A polygenic and phenotypic risk prediction for polycystic ovary syndrome evaluated by phenomewide association studies

Context: As many as 75% of patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) are estimated tobe unidentified in clinical practice. Objective: Utilizing polygenic risk prediction, we aim to identify the phenome-widecomorbidity patterns characteristic of PCOS to improve accurate diagnosis and preventivetreatment.Design, Patients, and Methods: Leveraging the electronic health records (EHRs) of 124 852individuals, we developed a PCOS risk prediction algorithm by combining polygenic risk scores(PRS) with PCOS component phenotypes into a polygenic and phenotypic risk score (PPRS). Weevaluated its predictive capability across different ancestries and perform a PRS-based phenomewide association study (PheWAS) to assess the phenomic expression of the heightened risk ofPCOS.Results: The integrated polygenic prediction improved the average performance (pseudo-R2)for PCOS detection by 0.228 (61.5-fold), 0.224 (58.8-fold), 0.211 (57.0-fold) over the null modelacross European, African, and multi-ancestry participants respectively. The subsequent PRSpowered PheWAS identified a high level of shared biology between PCOS and a range ofmetabolic and endocrine outcomes, especially with obesity and diabetes: "morbid obesity","type 2 diabetes", "hypercholesterolemia", "disorders of lipid metabolism", "hypertension",and "sleep apnea" reaching phenome-wide significance.Conclusions: Our study has expanded the methodological utility of PRS in patient stratificationand risk prediction, especially in a multifactorial condition like PCOS, across different geneticorigins. By utilizing the individual genome-phenome data available from the EHR, our approachalso demonstrates that polygenic prediction by PRS can provide valuable opportunities todiscover the pleiotropic phenomic network associated with PCOS pathogenesis.Abbreviations: AA, African ancestry; ANOVA, analysis of variance; BMI, body mass index; EA,European ancestry; EHR, electronic health records; eMERGE, electronic Medical Records andGenomics Network; GWAS, genome-wide association study; IBD, identity-by-descent; ICDCM, International Classification of Diseases, Clinical Modification; LD, linkage disequilibrium;MA, multi-ancestry; MAF, minor allele frequency; NIH, National Institutes of Health; PCA,principal component analysis; PheWAS, phenome-wide association study; PCOS, polycysticovary syndrome; PPRS, polygenic and phenotypic risk score; PRS, polygenic risk sc

Remdesivir for Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Versus a Cohort Receiving Standard of Care

BACKGROUND: We compared the efficacy of the antiviral agent, remdesivir, versus standard-of-care treatment in adults with severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) using data from a phase 3 remdesivir trial and a retrospective cohort of patients with severe COVID-19 treated with standard of care. METHODS: GS-US-540-5773 is an ongoing phase 3, randomized, open-label trial comparing two courses of remdesivir (remdesivir-cohort). GS-US-540-5807 is an ongoing real-world, retrospective cohort study of clinical outcomes in patients receiving standard-of-care treatment (non-remdesivir-cohort). Inclusion criteria were similar between studies: patients had confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection, were hospitalized, had oxygen saturation ≤94% on room air or required supplemental oxygen, and had pulmonary infiltrates. Stabilized inverse probability of treatment weighted multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the treatment effect of remdesivir versus standard of care. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with recovery on day 14, dichotomized from a 7-point clinical status ordinal scale. A key secondary endpoint was mortality. RESULTS: After the inverse probability of treatment weighting procedure, 312 and 818 patients were counted in the remdesivir- and non-remdesivir-cohorts, respectively. At day 14, 74.4% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had recovered versus 59.0% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 2.03: 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.34-3.08, P < .001). At day 14, 7.6% of patients in the remdesivir-cohort had died versus 12.5% in the non-remdesivir-cohort (aOR 0.38, 95% CI: 22-.68, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: In this comparative analysis, by day 14, remdesivir was associated with significantly greater recovery and 62% reduced odds of death versus standard-of-care treatment in patients with severe COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04292899 and EUPAS34303.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe