| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Estrada, Karol, et al.
(författare)
-
Genome-wide meta-analysis identifies 56 bone mineral density loci and reveals 14 loci associated with risk of fracture.
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Nature genetics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1546-1718 .- 1061-4036. ; 44:5, s. 491-501
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Bone mineral density (BMD) is the most widely used predictor of fracture risk. We performed the largest meta-analysis to date on lumbar spine and femoral neck BMD, including 17 genome-wide association studies and 32,961 individuals of European and east Asian ancestry. We tested the top BMD-associated markers for replication in 50,933 independent subjects and for association with risk of low-trauma fracture in 31,016 individuals with a history of fracture (cases) and 102,444 controls. We identified 56 loci (32 new) associated with BMD at genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10(-8)). Several of these factors cluster within the RANK-RANKL-OPG, mesenchymal stem cell differentiation, endochondral ossification and Wnt signaling pathways. However, we also discovered loci that were localized to genes not known to have a role in bone biology. Fourteen BMD-associated loci were also associated with fracture risk (P < 5 × 10(-4), Bonferroni corrected), of which six reached P < 5 × 10(-8), including at 18p11.21 (FAM210A), 7q21.3 (SLC25A13), 11q13.2 (LRP5), 4q22.1 (MEPE), 2p16.2 (SPTBN1) and 10q21.1 (DKK1). These findings shed light on the genetic architecture and pathophysiological mechanisms underlying BMD variation and fracture susceptibility.
|
|
| 3. |
- Axfors, Cathrine, et al.
(författare)
-
Association between convalescent plasma treatment and mortality in COVID-19 : a collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials
- 2021
-
Ingår i: BMC Infectious Diseases. - : BioMed Central (BMC). - 1471-2334. ; 21:1
-
Forskningsöversikt (refereegranskat)abstract
- Background: Convalescent plasma has been widely used to treat COVID-19 and is under investigation in numerous randomized clinical trials, but results are publicly available only for a small number of trials. The objective of this study was to assess the benefits of convalescent plasma treatment compared to placebo or no treatment and all-cause mortality in patients with COVID-19, using data from all available randomized clinical trials, including unpublished and ongoing trials (Open Science Framework, ). Methods: In this collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis, clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform), the Cochrane COVID-19 register, the LOVE database, and PubMed were searched until April 8, 2021. Investigators of trials registered by March 1, 2021, without published results were contacted via email. Eligible were ongoing, discontinued and completed randomized clinical trials that compared convalescent plasma with placebo or no treatment in COVID-19 patients, regardless of setting or treatment schedule. Aggregated mortality data were extracted from publications or provided by investigators of unpublished trials and combined using the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman random effects model. We investigated the contribution of unpublished trials to the overall evidence. Results: A total of 16,477 patients were included in 33 trials (20 unpublished with 3190 patients, 13 published with 13,287 patients). 32 trials enrolled only hospitalized patients (including 3 with only intensive care unit patients). Risk of bias was low for 29/33 trials. Of 8495 patients who received convalescent plasma, 1997 died (23%), and of 7982 control patients, 1952 died (24%). The combined risk ratio for all-cause mortality was 0.97 (95% confidence interval: 0.92; 1.02) with between-study heterogeneity not beyond chance (I-2 = 0%). The RECOVERY trial had 69.8% and the unpublished evidence 25.3% of the weight in the meta-analysis. Conclusions: Convalescent plasma treatment of patients with COVID-19 did not reduce all-cause mortality. These results provide strong evidence that convalescent plasma treatment for patients with COVID-19 should not be used outside of randomized trials. Evidence synthesis from collaborations among trial investigators can inform both evidence generation and evidence application in patient care.
|
|
| 4. |
- Levis, Brooke, et al.
(författare)
-
Comparison of major depression diagnostic classification probability using the SCID, CIDI, and MINI diagnostic interviews among women in pregnancy or postpartum : An individual participant data meta-analysis
- 2019
-
Ingår i: International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. - : WILEY. - 1049-8931 .- 1557-0657. ; 28:4
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objectives: A previous individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) identified differences in major depression classification rates between different diagnostic interviews, controlling for depressive symptoms on the basis of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We aimed to determine whether similar results would be seen in a different population, using studies that administered the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) in pregnancy or postpartum.Methods: Data accrued for an EPDS diagnostic accuracy IPDMA were analysed. Binomial generalised linear mixed models were fit to compare depression classification odds for the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI), Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI), and Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID), controlling for EPDS scores and participant characteristics.Results Among fully structured interviews, the MINI (15 studies, 2,532 participants, 342 major depression cases) classified depression more often than the CIDI (3 studies, 2,948 participants, 194 major depression cases; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 3.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] [1.21, 11.43]). Compared with the semistructured SCID (28 studies, 7,403 participants, 1,027 major depression cases), odds with the CIDI (interaction aOR = 0.88, 95% CI [0.85, 0.92]) and MINI (interaction aOR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.92, 0.99]) increased less as EPDS scores increased.Conclusion Different interviews may not classify major depression equivalently.
|
|
| 5. |
- Qiu, Xia, et al.
(författare)
-
Individual participant data meta-analysis to compare EPDS accuracy to detect major depression with and without the self-harm item
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Scientific Reports. - : Springer Nature. - 2045-2322. ; 13
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Item 10 of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) is intended to assess thoughts of intentional self-harm but may also elicit concerns about accidental self-harm. It does not specifically address suicide ideation but, nonetheless, is sometimes used as an indicator of suicidality. The 9-item version of the EPDS (EPDS-9), which omits item 10, is sometimes used in research due to concern about positive endorsements of item 10 and necessary follow-up. We assessed the equivalence of total score correlations and screening accuracy to detect major depression using the EPDS-9 versus full EPDS among pregnant and postpartum women. We searched Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from database inception to October 3, 2018 for studies that administered the EPDS and conducted diagnostic classification for major depression based on a validated semi-structured or fully structured interview among women aged 18 or older during pregnancy or within 12 months of giving birth. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis. We calculated Pearson correlations with 95% prediction interval (PI) between EPDS-9 and full EPDS total scores using a random effects model. Bivariate random-effects models were fitted to assess screening accuracy. Equivalence tests were done by comparing the confidence intervals (CIs) around the pooled sensitivity and specificity differences to the equivalence margin of delta = 0.05. Individual participant data were obtained from 41 eligible studies (10,906 participants, 1407 major depression cases). The correlation between EPDS-9 and full EPDS scores was 0.998 (95% PI 0.991, 0.999). For sensitivity, the EPDS-9 and full EPDS were equivalent for cut-offs 7-12 (difference range - 0.02, 0.01) and the equivalence was indeterminate for cut-offs 13-15 (all differences - 0.04). For specificity, the EPDS-9 and full EPDS were equivalent for all cut-offs (difference range 0.00, 0.01). The EPDS-9 performs similarly to the full EPDS and can be used when there are concerns about the implications of administering EPDS item 10.
|
|
| 6. |
- van Meurs, Joyce B, et al.
(författare)
-
Large-scale analysis of association between LRP5 and LRP6 variants and osteoporosis.
