| 1. |
- Petersen, Johanne Juul, et al.
(author)
-
Drug interventions for prevention of COVID-19 progression to severe disease in outpatients : a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project)
- 2023
-
In: BMJ Open. - 2044-6055. ; 13:6
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Objectives To assess the effects of interventions authorised by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) or the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for prevention of COVID-19 progression to severe disease in outpatients. Setting Outpatient treatment. Participants Participants with a diagnosis of COVID-19 and the associated SARS-CoV-2 virus irrespective of age, sex and comorbidities. Interventions Drug interventions authorised by EMA or FDA. Primary outcome measures Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Results We included 17 clinical trials randomising 16 257 participants to 8 different interventions authorised by EMA or FDA. 15/17 of the included trials (88.2%) were assessed at high risk of bias. Only molnupiravir and ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir seemed to improve both our primary outcomes. Meta-analyses showed that molnupiravir reduced the risk of death (relative risk (RR) 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.64; p=0.0145, 2 trials; very low certainty of evidence) and serious adverse events (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.84; p=0.0018, 5 trials; very low certainty of evidence). Fisher's exact test showed that ritonavir-boosted nirmatrelvir reduced the risk of death (p=0.0002, 1 trial; very low certainty of evidence) and serious adverse events (p<0.0001, 1 trial; very low certainty of evidence) in 1 trial including 2246 patients, while another trial including 1140 patients reported 0 deaths in both groups. Conclusions The certainty of the evidence was very low, but, from the results of this study, molnupiravir showed the most consistent benefit and ranked highest among the approved interventions for prevention of COVID-19 progression to severe disease in outpatients. The lack of certain evidence should be considered when treating patients with COVID-19 for prevention of disease progression. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020178787.
|
|
| 2. |
- Forslund, Sofia K., et al.
(author)
-
Combinatorial, additive and dose-dependent drug–microbiome associations
- 2021
-
In: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 0028-0836 .- 1476-4687. ; 600:7889, s. 500-505
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- During the transition from a healthy state to cardiometabolic disease, patients become heavily medicated, which leads to an increasingly aberrant gut microbiome and serum metabolome, and complicates biomarker discovery1–5. Here, through integrated multi-omics analyses of 2,173 European residents from the MetaCardis cohort, we show that the explanatory power of drugs for the variability in both host and gut microbiome features exceeds that of disease. We quantify inferred effects of single medications, their combinations as well as additive effects, and show that the latter shift the metabolome and microbiome towards a healthier state, exemplified in synergistic reduction in serum atherogenic lipoproteins by statins combined with aspirin, or enrichment of intestinal Roseburia by diuretic agents combined with beta-blockers. Several antibiotics exhibit a quantitative relationship between the number of courses prescribed and progression towards a microbiome state that is associated with the severity of cardiometabolic disease. We also report a relationship between cardiometabolic drug dosage, improvement in clinical markers and microbiome composition, supporting direct drug effects. Taken together, our computational framework and resulting resources enable the disentanglement of the effects of drugs and disease on host and microbiome features in multimedicated individuals. Furthermore, the robust signatures identified using our framework provide new hypotheses for drug–host–microbiome interactions in cardiometabolic disease.
|
|
| 3. |
- Juul, Louise, et al.
(author)
-
Combining pressing and alkaline extraction to increase protein yield from Ulva fenestrata biomass
- 2022
-
In: Food and Bioproducts Processing: Transactions of the Institution of of Chemical Engineers, Part C. - : Elsevier BV. - 1744-3571 .- 0960-3085. ; 134, s. 80-85
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Many seaweed species have a high production potential and attract interest as future protein sources. A high fiber and ash content, however, demand extraction of the protein to improve its digestibility and protein utilization in food or feed. This study explores three different approaches for protein extraction from Ulva fenestrata in order to maximize the protein extraction yield. Soluble protein was recovered either by mechanical pressing or by homogenization and osmotic shock of the biomass followed by alkaline extraction. The soluble protein was then concentrated by isoelectric precipitation. A combined procedure was carried out by pressing the biomass and following subjecting the residual pulp fraction to homogenization, osmotic shock and alkaline extraction. The three methods were ranked as follows with respect to protein extraction yield (as % of biomass protein); the combined method (23.9 ± 0.3%)> the alkaline extraction (6.8 ± 0.2%)> mechanical pressing (5.0 ± 0.2%). The significant increase when combining the methods was ascribed to a high precipitation yield after alkaline extraction of the pulp, hypothesized to be due to a reduced conductivity of the alkali-soluble protein fraction when derived from pulp rather than whole biomass.
|
|
| 4. |
- Juul, Louise, et al.
