Cortisol shifts financial risk preferences.

Risk taking is central to human activity. Consequently, it lies at the focal point of behavioral sciences such as neuroscience, economics, and finance. Many influential models from these sciences assume that financial risk preferences form a stable trait. Is this assumption justified and, if not, what causes the appetite for risk to fluctuate? We have previously found that traders experience a sustained increase in the stress hormone cortisol when the amount of uncertainty, in the form of market volatility, increases. Here we ask whether these elevated cortisol levels shift risk preferences. Using a double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over protocol we raised cortisol levels in volunteers over 8 d to the same extent previously observed in traders. We then tested for the utility and probability weighting functions underlying their risk taking and found that participants became more risk-averse. We also observed that the weighting of probabilities became more distorted among men relative to women. These results suggest that risk preferences are highly dynamic. Specifically, the stress response calibrates risk taking to our circumstances, reducing it in times of prolonged uncertainty, such as a financial crisis. Physiology-induced shifts in risk preferences may thus be an underappreciated cause of market instability.This research was supported by a Programme Grant from the Economic and Social Research Council.This is the version of record of the article "Cortisol shifts financial risk preferences" published in PNAS on March 2104 under the PNAS Open Access option. The published version of record is available on the journal website at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.131790811

Low DHEAS: A Sensitive and Specific Test for the Detection of Subclinical Hypercortisolism in Adrenal Incidentalomas.

CONTEXT: Subclinical hypercortisolism (SH) occurs in 5% to 30% of adrenal incidentalomas (AIs). Common screening tests for adrenocorticotropin-independent hypercortisolism have substantial false-positive rates, mandating further time and resource-intensive investigations. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether low basal dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) is a sensitive and specific screening test for SH in AI. SETTING AND PATIENTS: In total, 185 patients with AI were screened for adrenal medullary (plasma metanephrines) and cortical [1 mg overnight dexamethasone suppression test (ONDST), 24-hour urinary free cortisol (UFC), serum DHEAS, plasma renin, and aldosterone] hyperfunction. Positive ONDST [≥1.8 mcg/dL (≥50 nmol/L)] and/or UFC (more than the upper limit of reference range) results were further investigated. We diagnosed SH when at least 2 of the following were met: raised UFC, raised midnight serum cortisol, 48-hour dexamethasone suppression test (DST) cortisol ≥1.8 mcg/dL (≥50 nmol/L). RESULTS: 29 patients (16%) were diagnosed with SH. Adrenocorticotropin was 99%) and specific (91.9%) for the diagnosis of SH. Cortisol following 1 mg ONDST of 1.9 mcg/dL (53 nmol/L) was a sensitive (>99%) screening test for SH but had lower specificity (82.9%). The 24-hour UFC lacked sensitivity (69%) and specificity (72%). CONCLUSION: A single basal measurement of DHEAS offers comparable sensitivity and greater specificity to the existing gold-standard 1 mg DST for the detection of SH in patients with AIs

Efficacy and safety of baricitinib or ravulizumab in adult patients with severe COVID-19 (TACTIC-R): a randomised, parallel-arm, open-label, phase 4 trial

Background From early in the COVID-19 pandemic, evidence suggested a role for cytokine dysregulation and complement activation in severe disease. In the TACTIC-R trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of baricitinib, an inhibitor of Janus kinase 1 (JAK1) and JAK2, and ravulizumab, a monoclonal inhibitor of complement C5 activation, as an adjunct to standard of care for the treatment of adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19. Methods TACTIC-R was a phase 4, randomised, parallel-arm, open-label platform trial that was undertaken in the UK with urgent public health designation to assess the potential of repurposing immunosuppressants for the treatment of severe COVID-19, stratified by a risk score. Adult participants (aged ≥18 years) were enrolled from 22 hospitals across the UK. Patients with a risk score indicating a 40% risk of admission to an intensive care unit or death were randomly assigned 1:1:1 to standard of care alone, standard of care with baricitinib, or standard of care with ravulizumab. The composite primary outcome was the time from randomisation to incidence (up to and including day 14) of the first event of death, invasive mechanical ventilation, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, cardiovascular organ support, or renal failure. The primary interim analysis was triggered when 125 patient datasets were available up to day 14 in each study group and we included in the analysis all participants who were randomly assigned. The trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04390464). Findings Between May 8, 2020, and May 7, 2021, 417 participants were recruited and randomly assigned to standard of care alone (145 patients), baricitinib (137 patients), or ravulizumab (135 patients). Only 54 (39%) of 137 patients in the baricitinib group received the maximum 14-day course, whereas 132 (98%) of 135 patients in the ravulizumab group received the intended dose. The trial was stopped after the primary interim analysis on grounds of futility. The estimated hazard ratio (HR) for reaching the composite primary endpoint was 1·11 (95% CI 0·62–1·99) for patients on baricitinib compared with standard of care alone, and 1·53 (0·88–2·67) for ravulizumab compared with standard of care alone. 45 serious adverse events (21 deaths) were reported in the standard-of-care group, 57 (24 deaths) in the baricitinib group, and 60 (18 deaths) in the ravulizumab group. Interpretation Neither baricitinib nor ravulizumab, as administered in this study, was effective in reducing disease severity in patients selected for severe COVID-19. Safety was similar between treatments and standard of care. The short period of dosing with baricitinib might explain the discrepancy between our findings and those of other trials. The therapeutic potential of targeting complement C5 activation product C5a, rather than the cleavage of C5, warrants further evaluation

