A liver secretome gene signature-based approach for determining circulating biomarkers of NAFLD severity.

Non-invasive biomarkers of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) supporting diagnosis and monitoring disease progression are urgently needed. The present study aimed to establish a bioinformatics pipeline capable of defining and validating NAFLD biomarker candidates based on paired hepatic global gene expression and plasma bioanalysis from individuals representing different stages of histologically confirmed NAFLD (no/mild, moderate, more advanced NAFLD). Liver secretome gene signatures were generated in a patient cohort of 26 severely obese individuals with the majority having no or mild fibrosis. To this end, global gene expression changes were compared between individuals with no/mild NAFLD and moderate/advanced NAFLD with subsequent filtering for candidate gene products with liver-selective expression and secretion. Four candidate genes, including LPA (lipoprotein A), IGFBP-1 (insulin-like growth factor-binding protein 1), SERPINF2 (serpin family F member 2) and MAT1A (methionine adenosyltransferase 1A), were differentially expressed in moderate/advanced NAFLD, which was confirmed in three independent RNA sequencing datasets from large, publicly available NAFLD studies. The corresponding gene products were quantified in plasma samples but could not discriminate among different grades of NAFLD based on NAFLD activity score. Conclusion: We demonstrate a novel approach based on the liver transcriptome allowing for identification of secreted hepatic gene products as potential circulating diagnostic biomarkers of NAFLD. Using this approach in larger NAFLD patient cohorts may yield potential circulating biomarkers for NAFLD severity.

Protocol for a 30-day randomised, parallel-group, non-inferiority, controlled trial investigating the effects of discontinuing renin-angiotensin system inhibitors in patients with and without COVID-19: the RASCOVID-19 trial.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the virus SARS-CoV has spread rapidly and caused damage worldwide. Data suggest a major overrepresentation of hypertension and diabetes among patients experiencing severe courses of COVID-19 including COVID-19-related deaths. Many of these patients receive renin-angiotensin system (RAS) inhibiting therapy, and evidence suggests that treatment with angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) could attenuate SARS-CoV-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome, and ACE inhibitors and ARBs have been suggested to alleviate COVID-19 pulmonary manifestations. This randomised clinical trial will address whether RAS inhibiting therapy should be continued or discontinued in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This trial is a 30-day randomised parallel-group non-inferiority clinical trial with an embedded mechanistic substudy. In the main trial, 215 patients treated with a RAS inhibitor will be included. The participants will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either discontinue or continue their RAS inhibiting therapy in addition to standard care. The patients are included during hospitalisation and followed for a period of 30 days. The primary end point is number of days alive and out of hospital within 14 days after recruitment. In a mechanistic substudy, 40 patients treated with RAS inhibition, who are not in hospital and not infected with COVID-19 will be randomly assigned to discontinue or continue their RAS inhibiting therapy with the primary end point of serum ACE2 activity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This trial has been approved by the Scientific-Ethical Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark (identification no. H-20026484), the Danish Medicines Agency (identification no. 2020040883) and by the Danish Data Protection Agency (P-2020-366). The results of this project will be compiled into one or more manuscripts for publication in international peer-reviewed scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2020-001544-26; NCT04351581.

Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: A living systematic review with Trial Sequential Analysis and network meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 is rapidly spreading causing extensive burdens across the world. Effective vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are urgently needed. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Our objective was to assess the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccines through analyses of all currently available randomized clinical trials. We searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and other sources from inception to June 17, 2021 for randomized clinical trials assessing vaccines for COVID-19. At least two independent reviewers screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We conducted meta-analyses, network meta-analyses, and Trial Sequential Analyses (TSA). Our primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, vaccine efficacy, and serious adverse events. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. We identified 46 trials; 35 trials randomizing 219 864 participants could be included in our analyses. Our meta-analyses showed that mRNA vaccines (efficacy, 95% [95% confidence interval (CI), 92% to 97%]; 71 514 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); inactivated vaccines (efficacy, 61% [95% CI, 52% to 68%]; 48 029 participants; 3 trials; moderate certainty); protein subunit vaccines (efficacy, 77% [95% CI, -5% to 95%]; 17 737 participants; 2 trials; low certainty); and viral vector vaccines (efficacy 68% [95% CI, 61% to 74%]; 71 401 participants; 5 trials; low certainty) prevented COVID-19. Viral vector vaccines decreased mortality (risk ratio, 0.25 [95% CI 0.09 to 0.67]; 67 563 participants; 3 trials, low certainty), but comparable data on inactivated, mRNA, and protein subunit vaccines were imprecise. None of the vaccines showed evidence of a difference on serious adverse events, but observational evidence suggested rare serious adverse events. All the vaccines increased the risk of non-serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that all the included vaccines are effective in preventing COVID-19. The mRNA vaccines seem most effective in preventing COVID-19, but viral vector vaccines seem most effective in reducing mortality. Further trials and longer follow-up are necessary to provide better insight into the safety profile of these vaccines.