Creating a Modified Version of the Cambridge Multimorbidity Score to Predict Mortality in People Older Than 16 Years: Model Development and Validation.

BACKGROUND: No single multimorbidity measure is validated for use in NHS (National Health Service) England's General Practice Extraction Service Data for Pandemic Planning and Research (GDPPR), the nationwide primary care data set created for COVID-19 pandemic research. The Cambridge Multimorbidity Score (CMMS) is a validated tool for predicting mortality risk, with 37 conditions defined by Read Codes. The GDPPR uses the more internationally used Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine clinical terms (SNOMED CT). We previously developed a modified version of the CMMS using SNOMED CT, but the number of terms for the GDPPR data set is limited making it impossible to use this version. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop and validate a modified version of CMMS using the clinical terms available for the GDPPR. METHODS: We used pseudonymized data from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC), which has an extensive SNOMED CT list. From the 37 conditions in the original CMMS model, we selected conditions either with (1) high prevalence ratio (≥85%), calculated as the prevalence in the RSC data set but using the GDPPR set of SNOMED CT codes, divided by the prevalence included in the RSC SNOMED CT codes or (2) conditions with lower prevalence ratios but with high predictive value. The resulting set of conditions was included in Cox proportional hazard models to determine the 1-year mortality risk in a development data set (n=500,000) and construct a new CMMS model, following the methods for the original CMMS study, with variable reduction and parsimony, achieved by backward elimination and the Akaike information stopping criterion. Model validation involved obtaining 1-year mortality estimates for a synchronous data set (n=250,000) and 1-year and 5-year mortality estimates for an asynchronous data set (n=250,000). We compared the performance with that of the original CMMS and the modified CMMS that we previously developed using RSC data. RESULTS: The initial model contained 22 conditions and our final model included 17 conditions. The conditions overlapped with those of the modified CMMS using the more extensive SNOMED CT list. For 1-year mortality, discrimination was high in both the derivation and validation data sets (Harrell C=0.92) and 5-year mortality was slightly lower (Harrell C=0.90). Calibration was reasonable following an adjustment for overfitting. The performance was similar to that of both the original and previous modified CMMS models. CONCLUSIONS: The new modified version of the CMMS can be used on the GDPPR, a nationwide primary care data set of 54 million people, to enable adjustment for multimorbidity in predicting mortality in people in real-world vaccine effectiveness, pandemic planning, and other research studies. It requires 17 variables to produce a comparable performance with our previous modification of CMMS to enable it to be used in routine data using SNOMED CT.

Adverse events following first and second dose COVID-19 vaccination in England, October 2020 to September 2021: a national vaccine surveillance platform self-controlled case series study.

BackgroundPost-authorisation vaccine safety surveillance is well established for reporting common adverse events of interest (AEIs) following influenza vaccines, but not for COVID-19 vaccines.AimTo estimate the incidence of AEIs presenting to primary care following COVID-19 vaccination in England, and report safety profile differences between vaccine brands.MethodsWe used a self-controlled case series design to estimate relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the national sentinel network, the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub. We compared AEIs (overall and by clinical category) 7 days pre- and post-vaccination to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021.ResultsWithin 7,952,861 records, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs, 4.85% within 7 days post-vaccination. Overall, medically attended AEIs decreased post-vaccination against background levels. There was a 3-7% decrease in incidence within 7 days after both doses of Comirnaty (RI: 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.94 and RI: 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.98, respectively) and Vaxzevria (RI: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.98). A 20% increase was observed after one dose of Spikevax (RI: 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00-1.44). Fewer AEIs were reported as age increased. Types of AEIs, e.g. increased neurological and psychiatric conditions, varied between brands following two doses of Comirnaty (RI: 1.41; 95% CI: 1.28-1.56) and Vaxzevria (RI: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.97-1.78).ConclusionCOVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in medically attended AEI incidence. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, contributing to reporting vaccine safety.

