| 1. |
- Nmezi, Bruce, et al.
(författare)
-
Genomic deletions upstream of lamin B1 lead to atypical autosomal dominant leukodystrophy
- 2019
-
Ingår i: NEUROLOGY-GENETICS. - 2376-7839. ; 5:1
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Objective Clinical, radiologic, and molecular analysis of patients with genomic deletions upstream of the LMNB1 gene.Methods Detailed neurologic, MRI examinations, custom array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) analysis, and expression analysis were performed in patients at different clinical centers. All procedures were approved by institutional review boards of the respective institutions.Results Five patients from 3 independent families presented at ages ranging from 32 to 52 years with neurologic symptoms that included progressive hypophonia, upper and lower limb weakness and spasticity, and cerebellar dysfunction and MRIs characterized by widespread white matter alterations. Patients had unique nonrecurrent deletions upstream of the LMNB1, varying in size from 250 kb to 670 kb. Deletion junctions were embedded in repetitive elements. Expression analysis revealed increased LMNB1 expression in patient cells.Conclusions Our findings confirmed the association between LMNB1 upstream deletions and leukodystrophy previously reported in a single family, expanding the phenotypic and molecular description of this condition. Although clinical and radiologic features overlapped with those of autosomal dominant leukodystrophy because of LMNB1 duplications, patients with deletions upstream of LMNB1 had an earlier age at symptom onset, lacked early dysautonomia, and appeared to have lesser involvement of the cerebellum and sparing of the spinal cord diameter on MRI. aCGH analysis defined a smaller minimal critical region required for disease causation and revealed that deletions occur at repetitive DNA genomic elements. Search for LMNB1 structural variants (duplications and upstream deletions) should be an integral part of the investigation of patients with autosomal dominant adult-onset leukodystrophy.
|
|
| 2. |
- Pennells, Lisa, et al.
(författare)
-
Equalization of four cardiovascular risk algorithms after systematic recalibration : individual-participant meta-analysis of 86 prospective studies
- 2019
-
Ingår i: European Heart Journal. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0195-668X .- 1522-9645. ; 40:7, s. 621-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Aims: There is debate about the optimum algorithm for cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk estimation. We conducted head-to-head comparisons of four algorithms recommended by primary prevention guidelines, before and after ‘recalibration’, a method that adapts risk algorithms to take account of differences in the risk characteristics of the populations being studied.Methods and results: Using individual-participant data on 360 737 participants without CVD at baseline in 86 prospective studies from 22 countries, we compared the Framingham risk score (FRS), Systematic COronary Risk Evaluation (SCORE), pooled cohort equations (PCE), and Reynolds risk score (RRS). We calculated measures of risk discrimination and calibration, and modelled clinical implications of initiating statin therapy in people judged to be at ‘high’ 10 year CVD risk. Original risk algorithms were recalibrated using the risk factor profile and CVD incidence of target populations. The four algorithms had similar risk discrimination. Before recalibration, FRS, SCORE, and PCE over-predicted CVD risk on average by 10%, 52%, and 41%, respectively, whereas RRS under-predicted by 10%. Original versions of algorithms classified 29–39% of individuals aged ≥40 years as high risk. By contrast, recalibration reduced this proportion to 22–24% for every algorithm. We estimated that to prevent one CVD event, it would be necessary to initiate statin therapy in 44–51 such individuals using original algorithms, in contrast to 37–39 individuals with recalibrated algorithms.Conclusion: Before recalibration, the clinical performance of four widely used CVD risk algorithms varied substantially. By contrast, simple recalibration nearly equalized their performance and improved modelled targeting of preventive action to clinical need.
|
|