(author)
-
Ulva fenestrata protein – comparison of three extraction methods with respect to protein yield and protein quality
- 2021
-
In: Algal Research. - : Elsevier BV. - 2211-9264. ; 60
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Seaweed is gaining attention as a possible alternative and sustainable source of proteins. This study investigates three protein extraction methods and their effect on protein yield and quality when applied to Ulva fenestrata . Two of the methods included alkaline extractions (pH-shifts); one version solubilizing the proteins at pH 8.5 and one solubilizing them at pH 8.5 followed by pH 12 (pH 8.5+12). The third method was a mechanical pressing, using a double screw press. All extraction methods were followed by isoelectric precipitation to concentrate the proteins. Extraction at pH 8.5 gave the significantly highest total protein yield after the isoelectric precipitation, followed by extraction at pH 8.5+12 and lastly mechanical extraction gave the lowest yield. Proteins extracted with both alkaline methods had a significantly higher solubility at pH 7 and pH 9, compared to proteins from the mechanical pressing. There were no significant differences between the three methods in total D/L-amino acid ratio. Amino acid cross-links measured as lysinoalanine (LAL) and lanthionine (LAN) where found in significantly higher amounts in alkali-extracted proteins compared to mechanically extracted, however not to a degree that expect to compromise functional or nutritional quality. Further, no significant difference in protein in vitro digestibility was found between extraction methods. In conclusion, results indicated that protein extraction at pH 8.5 can be recommended, especially regarding total protein yield and solubility of the final protein extract.
|
|
| 5. |
- Juul, Sophie, et al.
(author)
-
Interventions for treatment of COVID-19 : A living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project)
- 2020
-
In: PLoS Medicine. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1549-1277 .- 1549-1676. ; 17:9
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. Methods and findings This is the first edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials comparing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review is based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and Cochrane guidelines, and our 8-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and nonserious adverse events. We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until August 7, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 33 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 13,312 participants. All trials were at overall high risk of bias. We identified one trial randomizing 6,425 participants to dexamethasone versus standard care. This trial showed evidence of a beneficial effect of dexamethasone on all-cause mortality (rate ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-0.93; p < 0.001; low certainty) and on mechanical ventilation (risk ratio [RR] 0.77; 95% CI 0.62-0.95; p = 0.021; low certainty). It was possible to perform meta-analysis of 10 comparisons. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between remdesivir versus placebo on all-cause mortality (RR 0.74; 95% CI 0.40-1.37; p = 0.34, I2 = 58%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.80-1.11; p = 0.48, I2 = 29%; 2 trials; low certainty). Meta-analysis showed evidence of a beneficial effect of remdesivir versus placebo on serious adverse events (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.63-0.94; p = 0.009, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) mainly driven by respiratory failure in one trial. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses showed that we could exclude the possibility that hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reduced the risk of all-cause mortality (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.97-1.19; p = 0.17; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) and serious adverse events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.96-1.18; p = 0.21; I2 = 0%; 7 trials; low certainty) by 20% or more, and meta-analysis showed evidence of a harmful effect on nonserious adverse events (RR 2.40; 95% CI 2.01-2.87; p < 0.00001; I2 = 90%; 6 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between lopinavir-ritonavir versus standard care on serious adverse events (RR 0.64; 95% CI 0.39-1.04; p = 0.07, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty) or nonserious adverse events (RR 1.14; 95% CI 0.85-1.53; p = 0.38, I2 = 75%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a difference between convalescent plasma versus standard care on all-cause mortality (RR 0.60; 95% CI 0.33-1.10; p = 0.10, I2 = 0%; 2 trials; very low certainty). Five single trials showed statistically significant results but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. None of the remaining trials showed evidence of a difference on our predefined outcomes. Because of the lack of relevant data, it was not possible to perform other meta-analyses, network meta-analysis, or individual patient data meta-analyses. The main limitation of this living review is the paucity of data currently available. Furthermore, the included trials were all at risks of systematic errors and random errors. Conclusions Our results show that dexamethasone and remdesivir might be beneficial for COVID-19 patients, but the certainty of the evidence was low to very low, so more trials are needed. We can exclude the possibility of hydroxychloroquine versus standard care reducing the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20% or more. Otherwise, no evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19.
|
|
| 6. |
- Juul, Sophie, et al.
