20 research outputs found

    Coronary Atherosclerotic Plaque Activity and Future Coronary Events

    Get PDF
    This study was funded by a Wellcome Trust Senior Investigator Award (WT103782AIA). Image analysis was supported by National Institutes for Health (R34HL161195 and 1R01HL135557). The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Wellcome Trust or the National Institutes of Health. The British Heart Foundation supports DEN (CH/09/002, RG/16/10/32375, RE/18/5/34216), MRD (FS/SCRF/21/32010), NLM (CH/F/21/90010, RG/20/10/34966, RE/18/5/34216) AJM (AA/18/3/34220) and MCW (FS/ICRF/20/26002) and DD (FS/RTF/20/30009, NH/19/1/34595, PG/18/35/33786, PG/15/88/31780, PG/17/64/33205). MRD is the recipient of the Sir Jules Thorn Award for Biomedical Research 2015 (15/JTA). PJS is supported by outstanding investigator award National Institutes for Health (R35HL161195). JK is supported by the National Science Centre 2021/41/B/NZ5/02630. EvB is supported by SINAPSE (www.sinapse.ac.uk). AB is supported by a Clinical Research Training Fellowships (MR/V007254/1). DD is supported by Chest Heart and Stroke Scotland (19/53), Tenovus Scotland (G.18.01), and Friends of Anchor and Grampian NHS-Endowments. The Edinburgh Clinical Research Facilities, Edinburgh Imaging facility and Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit are supported by the National Health Service Research Scotland through National Health Service Lothian Health Board. The Leeds Clinical Research Facilities are supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) via its Clinical Research Facility programme. The work at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (the Los Angeles site) was supported in part by the Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Medical Research Foundation. For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. The Chief Investigator and Edinburgh Clinical Trials Unit had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.Peer reviewedPostprin

    Retrospective evaluation of whole exome and genome mutation calls in 746 cancer samples

    No full text
    Funder: NCI U24CA211006Abstract: The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) curated consensus somatic mutation calls using whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), respectively. Here, as part of the ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium, which aggregated whole genome sequencing data from 2,658 cancers across 38 tumour types, we compare WES and WGS side-by-side from 746 TCGA samples, finding that ~80% of mutations overlap in covered exonic regions. We estimate that low variant allele fraction (VAF < 15%) and clonal heterogeneity contribute up to 68% of private WGS mutations and 71% of private WES mutations. We observe that ~30% of private WGS mutations trace to mutations identified by a single variant caller in WES consensus efforts. WGS captures both ~50% more variation in exonic regions and un-observed mutations in loci with variable GC-content. Together, our analysis highlights technological divergences between two reproducible somatic variant detection efforts

    Effect of Digoxin vs Bisoprolol for Heart Rate Control in Atrial Fibrillation on Patient-Reported Quality of Life: The RATE-AF Randomized Clinical Trial.

    No full text
    Importance There is little evidence to support selection of heart rate control therapy in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation, in particular those with coexisting heart failure. Objective To compare low-dose digoxin with bisoprolol (a β-blocker). Design, Setting, and Participants Randomized, open-label, blinded end-point clinical trial including 160 patients aged 60 years or older with permanent atrial fibrillation (defined as no plan to restore sinus rhythm) and dyspnea classified as New York Heart Association class II or higher. Patients were recruited from 3 hospitals and primary care practices in England from 2016 through 2018; last follow-up occurred in October 2019. Interventions Digoxin (n = 80; dose range, 62.5-250 μg/d; mean dose, 161 μg/d) or bisoprolol (n = 80; dose range, 1.25-15 mg/d; mean dose, 3.2 mg/d). Main Outcomes and Measures The primary end point was patient-reported quality of life using the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey physical component summary score (SF-36 PCS) at 6 months (higher scores are better; range, 0-100), with a minimal clinically important difference of 0.5 SD. There were 17 secondary end points (including resting heart rate, modified European Heart Rhythm Association [EHRA] symptom classification, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide [NT-proBNP] level) at 6 months, 20 end points at 12 months, and adverse event (AE) reporting. Results Among 160 patients (mean age, 76 [SD, 8] years; 74 [46%] women; mean baseline heart rate, 100/min [SD, 18/min]), 145 (91%) completed the trial and 150 (94%) were included in the analysis for the primary outcome. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome of normalized SF-36 PCS at 6 months (mean, 31.9 [SD, 11.7] for digoxin vs 29.7 [11.4] for bisoprolol; adjusted mean difference, 1.4 [95% CI, -1.1 to 3.8]; P = .28). Of the 17 secondary outcomes at 6 months, there were no significant between-group differences for 16 outcomes, including resting heart rate (a mean of 76.9/min [SD, 12.1/min] with digoxin vs a mean of 74.8/min [SD, 11.6/min] with bisoprolol; difference, 1.5/min [95% CI, -2.0 to 5.1/min]; P = .40). The modified EHRA class was significantly different between groups at 6 months; 53% of patients in the digoxin group reported a 2-class improvement vs 9% of patients in the bisoprolol group (adjusted odds ratio, 10.3 [95% CI, 4.0 to 26.6]; P < .001). At 12 months, 8 of 20 outcomes were significantly different (all favoring digoxin), with a median NT-proBNP level of 960 pg/mL (interquartile range, 626 to 1531 pg/mL) in the digoxin group vs 1250 pg/mL (interquartile range, 847 to 1890 pg/mL) in the bisoprolol group (ratio of geometric means, 0.77 [95% CI, 0.64 to 0.92]; P = .005). Adverse events were less common with digoxin; 20 patients (25%) in the digoxin group had at least 1 AE vs 51 patients (64%) in the bisoprolol group (P < .001). There were 29 treatment-related AEs and 16 serious AEs in the digoxin group vs 142 and 37, respectively, in the bisoprolol group. Conclusions and Relevance Among patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and symptoms of heart failure treated with low-dose digoxin or bisoprolol, there was no statistically significant difference in quality of life at 6 months. These findings support potentially basing decisions about treatment on other end points. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02391337 and clinicaltrialsregister.eu Identifier: 2015-005043-13

