5 research outputs found

    New genetic loci link adipose and insulin biology to body fat distribution.

    Get PDF
    Body fat distribution is a heritable trait and a well-established predictor of adverse metabolic outcomes, independent of overall adiposity. To increase our understanding of the genetic basis of body fat distribution and its molecular links to cardiometabolic traits, here we conduct genome-wide association meta-analyses of traits related to waist and hip circumferences in up to 224,459 individuals. We identify 49 loci (33 new) associated with waist-to-hip ratio adjusted for body mass index (BMI), and an additional 19 loci newly associated with related waist and hip circumference measures (P < 5 × 10(-8)). In total, 20 of the 49 waist-to-hip ratio adjusted for BMI loci show significant sexual dimorphism, 19 of which display a stronger effect in women. The identified loci were enriched for genes expressed in adipose tissue and for putative regulatory elements in adipocytes. Pathway analyses implicated adipogenesis, angiogenesis, transcriptional regulation and insulin resistance as processes affecting fat distribution, providing insight into potential pathophysiological mechanisms

    Convalescent plasma in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 (RECOVERY): a randomised controlled, open-label, platform trial

    Get PDF
    SummaryBackground Azithromycin has been proposed as a treatment for COVID-19 on the basis of its immunomodulatoryactions. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of azithromycin in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19.Methods In this randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial (Randomised Evaluation of COVID-19Therapy [RECOVERY]), several possible treatments were compared with usual care in patients admitted to hospitalwith COVID-19 in the UK. The trial is underway at 176 hospitals in the UK. Eligible and consenting patients wererandomly allocated to either usual standard of care alone or usual standard of care plus azithromycin 500 mg once perday by mouth or intravenously for 10 days or until discharge (or allocation to one of the other RECOVERY treatmentgroups). Patients were assigned via web-based simple (unstratified) randomisation with allocation concealment andwere twice as likely to be randomly assigned to usual care than to any of the active treatment groups. Participants andlocal study staff were not masked to the allocated treatment, but all others involved in the trial were masked to theoutcome data during the trial. The primary outcome was 28-day all-cause mortality, assessed in the intention-to-treatpopulation. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, 50189673, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04381936.Findings Between April 7 and Nov 27, 2020, of 16 442 patients enrolled in the RECOVERY trial, 9433 (57%) wereeligible and 7763 were included in the assessment of azithromycin. The mean age of these study participants was65·3 years (SD 15·7) and approximately a third were women (2944 [38%] of 7763). 2582 patients were randomlyallocated to receive azithromycin and 5181 patients were randomly allocated to usual care alone. Overall,561 (22%) patients allocated to azithromycin and 1162 (22%) patients allocated to usual care died within 28 days(rate ratio 0·97, 95% CI 0·87–1·07; p=0·50). No significant difference was seen in duration of hospital stay (median10 days [IQR 5 to >28] vs 11 days [5 to >28]) or the proportion of patients discharged from hospital alive within 28 days(rate ratio 1·04, 95% CI 0·98–1·10; p=0·19). Among those not on invasive mechanical ventilation at baseline, nosignificant difference was seen in the proportion meeting the composite endpoint of invasive mechanical ventilationor death (risk ratio 0·95, 95% CI 0·87–1·03; p=0·24).Interpretation In patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19, azithromycin did not improve survival or otherprespecified clinical outcomes. Azithromycin use in patients admitted to hospital with COVID-19 should be restrictedto patients in whom there is a clear antimicrobial indication

    Interventions for bullous pemphigoid

    No full text
    Background Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is the most common autoimmune blistering disease in the West. Oral steroids are the standard treatment.This is an update of the review published in 2005. Objectives To assess treatments for bullous pemphigoid. Search strategy In August 2010 we updated our searches of the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Clinical Trials), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Ongoing Trials registers. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials of treatments for participants with immunofluorescence-confirmed bullous pemphigoid. Data collection and analysis At least two authors evaluated the studies for the inclusion criteria, and extracted data independently. Main results We included 10 randomised controlled trials (with a total of 1049 participants) of moderate to high risk of bias. All studies involved different comparisons, none had a placebo group. In 1 trial plasma exchange plus prednisone gave significantly better disease control at 1 month (0.3 mg/kg: RR 18.78, 95% CI 1.20 to 293.70) than prednisone alone (1.0 mg/kg: RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.11 to 2.90), while another trial showed no difference in disease control at 6 months. No differences in disease control were seen for different doses or formulations of prednisolone (one trial each), for azathioprine plus prednisone compared with prednisone alone (one trial), for prednisolone plus azathioprine compared with prednisolone plus plasma exchange (one trial), for prednisolone plus mycophenolate mofetil or plus azathioprine (one trial), for tetracycline plus nicotinamide compared with prednisolone (one trial). Chinese traditional medicine plus prednisone was not effective in one trial. There were no significant differences in healing in a comparison of a standard regimen of topical steroids (clobetasol) with a milder regimen (RR 1.00, 95% 0.97 to 1.03) in one trial. In another trial, clobetasol showed significantly more disease control than oral prednisolone in people with extensive and moderate disease (RR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.17), with significantly reduced mortality and adverse events (RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12). Authors' conclusions Very potent topical steroids are effective and safe treatments for BP, but their use in extensive disease may be limited by side-effects and practical factors. Milder regimens (using lower doses of steroids) are safe and effective in moderate BP. Starting doses of prednisolone greater than 0.75 mg/kg/day do not give additional benefit, lower doses may be adequate to control disease and reduce the incidence and severity of adverse reactions. The effectiveness of adding plasma exchange, azathioprine or mycophenolate mofetil to corticosteroids, and combination treatment with tetracycline and nicotinamide needs further investigation.Gudula Kirtschig, Philippa Middleton, Cathy Bennett, Dedee F Murrell, Fenella Wojnarowska, Nonhlanhla P Khumal

    Corrigendum to ‘Epidemiology and outcomes of tibial plateau fractures in adults aged 60 and over treated in the United Kingdom’ [Injury Volume 53 Issue 6 (2022) Pages 2219-2225, (S0020138322002364), (10.1016/j.injury.2022.03.048)]

    No full text
    The authors regret Matthew Smallbones was not included in the original authorship. The article's correct authorship is: Richard L. Donovana,b James R.A. Smithb Daniel Yeomansb Fenella Bennettb Matthew Smallbonesb Paul Whitec Tim J.S. Chesserb The authors would like to apologise for any inconvenience caused
    corecore