(author)
-
Interventions for treatment of COVID-19 : A protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING Project)
- 2020
-
In: Systematic Reviews. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2046-4053. ; 9:1
-
Research review (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background: COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading virus infection that has quickly caused extensive burden to individual, families, countries, and the globe. No intervention has yet been proven effective for the treatment of COVID-19. Some randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of different drugs have been published, and more are currently underway. There is an urgent need for a living, dynamic systematic review that continuously evaluates the beneficial and harmful effects of all available interventions for COVID-19. Methods/design: We will conduct a living systematic review based on searches of major medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries from their inception onwards to identify relevant randomized clinical trials. We will update the literature search once a week to continuously assess if new evidence is available. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include randomized clinical trials comparing any intervention for the treatment of COVID-19 (e.g., pharmacological interventions, fluid therapy, invasive or noninvasive ventilation, or similar interventions) with any comparator (e.g., an "active" comparator, standard care, placebo, no intervention, or "active placebo") for participants in all age groups with a diagnosis of COVID-19. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. The living systematic review will include aggregate data meta-analyses, Trial Sequential Analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Risk of bias will be assessed with domains, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE). Discussion: COVID-19 has become a pandemic with substantial mortality. A living systematic review evaluating the beneficial and harmful effects of pharmacological and other interventions is urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent disease.
|
|
| 7. |
- Juul, Sophie, et al.
(author)
-
Interventions for treatment of COVID-19 : Second edition of a living systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (The LIVING Project)
- 2021
-
In: PLoS ONE. - : Public Library of Science (PLoS). - 1932-6203. ; 16:3 March
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Background COVID-19 is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused extensive burden to individuals, families, countries, and the world. Effective treatments of COVID-19 are urgently needed. This is the second edition of a living systematic review of randomized clinical trials assessing the effects of all treatment interventions for participants in all age groups with COVID-19. Methods and findings We planned to conduct aggregate data meta-analyses, trial sequential analyses, network meta-analysis, and individual patient data meta-analyses. Our systematic review was based on PRISMA and Cochrane guidelines, and our eight-step procedure for better validation of clinical significance of meta-analysis results. We performed both fixed-effect and random-effects meta-analyses. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes were admission to intensive care, mechanical ventilation, renal replacement therapy, quality of life, and non-serious adverse events. According to the number of outcome comparisons, we adjusted our threshold for significance to p = 0.033. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We searched relevant databases and websites for published and unpublished trials until November 2, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed trial methodology. We included 82 randomized clinical trials enrolling a total of 40,249 participants. 81 out of 82 trials were at overall high risk of bias. Meta-analyses showed no evidence of a difference between corticosteroids versus tocilizumab might reduce the risk of serious adverse events and mechanical ventilation; and that bromhexine might reduce the risk of non-serious adverse events. More trials with low risks of bias and random errors are urgently needed. This review will continuously inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of COVID-19. control on all-cause mortality (risk ratio [RR] 0.89; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.79 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 23.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), on serious adverse events (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.80 to 0.99; p = 0.04; I2 = 39.1%; eight trials; very low certainty), and on mechanical ventilation (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.55 to 1.33; p = 0.49; I2 = 55.3%; two trials; very low certainty). The fixed-effect meta-analyses showed indications of beneficial effects. Trial sequential analyses showed that the required information size for all three analyses was not reached. Meta-analysis (RR 0.93; 95% CI 0.82 to 1.07; p = 0.31; I2 = 0%; four trials; moderate certainty) and trial sequential analysis (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that remdesivir versus control reduced the risk of death by 20%. Meta-analysis (RR 0.82; 95% CI 0.68 to 1.00; p = 0.05; I2 = 38.9%; four trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of difference between remdesivir versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of remdesivir on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.40; 95% CI 0.19 to 0.87; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of intravenous immunoglobulin versus control on all-cause mortality, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.14; p = 0.12; I2 = 77.4%; five trials; very low certainty) and trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed no evidence of a difference between tocilizumab versus control on serious adverse events. Fixed-effect meta-analysis showed indications of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab on serious adverse events. Meta-analysis (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.51 to 0.96; p = 0.02; I2 = 0%; three trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of tocilizumab versus control on mechanical ventilation, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm of reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analysis (RR 0.32; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.69; p < 0.00; I2 = 0%; two trials; very low certainty) showed evidence of a beneficial effect of bromhexine versus standard care on non-serious adverse events, but trial sequential analysis (required information size not reached) showed that the result was severely underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that hydroxychloroquine versus control reduced the risk of death and serious adverse events by 20%. Meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses (boundary for futility crossed) showed that we could reject that lopinavir-ritonavir versus control reduced the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation by 20%. All remaining outcome comparisons showed that we did not have enough information to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Nine single trials showed statistically significant results on our outcomes, but were underpowered to confirm or reject realistic intervention effects. Due to lack of data, it was not relevant to perform network meta-analysis or possible to perform individual patient data meta-analyses. Conclusions No evidence-based treatment for COVID-19 currently exists. Very low certainty evidence indicates that corticosteroids might reduce the risk of death, serious adverse events, and mechanical ventilation; that remdesivir might reduce the risk of serious adverse events; that intravenous immunoglobin might reduce the risk of death and serious adverse events; that
|
|
| 8. |
- Kirchhoff, Tomas, et al.