Replication study of plasma proteins relating to Alzheimer's pathology.

INTRODUCTION: This study sought to discover and replicate plasma proteomic biomarkers relating to Alzheimer's disease (AD) including both the "ATN" (amyloid/tau/neurodegeneration) diagnostic framework and clinical diagnosis. METHODS: Plasma proteins from 972 subjects (372 controls, 409 mild cognitive impairment [MCI], and 191 AD) were measured using both SOMAscan and targeted assays, including 4001 and 25 proteins, respectively. RESULTS: Protein co-expression network analysis of SOMAscan data revealed the relation between proteins and "N" varied across different neurodegeneration markers, indicating that the ATN variants are not interchangeable. Using hub proteins, age, and apolipoprotein E ε4 genotype discriminated AD from controls with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.81 and MCI convertors from non-convertors with an AUC of 0.74. Targeted assays replicated the relation of four proteins with the ATN framework and clinical diagnosis. DISCUSSION: Our study suggests that blood proteins can predict the presence of AD pathology as measured in the ATN framework as well as clinical diagnosis.

Distinct and separable roles for endogenous CRY1 and CRY2 within the circadian molecular clockwork of the suprachiasmatic nucleus, as revealed by the Fbxl3(Afh) mutation.

The circadian clock of the suprachiasmatic nucleus (SCN) drives daily rhythms of behavior. Cryptochromes (CRYs) are powerful transcriptional repressors within the molecular negative feedback loops at the heart of the SCN clockwork, where they periodically suppress their own expression and that of clock-controlled genes. To determine the differential contributions of CRY1 and CRY2 within circadian timing in vivo, we exploited the N-ethyl-N-nitrosourea-induced afterhours mutant Fbxl3(Afh) to stabilize endogenous CRY. Importantly, this was conducted in CRY2- and CRY1-deficient mice to test each CRY in isolation. In both CRY-deficient backgrounds, circadian rhythms of wheel-running and SCN bioluminescence showed increased period length with increased Fbxl3(Afh) dosage. Although both CRY proteins slowed the clock, CRY1 was significantly more potent than CRY2, and in SCN slices, CRY1 but not CRY2 prolonged the interval of transcriptional suppression. Selective CRY-stabilization demonstrated that both CRYs are endogenous transcriptional repressors of clock-controlled genes, but again CRY1 was preeminent. Finally, although Cry1(-/-);Cry2(-/-) mice were behaviorally arrhythmic, their SCN expressed short period (~18 h) rhythms with variable stability. Fbxl3(Afh/Afh) had no effect on these CRY-independent rhythms, confirming its circadian action is mediated exclusively via CRYs. Thus, stabilization of both CRY1 and CRY2 are necessary and sufficient to explain circadian period lengthening by Fbxl3(Afh/Afh). Both CRY proteins dose-dependently lengthen the intrinsic, high-frequency SCN rhythm, and CRY2 also attenuates the more potent period-lengthening effects of CRY1. Incorporation of CRY-mediated transcriptional feedback thus confers stability to intrinsic SCN oscillations, establishing periods between 18 and 29 h, as determined by selective contributions of CRY1 and CRY2.

COVID-19 and influenza vaccine uptake among pregnant women in national cohorts of England and Wales.

Vaccines against COVID-19 and influenza can reduce the adverse outcomes caused by infections during pregnancy, but vaccine uptake among pregnant women has been suboptimal. We examined the COVID-19 and influenza vaccine uptake and disparities in pregnant women during the COVID-19 pandemic to inform vaccination interventions. We used data from the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Research and Surveillance Centre database in England and the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage Databank in Wales. The uptake of at least one dose of vaccine was 40.2% for COVID-19 and 41.8% for influenza among eligible pregnant women. We observed disparities in COVID-19 and influenza vaccine uptake, with socioeconomically deprived and ethnic minority groups showing lower vaccination rates. The suboptimal uptake of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines, especially in those from socioeconomically deprived backgrounds and Black, mixed or other ethnic groups, underscores the necessity for interventions to reduce vaccine hesitancy and enhance acceptance in pregnant women.

Uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations amongst 3,433,483 children and young people: meta-analysis of UK prospective cohorts.

SARS-CoV-2 infection in children and young people (CYP) can lead to life-threatening COVID-19, transmission within households and schools, and the development of long COVID. Using linked health and administrative data, we investigated vaccine uptake among 3,433,483 CYP aged 5-17 years across all UK nations between 4th August 2021 and 31st May 2022. We constructed national cohorts and undertook multi-state modelling and meta-analysis to identify associations between demographic variables and vaccine uptake. We found that uptake of the first COVID-19 vaccine among CYP was low across all four nations compared to other age groups and diminished with subsequent doses. Age and vaccination status of adults living in the same household were identified as important risk factors associated with vaccine uptake in CYP. For example, 5-11 year-olds were less likely to receive their first vaccine compared to 16-17 year-olds (adjusted Hazard Ratio [aHR]: 0.10 (95%CI: 0.06-0.19)), and CYP in unvaccinated households were less likely to receive their first vaccine compared to CYP in partially vaccinated households (aHR: 0.19, 95%CI 0.13-0.29).

Risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes after autumn 2022 COVID-19 booster vaccinations: a pooled analysis of national prospective cohort studies involving 7.4 million adults in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.

Background: UK COVID-19 vaccination policy has evolved to offering COVID-19 booster doses to individuals at increased risk of severe Illness from COVID-19. Building on our analyses of vaccine effectiveness of first, second and initial booster doses, we aimed to identify individuals at increased risk of severe outcomes (i.e., COVID-19 related hospitalisation or death) post the autumn 2022 booster dose. Methods: We undertook a national population-based cohort analysis across all four UK nations through linked primary care, vaccination, hospitalisation and mortality data. We included individuals who received autumn 2022 booster doses of BNT162b2 (Comirnaty) or mRNA-1273 (Spikevax) during the period September 1, 2022 to December 31, 2022 to investigate the risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes. Cox proportional hazard models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the association between demographic and clinical factors and severe COVID-19 outcomes after the autumn booster dose. Analyses were adjusted for age, sex, body mass index (BMI), deprivation, urban/rural areas and comorbidities. Stratified analyses were conducted by vaccine type. We then conducted a fixed-effect meta-analysis to combine results across the four UK nations. Findings: Between September 1, 2022 and December 31, 2022, 7,451,890 individuals ≥18 years received an autumn booster dose. 3500 had severe COVID-19 outcomes (2.9 events per 1000 person-years). Being male (male vs female, aHR 1.41 (1.32-1.51)), older adults (≥80 years vs 18-49 years; 10.43 (8.06-13.50)), underweight (BMI <18.5 vs BMI 25.0-29.9; 2.94 (2.51-3.44)), those with comorbidities (≥5 comorbidities vs none; 9.45 (8.15-10.96)) had a higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation or death after the autumn booster dose. Those with a larger household size (≥11 people within household vs 2 people; 1.56 (1.23-1.98)) and from more deprived areas (most deprived vs least deprived quintile; 1.35 (1.21-1.51)) had modestly higher risks. We also observed at least a two-fold increase in risk for those with various chronic neurological conditions, including Down's syndrome, immunodeficiency, chronic kidney disease, cancer, chronic respiratory disease, or cardiovascular disease. Interpretation: Males, older individuals, underweight individuals, those with an increasing number of comorbidities, from a larger household or more deprived areas, and those with specific underlying health conditions remained at increased risk of COVID-19 hospitalisation and death after the autumn 2022 vaccine booster dose. There is now a need to focus on these risk groups for investigating immunogenicity and efficacy of further booster doses or therapeutics. Funding: National Core Studies-Immunity, UK Research and Innovation (Medical Research Council and Economic and Social Research Council), Health Data Research UK, the Scottish Government, and the University of Edinburgh.

