methods: An explanatory sequential mixed methods study incorporated a quantitative survey and qualitative semi-structured interviews to explore individual perceptions and experiences of COVID-19 and the national restrictions. Survey participants (n = 1587) were recruited from North West England; 60 (4%) participants were from ethnic minority communities. Forty-nine interviews were conducted; 19 (39%) participants were from ethnic minority communities. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using a thematic approach. Data collection was between April and August 2020. Results: Significant differences in demographics and household overcrowding were observed between white vs ethnic minority survey respondents, who were also significantly less confident in their knowledge of COVID-19, less likely to be high-risk drinkers, and marginally more likely to have experienced job loss and/or reduced household income. There were no group differences in wellbeing, perceptions, or nonfinancial impacts. Two inter-related themes included: (1) government guidance, incorporating people's knowledge and understanding of the guidance and their confusion/frustration over messaging; (2) the impacts of restrictions on keyworkers, home-schooling, working from home and changes in lifestyle/wellbeing. Conclusions: Further research is needed on the long-term impacts of COVID-19 on ethnic minority communities. If policy responses to COVID-19 are to benefit ethnic minority communities, there is a need for future studies to consider fundamental societal issues, such as the role of housing and economic disadvantage.</p

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children - A resource for COVID-19 research:Antibody testing results, April – June 2021

The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) is a prospective population-based cohort which recruited pregnant women in 1990-1992 and has followed these women, their partners (Generation 0; G0) and their offspring (Generation 1; G1) ever since. The study reacted rapidly and repeatedly to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, deploying multiple online questionnaires and a previous home-based antibody test in October 2020. A second antibody test, in collaboration with ten other longitudinal population studies, was completed by 4,622 ALSPAC participants between April and June 2021. Of 4,241 participants with a valid spike protein antibody test result (8.2% were void), indicating antibody response to either COVID-19 vaccination or natural infection, 3,172 were positive (74.8%). Generational differences were substantial, with 2,463/2,555 G0 participants classified positive (96.4%) compared to 709/1,686 G1 participants (42.1%). Of 4,199 participants with a valid nucleocapsid antibody test result (9.2% were void), suggesting potential and recent natural infection, 493 were positive (11.7%); 248/2,526 G0 participants (9.8%) and 245/1,673 G1 participants (14.6%) tested positive, respectively. We also compare results for this round of testing to that undertaken in October 2020. Future work will combine these test results with additional sources of data to identify participants’ COVID-19 infection and vaccination status. These ALSPAC COVID-19 serology data are being complemented with linkage to health records and Public Health England pillar testing results as they become available, in addition to four previous questionnaire waves and a prior antibody test. Data have been released as an update to the previous COVID-19 datasets. These comprise: 1) a standard dataset containing all participant responses to all four previous questionnaires with key sociodemographic factors; and 2) individual participant-specific release files enabling bespoke research across all areas supported by the study. This data note describes the second ALSPAC antibody test and the data obtained from it

Is Height2.7 Appropriate for Indexation of Left Ventricular Mass in Healthy Adolescents? The Importance of Sex Differences

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular mass (LVM) is an important predictor of cardiovascular risk. In adolescence, LVM is commonly indexed to height2.7, although some evidence suggests that this may not fully account for sex differences. METHODS: We investigated appropriate allometric scaling of LVM to height, total lean mass, and body surface area, in a UK birth cohort of 2039 healthy adolescents (17±1 years). Allometric relationships were determined by linear regression stratified by sex, following log transformation of x and y variables [log(y)=a+b×log(x)], b is the allometric exponent. RESULTS: Log (LVM) showed linear relationships with log(height) and log(lean mass). Biased estimates of slope resulted when the sexes were pooled. The exponents were lower than the conventional estimate of 2.7 for males (mean [95% CI]=1.66 [1.30-2.03]) and females (1.58 [1.27-1.90]). When LVM was indexed to lean mass, the exponent was 1.16 (1.05-1.26) for males and 1.07 (0.97-1.16) for females. When LVM was indexed to estimated body surface area, the exponent was 1.53 (1.40-1.66) for males and 1.34 (1.24-1.45) for females. CONCLUSIONS: Allometric exponents derived from pooled data, including men and women without adjustment for sex were biased, possibly due to sex differences in body composition. We suggest that when assessing LVM, clinicians should consider body size, body composition, sex, and age. Our observations may also have implications for the identification of young individuals with cardiac hypertrophy

Is Height2.7 Appropriate for Indexation of Left Ventricular Mass in Healthy Adolescents?:The Importance of Sex Differences

BACKGROUND:Left ventricular mass (LVM) is an important predictor of cardiovascular risk. In adolescence, LVM is commonly indexed to height2.7, although some evidence suggests that this may not fully account for sex differences.METHODS:We investigated appropriate allometric scaling of LVM to height, total lean mass, and body surface area, in a UK birth cohort of 2039 healthy adolescents (17±1 years). Allometric relationships were determined by linear regression stratified by sex, following log transformation of x and y variables [log(y)=a+b×log(x)], b is the allometric exponent.RESULTS:Log (LVM) showed linear relationships with log(height) and log(lean mass). Biased estimates of slope resulted when the sexes were pooled. The exponents were lower than the conventional estimate of 2.7 for males (mean [95% CI]=1.66 [1.30–2.03]) and females (1.58 [1.27–1.90]). When LVM was indexed to lean mass, the exponent was 1.16 (1.05–1.26) for males and 1.07 (0.97–1.16) for females. When LVM was indexed to estimated body surface area, the exponent was 1.53 (1.40–1.66) for males and 1.34 (1.24–1.45) for females.CONCLUSIONS:Allometric exponents derived from pooled data, including men and women without adjustment for sex were biased, possibly due to sex differences in body composition. We suggest that when assessing LVM, clinicians should consider body size, body composition, sex, and age. Our observations may also have implications for the identification of young individuals with cardiac hypertrophy

Modelling the Health Impact of an English Sugary Drinks Duty at National and Local Levels

Increasing evidence associates excess refined sugar intakes with obesity, Type 2 diabetes and heart disease. Worryingly, the estimated volume of sugary drinks purchased in the UK has more than doubled between 1975 and 2007, from 510ml to 1140ml per person per week. We aimed to estimate the potential impact of a duty on sugar sweetened beverages (SSBs) at a local level in England, hypothesising that a duty could reduce obesity and related diseases. Methods and Findings We modelled the potential impact of a 20% sugary drinks duty on local authorities in England between 2010 and 2030. We synthesised data obtained from the British National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NDNS), drinks manufacturers, Office for National Statistics, and from previous studies. This produced a modelled population of 41 million adults in 326 lower tier local authorities in England. This analysis suggests that a 20% SSB duty could result in approximately 2,400 fewer diabetes cases, 1,700 fewer stroke and coronary heart disease cases, 400 fewer cancer cases, and gain some 41,000 Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs) per year across England. The duty might have the biggest impact in urban areas with young populations. Conclusions This study adds to the growing body of evidence suggesting health benefits for a duty on sugary drinks. It might also usefully provide results at an area level to inform local price interventions in England