(author)
-
Breast cancer risk and 6q22.33 : combined results from Breast Cancer Association Consortium and Consortium of Investigators on Modifiers of BRCA1/2
- 2012
-
In: PLOS ONE. - : Public library of science. - 1932-6203. ; 7:6
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Recently, a locus on chromosome 6q22.33 (rs2180341) was reported to be associated with increased breast cancer risk in the Ashkenazi Jewish (AJ) population, and this association was also observed in populations of non-AJ European ancestry. In the present study, we performed a large replication analysis of rs2180341 using data from 31,428 invasive breast cancer cases and 34,700 controls collected from 25 studies in the Breast Cancer Association Consortium (BCAC). In addition, we evaluated whether rs2180341 modifies breast cancer risk in 3,361 BRCA1 and 2,020 BRCA2 carriers from 11 centers in the Consortium of Investigators of Modifiers of BRCA1/2 (CIMBA). Based on the BCAC data from women of European ancestry, we found evidence for a weak association with breast cancer risk for rs2180341 (per-allele odds ratio (OR) = 1.03, 95% CI 1.00-1.06, p = 0.023). There was evidence for heterogeneity in the ORs among studies (I(2) = 49.3%; p = <0.004). In CIMBA, we observed an inverse association with the minor allele of rs2180341 and breast cancer risk in BRCA1 mutation carriers (per-allele OR = 0.89, 95%CI 0.80-1.00, p = 0.048), indicating a potential protective effect of this allele. These data suggest that that 6q22.33 confers a weak effect on breast cancer risk.
|
|
| 9. |
- Molinaro, Antonio, et al.
(author)
-
Imidazole propionate is increased in diabetes and associated with dietary patterns and altered microbial ecology
- 2020
-
In: Nature Communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2041-1723 .- 2041-1723. ; 11:1
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Microbiota-host-diet interactions contribute to the development of metabolic diseases. Imidazole propionate is a novel microbially produced metabolite from histidine, which impairs glucose metabolism. Here, we show that subjects with prediabetes and diabetes in the MetaCardis cohort from three European countries have elevated serum imidazole propionate levels. Furthermore, imidazole propionate levels were increased in subjects with low bacterial gene richness and Bacteroides 2 enterotype, which have previously been associated with obesity. The Bacteroides 2 enterotype was also associated with increased abundance of the genes involved in imidazole propionate biosynthesis from dietary histidine. Since patients and controls did not differ in their histidine dietary intake, the elevated levels of imidazole propionate in type 2 diabetes likely reflects altered microbial metabolism of histidine, rather than histidine intake per se. Thus the microbiota may contribute to type 2 diabetes by generating imidazole propionate that can modulate host inflammation and metabolism.
|
|
| 10. |
- Trigo, João Pedro, 1995, et al.
(author)
-
In vitro digestibility and Caco-2 cell bioavailability of sea lettuce (Ulva fenestrata) proteins extracted using pH-shift processing
- 2021
-
In: Food Chemistry. - : Elsevier BV. - 0308-8146 .- 1873-7072. ; 356
-
Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
- Seaweed is a promising sustainable source of vegan protein as its farming does not require arable land, pesticides/insecticides, nor freshwater supply. However, to be explored as a novel protein source the content and nutritional quality of protein in seaweed need to be improved. We assessed the influence of pH-shift processing on protein degree of hydrolysis (%DH), protein/peptide size distribution, accessibility, and cell bioavailability of Ulva fenestrata proteins after in vitro gastrointestinal digestion. pH-shift processing of Ulva, which concentrated its proteins 3.5-times, significantly improved the %DH from 27.7±2.6% to 35.7±2.1% and the amino acid accessibility from 56.9±4.1% to 72.7±0.6%. Due to the higher amino acid accessibility, the amount of most amino acids transported across the cell monolayers was higher in the protein extracts. Regarding bioavailability, both Ulva and protein extracts were as bioavailable as casein. The protein/peptide molecular size distribution after digestion did not disclose a clear association with bioavailability.
|
|