- 2008
-
Ingår i: JAMA : the journal of the American Medical Association. - Chicago : American Medical Association (AMA). - 1538-3598 .- 0098-7484. ; 299:11, s. 1277-90
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- CONTEXT: Mutations in the low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 5 (LRP5) gene cause rare syndromes characterized by altered bone mineral density (BMD). More common LRP5 variants may affect osteoporosis risk in the general population. OBJECTIVE: To generate large-scale evidence on whether 2 common variants of LRP5 (Val667Met, Ala1330Val) and 1 variant of LRP6 (Ile1062Val) are associated with BMD and fracture risk. DESIGN AND SETTING: Prospective, multicenter, collaborative study of individual-level data on 37,534 individuals from 18 participating teams in Europe and North America. Data were collected between September 2004 and January 2007; analysis of the collected data was performed between February and May 2007. Bone mineral density was assessed by dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry. Fractures were identified via questionnaire, medical records, or radiographic documentation; incident fracture data were available for some cohorts, ascertained via routine surveillance methods, including radiographic examination for vertebral fractures. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Bone mineral density of the lumbar spine and femoral neck; prevalence of all fractures and vertebral fractures. RESULTS: The Met667 allele of LRP5 was associated with reduced lumbar spine BMD (n = 25,052 [number of participants with available data]; 20-mg/cm2 lower BMD per Met667 allele copy; P = 3.3 x 10(-8)), as was the Val1330 allele (n = 24,812; 14-mg/cm2 lower BMD per Val1330 copy; P = 2.6 x 10(-9)). Similar effects were observed for femoral neck BMD, with a decrease of 11 mg/cm2 (P = 3.8 x 10(-5)) and 8 mg/cm2 (P = 5.0 x 10(-6)) for the Met667 and Val1330 alleles, respectively (n = 25 193). Findings were consistent across studies for both LRP5 alleles. Both alleles were associated with vertebral fractures (odds ratio [OR], 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08-1.47 for Met667 [2001 fractures among 20 488 individuals] and OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 1.01-1.24 for Val1330 [1988 fractures among 20,096 individuals]). Risk of all fractures was also increased with Met667 (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.05-1.24 per allele [7876 fractures among 31,435 individuals)]) and Val1330 (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 1.01-1.12 per allele [7802 fractures among 31 199 individuals]). Effects were similar when adjustments were made for age, weight, height, menopausal status, and use of hormone therapy. Fracture risks were partly attenuated by adjustment for BMD. Haplotype analysis indicated that Met667 and Val1330 variants both independently affected BMD. The LRP6 Ile1062Val polymorphism was not associated with any osteoporosis phenotype. All aforementioned associations except that between Val1330 and all fractures and vertebral fractures remained significant after multiple-comparison adjustments. CONCLUSIONS: Common LRP5 variants are consistently associated with BMD and fracture risk across different white populations. The magnitude of the effect is modest. LRP5 may be the first gene to reach a genome-wide significance level (a conservative level of significance [herein, unadjusted P < 10(-7)] that accounts for the many possible comparisons in the human genome) for a phenotype related to osteoporosis.
|
|
| 7. |
- Axfors, Cathrine, et al.
(författare)
-
Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Nature Communications. - : Springer Nature. - 2041-1723. ; 12:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I-2=0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I-2=0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities. Hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine have been investigated as a potential treatment for Covid-19 in several clinical trials. Here the authors report a meta-analysis of published and unpublished trials, and show that treatment with hydroxychloroquine for patients with Covid-19 was associated with increased mortality, and there was no benefit from chloroquine.
|
|
| 8. |
- Mischak, Harald, et al.
(författare)
-
Implementation of proteomic biomarkers : making it work
- 2012
-
Ingår i: European Journal of Clinical Investigation. - : Wiley. - 0014-2972 .- 1365-2362. ; 42:9, s. 1027-1036
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- While large numbers of proteomic biomarkers have been described, they are generally not implemented in medical practice. We have investigated the reasons for this shortcoming, focusing on hurdles downstream of biomarker verification, and describe major obstacles and possible solutions to ease valid biomarker implementation. Some of the problems lie in suboptimal biomarker discovery and validation, especially lack of validated platforms with well-described performance characteristics to support biomarker qualification. These issues have been acknowledged and are being addressed, raising the hope that valid biomarkers may start accumulating in the foreseeable future. However, successful biomarker discovery and qualification alone does not suffice for successful implementation. Additional challenges include, among others, limited access to appropriate specimens and insufficient funding, the need to validate new biomarker utility in interventional trials, and large communication gaps between the parties involved in implementation. To address this problem, we propose an implementation roadmap. The implementation effort needs to involve a wide variety of stakeholders (clinicians, statisticians, health economists, and representatives of patient groups, health insurance, pharmaceutical companies, biobanks, and regulatory agencies). Knowledgeable panels with adequate representation of all these stakeholders may facilitate biomarker evaluation and guide implementation for the specific context of use. This approach may avoid unwarranted delays or failure to implement potentially useful biomarkers, and may expedite meaningful contributions of the biomarker community to healthcare.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