AZD1222 effectiveness against severe COVID-19 in individuals with comorbidity or frailty: The RAVEN cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Despite being prioritized during initial COVID-19 vaccine rollout, vulnerable individuals at high risk of severe COVID-19 (hospitalization, intensive care unit admission, or death) remain underrepresented in vaccine effectiveness (VE) studies. The RAVEN cohort study (NCT05047822) assessed AZD1222 (ChAdOx1 nCov-19) two-dose primary series VE in vulnerable populations. METHODS: Using the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners Clinical Informatics Digital Hub, linked to secondary care, death registration, and COVID-19 datasets in England, COVID-19 outcomes in 2021 were compared in vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals matched on age, sex, region, and multimorbidity. RESULTS: Over 4.5 million AZD1222 recipients were matched (mean follow-up ∼5 months); 68% were ≥50 years, 57% had high multimorbidity. Overall, high VE against severe COVID-19 was demonstrated, with lower VE observed in vulnerable populations. VE against hospitalization was higher in the lowest multimorbidity quartile (91.1%; 95% CI: 90.1, 92.0) than the highest quartile (80.4%; 79.7, 81.1), and among individuals ≥65 years, higher in the 'fit' (86.2%; 84.5, 87.6) than the frailest (71.8%; 69.3, 74.2). VE against hospitalization was lowest in immunosuppressed individuals (64.6%; 60.7, 68.1). CONCLUSIONS: Based on integrated and comprehensive UK health data, overall population-level VE with AZD1222 was high. VEs were notably lower in vulnerable groups, particularly the immunosuppressed.

Thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and haemorrhagic events following second dose with BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1: self-controlled case series analysis of the English national sentinel cohort.

Background: Thrombosis associated with thrombocytopenia was a matter of concern post first and second doses of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccines. Therefore, it is important to investigate the risk of thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and haemorrhagic events following a second dose of BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 COVID-19 vaccines. Methods: We conducted a large-scale self-controlled case series analysis, using routine primary care data linked to hospital data, among 12.3 million individuals (16 years old and above) in England. We used the nationally representative Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) sentinel network database with baseline and risk periods between 8th December 2020 and 11th June 2022. We included individuals who received two vaccine (primary) doses of the BNT162b2 mRNA (Pfizer-BioNTech) and two vaccine doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (Oxford-AstraZeneca) vaccines in our analyses. We carried out a self-controlled case series (SCCS) analysis for each outcome using a conditional Poisson regression model with an offset for the length of risk period. We reported the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) of thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic (including arterial and venous events) and haemorrhagic events, in the period of 0-27 days after receiving a second dose of BNT162b2 or ChAdOx1 vaccines compared to the baseline period (14 or more days prior to first dose, 28 or more days after the second dose and the time between 28 or more days after the first and 14 or more days prior to the second dose). We adjusted for a range of potential confounders, including age, sex, comorbidities and deprivation. Findings: Between December 8, 2020 and February 11, 2022, 6,306,306 individuals were vaccinated with two doses of BNT162b2 and 6,046,785 individuals were vaccinated with two doses of ChAdOx1. Compared to the baseline, our analysis show no increased risk of venous thromboembolic events (VTE) for both BNT162b2 (IRR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.65-0.770) and ChAdOx1 (IRR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.84-0.98); and similarly there was no increased risk for cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) for both BNT162b2 (IRR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.41-1.85) and ChAdOx1 (IRR 1.73, 95% CI: 0.82-3.68). We additionally report no difference in IRR for pulmonary embolus, and deep vein thrombosis, thrombocytopenia, including idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), and haemorrhagic events post second dose for both BNT162b2. Interpretation: Reassuringly, we found no associations between increased risk of thrombocytopenic, thromboembolic and haemorrhagic events post vaccination with second dose for either of these vaccines. Funding: Data and Connectivity: COVID-19 Vaccines Pharmacovigilance study.