The Accuracy of central SBP determined from the second systolic peak of the peripheral pressure waveform

Background: Recent evidence suggests that central aortic blood pressure may be a better predictor of cardiovascular risk than peripheral blood pressure. The central SBP (cSBP) can be estimated from the late systolic shoulder of the radial pulse waveform. We compared the second systolic peak of the radial waveform (pSBP2) with the central systolic pressure derived by a generalized transfer function in a large cohort, across a wide age range, of patients from the Anglo-Cardiff Collaborative Trial. We also compared pSBP2 with the true cSBP measured by cardiac catheterization [invasively measured cSBP (cSBPi)]. Methods: Noninvasive measurements were made by applanation tonometry using the SphygmoCor device. The aortic pressure waveform was derived from the radial waveform using a validated transfer function. Invasive measures of cSBPi were carried out in a group of 38 patients undergoing diagnostic cardiac angiography, and radial artery pressure waveforms were simultaneously recorded using the SphygmoCor device. Results: Overall, there was a strong correlation (r = 0.99, P < 0.001) and good agreement between pSBP2 and the derived cSBP (mean difference ± SD 1 ± 4 mmHg). However, there was a systematic bias with a greater difference between these measures at lower average pressures. There was also a strong correlation and good agreement between the invasively measured cSBPi and pSBP2 (r = 0.92, P < 0.001, mean difference 2 ± 6 mmHg). Conclusion: The second systolic shoulder of the peripheral pressure waveform approximates the cSBP in a large cohort of patients across a wide age range, but this may be inaccurate at low SBP values.5 page(s

High prevalence of severe sleep cycle disruption in de novo acromegaly and underdiagnosis by common clinical screening tools: A prospective, observational, cross-sectional study.

Publication status: PublishedCONTEXT: Although sleep disordered breathing (SDB) is well-recognised in acromegaly, most studies have reported heterogeneous, often heavily treated, groups and few have performed detailed sleep phenotyping at presentation. OBJECTIVE: To study SDB using the gold standard of polysomnography, in the largest group of newly-diagnosed, treatment-naïve patients with acromegaly. SETTING AND PATIENTS: 40 patients [22 males, 18 females; mean age 54 years (range 23-78)], were studied to: (i) establish the prevalence and severity of SDB (ii) assess the reliability of commonly employed screening tools [Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) and overnight oxygen desaturation index (DI)] to detect SDB (iii) determine the extent to which sleep architecture is disrupted. RESULTS: Obstructive sleep apnoea (OSA), defined by the apnoea-hypopnoea index (AHI), was present in 79% of subjects (mild, n = 12; moderate, n = 5; severe, n = 14). However, in these individuals with OSA by AHI criteria, ESS (positive in 35% [n = 11]) and DI (positive in 71%: mild, n = 11; moderate, n = 6; severe, n = 5) markedly underestimated its prevalence/extent. Seventy-eight percent of patients exhibited increased arousal, with marked disruption of the sleep cycle, despite most (82%) having normal total time asleep. Fourteen patients spent longer in stage 1 sleep. Deeper sleep stages were severely attenuated in many subjects (reduced stage 2, n = 18; reduced slow wave sleep, n = 24; reduced rapid eye movement sleep, n = 32). CONCLUSION: Our study provides strong support for clinical guidelines that recommend screening for sleep apnoea syndrome in patients with newly-diagnosed acromegaly. Importantly, however, it highlights shortcomings in commonly recommended screening tools (questionnaires, desaturation index) and demonstrates the added value of polysomnography to allow timely detection of obstructive sleep apnoea and associated sleep cycle disruption