    Cangrelor vs. Ticagrelor in Patients Treated with Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Impact on Platelet Activity, Myocardial Microvascular Function and Infarct Size: A randomized controlled trial

    Get PDF
    This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Thieme in Thrombosis and Haemostasis on 26/05/2019, available online: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0039-1688789 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Background Oral P2Y12 inhibitors take more than 2 hours to achieve full effect in healthy subjects and this action is further delayed in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Intravenous P2Y12 inhibition might lead to more timely and potent anti-platelet effect in the context of emergency primary angioplasty, improving myocardial recovery. Objectives This article compares the efficacy of intravenous cangrelor versus ticagrelor in a ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) population treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PPCI). Materials and Methods In an open-label, prospective, randomized controlled trial, 100 subjects with STEMI were assigned 1:1 to intravenous cangrelor or oral ticagrelor. The co-primary endpoints were platelet P2Y12 inhibition at infarct vessel balloon inflation time, 4 and 24 hours. Secondary endpoints included indices of coronary microcirculatory function: index of microvascular resistance (IMR), initial infarct size (troponin at 24 hours) and final infarct size at 12 weeks (cardiac magnetic resonance). Secondary endpoints included indices of coronary microcirculatory function (index of microvascular resistance [IMR]), initial infarct size (troponin at 24 hours), final infarct size at 12 weeks (cardiac magnetic resonance), corrected thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) frame count, TIMI flow grade, myocardial perfusion grade, and ST-segment resolution (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02733341). Results P2Y12 inhibition at first balloon inflation time was significantly greater in cangrelor-treated patients (cangrelor P2Y12 reaction unit [PRU] 145.2 ± 50.6 vs. ticagrelor 248.3 ± 55.1). There was no difference in mean PRU at 4 and 24 to 36 hours post-dosing. IMR, final infarct size, angiographic and electrocardiographic measures of reperfusion were all similar between groups. Conclusion Cangrelor produces more potent P2Y12 inhibition at the time of first coronary balloon inflation time compared with ticagrelor. Despite this enhanced P2Y12 inhibition, coronary microvascular function and final infarct size did not differ between groups.This work was supported by the South Staffordshire Medical Foundation, the Rotha Abraham Bequest and the Royal Wolverhampton Trust (RE/2015005). This study was sponsored by the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust. C.B. and T.F. received funding support from the British Heart Foundation (PG/17/2532884; RE/13/5/30177; RE/18/6134217)

    Retrospective evaluation of whole exome and genome mutation calls in 746 cancer samples

    Get PDF
    The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) curated consensus somatic mutation calls using whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), respectively. Here, as part of the ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium, which aggregated whole genome sequencing data from 2,658 cancers across 38 tumour types, we compare WES and WGS side-by-side from 746 TCGA samples, finding that ~80% of mutations overlap in covered exonic regions. We estimate that low variant allele fraction (VAF < 15%) and clonal heterogeneity contribute up to 68% of private WGS mutations and 71% of private WES mutations. We observe that ~30% of private WGS mutations trace to mutations identified by a single variant caller in WES consensus efforts. WGS captures both ~50% more variation in exonic regions and un-observed mutations in loci with variable GC-content. Together, our analysis highlights technological divergences between two reproducible somatic variant detection efforts.The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) and International Cancer Genome Consortium (ICGC) curated consensus somatic mutation calls using whole exome sequencing (WES) and whole genome sequencing (WGS), respectively. Here, as part of the ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium, which aggregated whole genome sequencing data from 2,658 cancers across 38 tumour types, we compare WES and WGS side-by-side from 746 TCGA samples, finding that -80% of mutations overlap in covered exonic regions. We estimate that low variant allele fraction (VAFPeer reviewe

    Sex differences in oncogenic mutational processes

    Get PDF
    Sex differences have been observed in multiple facets of cancer epidemiology, treatment and biology, and in most cancers outside the sex organs. Efforts to link these clinical differences to specific molecular features have focused on somatic mutations within the coding regions of the genome. Here we report a pan-cancer analysis of sex differences in whole genomes of 1983 tumours of 28 subtypes as part of the ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium. We both confirm the results of exome studies, and also uncover previously undescribed sex differences. These include sex-biases in coding and non-coding cancer drivers, mutation prevalence and strikingly, in mutational signatures related to underlying mutational processes. These results underline the pervasiveness of molecular sex differences and strengthen the call for increased consideration of sex in molecular cancer research.Sex differences have been observed in multiple facets of cancer epidemiology, treatment and biology, and in most cancers outside the sex organs. Efforts to link these clinical differences to specific molecular features have focused on somatic mutations within the coding regions of the genome. Here we report a pan-cancer analysis of sex differences in whole genomes of 1983 tumours of 28 subtypes as part of the ICGC/TCGA Pan-Cancer Analysis of Whole Genomes (PCAWG) Consortium. We both confirm the results of exome studies, and also uncover previously undescribed sex differences. These include sex-biases in coding and non-coding cancer drivers, mutation prevalence and strikingly, in mutational signatures related to underlying mutational processes. These results underline the pervasiveness of molecular sex differences and strengthen the call for increased consideration of sex in molecular cancer research.Peer reviewe
    corecore