| 1. |
- Bar, N., et al.
(författare)
-
A reference map of potential determinants for the human serum metabolome
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Nature. - : Nature Research. - 0028-0836 .- 1476-4687. ; 588:7836, s. 135-140
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The serum metabolome contains a plethora of biomarkers and causative agents of various diseases, some of which are endogenously produced and some that have been taken up from the environment1. The origins of specific compounds are known, including metabolites that are highly heritable2,3, or those that are influenced by the gut microbiome4, by lifestyle choices such as smoking5, or by diet6. However, the key determinants of most metabolites are still poorly understood. Here we measured the levels of 1,251 metabolites in serum samples from a unique and deeply phenotyped healthy human cohort of 491 individuals. We applied machine-learning algorithms to predict metabolite levels in held-out individuals on the basis of host genetics, gut microbiome, clinical parameters, diet, lifestyle and anthropometric measurements, and obtained statistically significant predictions for more than 76% of the profiled metabolites. Diet and microbiome had the strongest predictive power, and each explained hundreds of metabolites—in some cases, explaining more than 50% of the observed variance. We further validated microbiome-related predictions by showing a high replication rate in two geographically independent cohorts7,8 that were not available to us when we trained the algorithms. We used feature attribution analysis9 to reveal specific dietary and bacterial interactions. We further demonstrate that some of these interactions might be causal, as some metabolites that we predicted to be positively associated with bread were found to increase after a randomized clinical trial of bread intervention. Overall, our results reveal potential determinants of more than 800 metabolites, paving the way towards a mechanistic understanding of alterations in metabolites under different conditions and to designing interventions for manipulating the levels of circulating metabolites.
|
|
| 2. |
- Rose, Angela M.C., et al.
(författare)
-
Vaccine effectiveness against COVID-19 hospitalisation in adults (≥ 20 years) during Omicron-dominant circulation : I-MOVECOVID-19 and VEBIS SARI VE networks, Europe, 2021 to 2022
- 2023
-
Ingår i: Eurosurveillance. - 1025-496X. ; 28:47
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction: The I-MOVE-COVID-19 and VEBIS hospital networks have been measuring COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (VE) in participating European countries since early 2021. Aim: We aimed to measure VE against PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 in patients ≥20 years hospitalised with severe acute respiratory infection (SARI) from December 2021 to July 2022 (Omicron-dominant period). Methods: In both networks, 46 hospitals (13 countries) follow a similar test-negative case–control protocol. We defined complete primary series vaccination (PSV) and first booster dose vaccination as last dose of either vaccine received≥14 days before symptom onset (stratifying first booster into received<150 and≥150 days after last PSV dose). We measured VE overall, by vaccine category/product, age group and time since first mRNA booster dose, adjusting by site as a fixed effect, and by swab date, age, sex, and presence/absence of at least one commonly collected chronic condition. Results: We included 2,779 cases and 2,362 controls. The VE of all vaccine products combined against hospitalisation for laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 was 43% (95% CI: 29–54) for complete PSV (with last dose received≥150 days before onset), while it was 59% (95% CI: 51–66) after addition of one booster dose. The VE was 85% (95% CI: 78–89), 70% (95% CI: 61–77) and 36% (95% CI: 17–51) for those with onset 14–59 days, 60–119 days and 120–179 days after booster vaccination, respectively. Conclusions: Our results suggest that, during the Omicron period, observed VE against SARI hospitalisation improved with first mRNA booster dose, particularly for those having symptom onset<120 days after first booster dose.
|
|
| 3. |
- Rystedt, Karin, et al.
(författare)
-
Is C-reactive protein associated with influenza A or B in primary care patients with influenza-like illness? A cross-sectional study.
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Scandinavian journal of primary health care. - : Informa UK Limited. - 1502-7724 .- 0281-3432. ; 38:4, s. 447-53
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Identifying influenza A or B as cause of influenza-like illness (ILI) is a challenge due to non-specific symptoms. An accurate, cheap and easy to use biomarker might enhance targeting influenza-specific management in primary care. The aim of this study was to investigate if C-reactive protein (CRP) is associated with influenza A or B, confirmed with PCR testing, in patients presenting with ILI.Cross-sectional study.Primary care in Lithuania, Norway and Sweden.A total of 277 patients at least 1year of age consulting primary care with ILI during seasonal influenza epidemics.Capillary blood CRP analysed as a point-of-care test and detection of influenza A or B on nasopharyngeal swabs in adults, and nasal and pharyngeal swabs in children using PCR.The prevalence of positive tests for influenza A among patients was 44% (121/277) and the prevalence of influenza B was 21% (58/277). Patients with influenza A infection could not be identified based on CRP concentration. However, increasing CRP concentration in steps of 10mg/L was associated with a significantly lower risk for influenza B with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.42 (0.25-0.70; p<.001). Signs of more severe symptoms like shortness of breath, sweats or chills and dizziness were associated with higher CRP.There was no association between CRP and influenza A. Increased concentration of CRP was associated with a lower risk for having influenza B, a finding that lacks clinical usefulness. Hence, CRP testing should be avoided in ILI, unless bacterial pneumonia is suspected. Key points Identifying influenza A or B as cause of influenza-like illness (ILI) is a challenge due to non-specific symptoms. There was no association between concentration of CRP and influenza A. Increased concentration of CRP was associated with a lower risk for having influenza B, a finding that lacks clinical usefulness. A consequence is that CRP testing should be avoided in ILI, unless bacterial pneumonia or similar is suspected.
|
|