Adverse events after first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccination in England: a national vaccine surveillance platform self-controlled case series study.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate the incidence of adverse events of interest (AEIs) after receiving their first and second doses of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccinations, and to report the safety profile differences between the different COVID-19 vaccines. DESIGN: We used a self-controlled case series design to estimate the relative incidence (RI) of AEIs reported to the Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners national sentinel network. We compared the AEIs that occurred seven days before and after receiving the COVID-19 vaccinations to background levels between 1 October 2020 and 12 September 2021. SETTING: England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals experiencing AEIs after receiving first and second doses of COVID-19 vaccines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: AEIs determined based on events reported in clinical trials and in primary care during post-license surveillance. RESULTS: A total of 7,952,861 individuals were vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines within the study period. Among them, 781,200 individuals (9.82%) presented to general practice with 1,482,273 AEIs. Within the first seven days post-vaccination, 4.85% of all the AEIs were reported. There was a 3-7% decrease in the overall RI of AEIs in the seven days after receiving both doses of Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 (RI = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.91-0.94) and 0.96; 95% CI: 0.94-0.98), respectively) and Oxford-AstraZeneca ChAdOx1 (RI = 0.97; 95% CI: 0.95-0.98) for both doses), but a 20% increase after receiving the first dose of Moderna mRNA-1273 (RI = 1.20; 95% CI: 1.00-1.44)). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a small decrease in the incidence of medically attended AEIs. Sentinel networks could routinely report common AEI rates, which could contribute to reporting vaccine safety.

Methodological Issues in Using a Common Data Model of COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake and Important Adverse Events of Interest: Feasibility Study of Data and Connectivity COVID-19 Vaccines Pharmacovigilance in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: The Data and Connectivity COVID-19 Vaccines Pharmacovigilance (DaC-VaP) UK-wide collaboration was created to monitor vaccine uptake and effectiveness and provide pharmacovigilance using routine clinical and administrative data. To monitor these, pooled analyses may be needed. However, variation in terminologies present a barrier as England uses the Systematized Nomenclature of Medicine Clinical Terms (SNOMED CT), while the rest of the United Kingdom uses the Read v2 terminology in primary care. The availability of data sources is not uniform across the United Kingdom. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to use the concept mappings in the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) common data model (CDM) to identify common concepts recorded and to report these in a repeated cross-sectional study. We planned to do this for vaccine coverage and 2 adverse events of interest (AEIs), cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) and anaphylaxis. We identified concept mappings to SNOMED CT, Read v2, the World Health Organization's International Classification of Disease Tenth Revision (ICD-10) terminology, and the UK Dictionary of Medicines and Devices (dm+d). METHODS: Exposures and outcomes of interest to DaC-VaP for pharmacovigilance studies were selected. Mappings of these variables to different terminologies used across the United Kingdom's devolved nations' health services were identified from the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics (OHDSI) Automated Terminology Harmonization, Extraction, and Normalization for Analytics (ATHENA) online browser. Lead analysts from each nation then confirmed or added to the mappings identified. These mappings were then used to report AEIs in a common format. We reported rates for windows of 0-2 and 3-28 days postvaccine every 28 days. RESULTS: We listed the mappings between Read v2, SNOMED CT, ICD-10, and dm+d. For vaccine exposure, we found clear mapping from OMOP to our clinical terminologies, though dm+d had codes not listed by OMOP at the time of searching. We found a list of CVST and anaphylaxis codes. For CVST, we had to use a broader cerebral venous thrombosis conceptual approach to include Read v2. We identified 56 SNOMED CT codes, of which we selected 47 (84%), and 15 Read v2 codes. For anaphylaxis, our refined search identified 60 SNOMED CT codes and 9 Read v2 codes, of which we selected 10 (17%) and 4 (44%), respectively, to include in our repeated cross-sectional studies. CONCLUSIONS: This approach enables the use of mappings to different terminologies within the OMOP CDM without the need to catalogue an entire database. However, Read v2 has less granular concepts than some terminologies, such as SNOMED CT. Additionally, the OMOP CDM cannot compensate for limitations in the clinical coding system. Neither Read v2 nor ICD-10 is sufficiently granular to enable CVST to be specifically flagged. Hence, any pooled analysis will have to be at the less specific level of cerebrovascular venous thrombosis. Overall, the mappings within this CDM are useful, and our method could be used for rapid collaborations where there are only a limited number of concepts to pool.

