| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
- Mullins, N., et al.
(författare)
-
Genome-wide association study of more than 40,000 bipolar disorder cases provides new insights into the underlying biology
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Nature Genetics. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1061-4036 .- 1546-1718. ; 53, s. 817-829
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Bipolar disorder is a heritable mental illness with complex etiology. We performed a genome-wide association study of 41,917 bipolar disorder cases and 371,549 controls of European ancestry, which identified 64 associated genomic loci. Bipolar disorder risk alleles were enriched in genes in synaptic signaling pathways and brain-expressed genes, particularly those with high specificity of expression in neurons of the prefrontal cortex and hippocampus. Significant signal enrichment was found in genes encoding targets of antipsychotics, calcium channel blockers, antiepileptics and anesthetics. Integrating expression quantitative trait locus data implicated 15 genes robustly linked to bipolar disorder via gene expression, encoding druggable targets such as HTR6, MCHR1, DCLK3 and FURIN. Analyses of bipolar disorder subtypes indicated high but imperfect genetic correlation between bipolar disorder type I and II and identified additional associated loci. Together, these results advance our understanding of the biological etiology of bipolar disorder, identify novel therapeutic leads and prioritize genes for functional follow-up studies. Genome-wide association analyses of 41,917 bipolar disorder cases and 371,549 controls of European ancestry provide new insights into the etiology of this disorder and identify novel therapeutic leads and potential opportunities for drug repurposing.
|
|
| 4. |
- Mavaddat, N, et al.
(författare)
-
Risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy, natural menopause, and breast cancer risk: an international prospective cohort of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Breast cancer research : BCR. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1465-542X. ; 22:1, s. 8-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- BackgroundThe effect of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) on breast cancer risk forBRCA1andBRCA2mutation carriers is uncertain. Retrospective analyses have suggested a protective effect but may be substantially biased. Prospective studies have had limited power, particularly forBRCA2mutation carriers. Further, previous studies have not considered the effect of RRSO in the context of natural menopause.MethodsA multi-centre prospective cohort of 2272BRCA1and 1605BRCA2mutation carriers was followed for a mean of 5.4 and 4.9 years, respectively; 426 women developed incident breast cancer. RRSO was modelled as a time-dependent covariate in Cox regression, and its effect assessed in premenopausal and postmenopausal women.ResultsThere was no association between RRSO and breast cancer forBRCA1(HR = 1.23; 95% CI 0.94–1.61) orBRCA2(HR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.62–1.24) mutation carriers. ForBRCA2mutation carriers, HRs were 0.68 (95% CI 0.40–1.15) and 1.07 (95% CI 0.69–1.64) for RRSO carried out before or after age 45 years, respectively. The HR forBRCA2mutation carriers decreased with increasing time since RRSO (HR = 0.51; 95% CI 0.26–0.99 for 5 years or longer after RRSO). Estimates for premenopausal women were similar.ConclusionWe found no evidence that RRSO reduces breast cancer risk forBRCA1mutation carriers. A potentially beneficial effect forBRCA2mutation carriers was observed, particularly after 5 years following RRSO. These results may inform counselling and management of carriers with respect to RRSO.
|
|
| 5. |
- 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.
|
|
| 6. |
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
- Gerkin, RC, et al.
(författare)
-
The best COVID-19 predictor is recent smell loss: a cross-sectional study
- 2020
-
Ingår i: medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences. - : Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
-
Tidskriftsartikel (övrigt vetenskapligt/konstnärligt)abstract
- BackgroundCOVID-19 has heterogeneous manifestations, though one of the most common symptoms is a sudden loss of smell (anosmia or hyposmia). We investigated whether olfactory loss is a reliable predictor of COVID-19.MethodsThis preregistered, cross-sectional study used a crowdsourced questionnaire in 23 languages to assess symptoms in individuals self-reporting recent respiratory illness. We quantified changes in chemosensory abilities during the course of the respiratory illness using 0-100 visual analog scales (VAS) for participants reporting a positive (C19+; n=4148) or negative (C19-; n=546) COVID-19 laboratory test outcome. Logistic regression models identified singular and cumulative predictors of COVID-19 status and post-COVID-19 olfactory recovery.ResultsBoth C19+ and C19-groups exhibited smell loss, but it was significantly larger in C19+ participants (mean±SD, C19+: -82.5±27.2 points; C19-: -59.8±37.7). Smell loss during illness was the best predictor of COVID-19 in both single and cumulative feature models (ROC AUC=0.72), with additional features providing negligible model improvement. VAS ratings of smell loss were more predictive than binary chemosensory yes/no-questions or other cardinal symptoms, such as fever or cough. Olfactory recovery within 40 days was reported for ∼50% of participants and was best predicted by time since illness onset.ConclusionsAs smell loss is the best predictor of COVID-19, we developed the ODoR-19 tool, a 0-10 scale to screen for recent olfactory loss. Numeric ratings ≤2 indicate high odds of symptomatic COVID-19 (4<OR<10), which can be deployed when viral lab tests are impractical or unavailable.
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
- Forstner, A. J., et al.
(författare)
-
Genome-wide association study of panic disorder reveals genetic overlap with neuroticism and depression
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Molecular Psychiatry. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1359-4184 .- 1476-5578. ; 26, s. 4179-4190
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Panic disorder (PD) has a lifetime prevalence of 2–4% and heritability estimates of 40%. The contributory genetic variants remain largely unknown, with few and inconsistent loci having been reported. The present report describes the largest genome-wide association study (GWAS) of PD to date comprising genome-wide genotype data of 2248 clinically well-characterized PD patients and 7992 ethnically matched controls. The samples originated from four European countries (Denmark, Estonia, Germany, and Sweden). Standard GWAS quality control procedures were conducted on each individual dataset, and imputation was performed using the 1000 Genomes Project reference panel. A meta-analysis was then performed using the Ricopili pipeline. No genome-wide significant locus was identified. Leave-one-out analyses generated highly significant polygenic risk scores (PRS) (explained variance of up to 2.6%). Linkage disequilibrium (LD) score regression analysis of the GWAS data showed that the estimated heritability for PD was 28.0–34.2%. After correction for multiple testing, a significant genetic correlation was found between PD and major depressive disorder, depressive symptoms, and neuroticism. A total of 255 single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with p < 1 × 10−4 were followed up in an independent sample of 2408 PD patients and 228,470 controls from Denmark, Iceland and the Netherlands. In the combined analysis, SNP rs144783209 showed the strongest association with PD (pcomb = 3.10 × 10−7). Sign tests revealed a significant enrichment of SNPs with a discovery p-value of <0.0001 in the combined follow up cohort (p = 0.048). The present integrative analysis represents a major step towards the elucidation of the genetic susceptibility to PD. © 2019, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Limited.
|
|