Predicting Risk of Hospital Admission in Patients With Suspected COVID-19 in a Community Setting: Protocol for Development and Validation of a Multivariate Risk Prediction Tool.

BACKGROUND: During the pandemic, remote consultations have become the norm for assessing patients with signs and symptoms of COVID-19 to decrease the risk of transmission. This has intensified the clinical uncertainty already experienced by primary care clinicians when assessing patients with suspected COVID-19 and has prompted the use of risk prediction scores, such as the National Early Warning Score (NEWS2), to assess severity and guide treatment. However, the risk prediction tools available have not been validated in a community setting and are not designed to capture the idiosyncrasies of COVID-19 infection. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to produce a multivariate risk prediction tool, RECAP-V1 (Remote COVID-19 Assessment in Primary Care), to support primary care clinicians in the identification of those patients with COVID-19 that are at higher risk of deterioration and facilitate the early escalation of their treatment with the aim of improving patient outcomes. METHODS: The study follows a prospective cohort observational design, whereby patients presenting in primary care with signs and symptoms suggestive of COVID-19 will be followed and their data linked to hospital outcomes (hospital admission and death). Data collection will be carried out by primary care clinicians in four arms: North West London Clinical Commissioning Groups (NWL CCGs), Oxford-Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) Research and Surveillance Centre (RSC), Covid Clinical Assessment Service (CCAS), and South East London CCGs (Doctaly platform). The study involves the use of an electronic template that incorporates a list of items (known as RECAP-V0) thought to be associated with disease outcome according to previous qualitative work. Data collected will be linked to patient outcomes in highly secure environments. We will then use multivariate logistic regression analyses for model development and validation. RESULTS: Recruitment of participants started in October 2020. Initially, only the NWL CCGs and RCGP RSC arms were active. As of March 24, 2021, we have recruited a combined sample of 3827 participants in these two arms. CCAS and Doctaly joined the study in February 2021, with CCAS starting the recruitment process on March 15, 2021. The first part of the analysis (RECAP-V1 model development) is planned to start in April 2021 using the first half of the NWL CCGs and RCGP RSC combined data set. Posteriorly, the model will be validated with the rest of the NWL CCGs and RCGP RSC data as well as the CCAS and Doctaly data sets. The study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee on May 27, 2020 (Integrated Research Application System number: 283024, Research Ethics Committee reference number: 20/NW/0266) and badged as National Institute of Health Research Urgent Public Health Study on October 14, 2020. CONCLUSIONS: We believe the validated RECAP-V1 early warning score will be a valuable tool for the assessment of severity in patients with suspected COVID-19 in the community, either in face-to-face or remote consultations, and will facilitate the timely escalation of treatment with the potential to improve patient outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN13953727; https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN13953727. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/29072.

An Early Warning Risk Prediction Tool (RECAP-V1) for Patients Diagnosed With COVID-19: Protocol for a Statistical Analysis Plan.

BACKGROUND: Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, efforts have been made to develop early warning risk scores to help clinicians decide which patient is likely to deteriorate and require hospitalization. The RECAP (Remote COVID-19 Assessment in Primary Care) study investigates the predictive risk of hospitalization, deterioration, and death of patients with confirmed COVID-19, based on a set of parameters chosen through a Delphi process performed by clinicians. We aim to use rich data collected remotely through the use of electronic data templates integrated in the electronic health systems of several general practices across the United Kingdom to construct accurate predictive models. The models will be based on preexisting conditions and monitoring data of a patient's clinical parameters (eg, blood oxygen saturation) to make reliable predictions as to the patient's risk of hospital admission, deterioration, and death. OBJECTIVE: This statistical analysis plan outlines the statistical methods to build the prediction model to be used in the prioritization of patients in the primary care setting. The statistical analysis plan for the RECAP study includes the development and validation of the RECAP-V1 prediction model as a primary outcome. This prediction model will be adapted as a three-category risk score split into red (high risk), amber (medium risk), and green (low risk) for any patient with suspected COVID-19. The model will predict the risk of deterioration and hospitalization. METHODS: After the data have been collected, we will assess the degree of missingness and use a combination of traditional data imputation using multiple imputation by chained equations, as well as more novel machine-learning approaches to impute the missing data for the final analysis. For predictive model development, we will use multiple logistic regression analyses to construct the model. We aim to recruit a minimum of 1317 patients for model development and validation. We will then externally validate the model on an independent dataset of 1400 patients. The model will also be applied for multiple different datasets to assess both its performance in different patient groups and its applicability for different methods of data collection. RESULTS: As of May 10, 2021, we have recruited 3732 patients. A further 2088 patients have been recruited through the National Health Service Clinical Assessment Service, and approximately 5000 patients have been recruited through the DoctalyHealth platform. CONCLUSIONS: The methodology for the development of the RECAP-V1 prediction model as well as the risk score will provide clinicians with a statistically robust tool to help prioritize COVID-19 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04435041; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04435041. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/30083.

Validation of Plasma Proteomic Biomarkers Relating to Brain Amyloid Burden in the EMIF-Alzheimer's Disease Multimodal Biomarker Discovery Cohort.

We have previously investigated, discovered, and replicated plasma protein biomarkers for use to triage potential trials participants for PET or cerebrospinal fluid measures of Alzheimer's disease (AD) pathology. This study sought to undertake validation of these candidate plasma biomarkers in a large, multi-center sample collection. Targeted plasma analyses of 34 proteins with prior evidence for prediction of in vivo pathology were conducted in up to 1,000 samples from cognitively healthy elderly individuals, people with mild cognitive impairment, and in patients with AD-type dementia, selected from the EMIF-AD catalogue. Proteins were measured using Luminex xMAP, ELISA, and Meso Scale Discovery assays. Seven proteins replicated in their ability to predict in vivo amyloid pathology. These proteins form a biomarker panel that, along with age, could significantly discriminate between individuals with high and low amyloid pathology with an area under the curve of 0.74. The performance of this biomarker panel remained consistent when tested in apolipoprotein E ɛ4 non-carrier individuals only. This blood-based panel is biologically relevant, measurable using practical immunocapture arrays, and could significantly reduce the cost incurred to clinical trials through screen failure.

Plasma Protein Biomarkers for the Prediction of CSF Amyloid and Tau and [18F]-Flutemetamol PET Scan Result.

Background: Blood biomarkers may aid in recruitment to clinical trials of Alzheimer's disease (AD) modifying therapeutics by triaging potential trials participants for amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) or cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) Aß and tau tests. Objective: To discover a plasma proteomic signature associated with CSF and PET measures of AD pathology. Methods: Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) based proteomics were performed in plasma from participants with subjective cognitive decline (SCD), mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and AD, recruited to the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort, stratified by CSF Tau/Aß42 (n = 50). Technical replication and independent validation were performed by immunoassay in plasma from SCD, MCI, and AD participants recruited to the Amsterdam Dementia Cohort with CSF measures (n = 100), MCI participants enrolled in the GE067-005 study with [18F]-Flutemetamol PET amyloid measures (n = 173), and AD, MCI and cognitively healthy participants from the EMIF 500 study with CSF Aß42 measurements (n = 494). Results: 25 discovery proteins were nominally associated with CSF Tau/Aß42 (P < 0.05) with associations of ficolin-2 (FCN2), apolipoprotein C-IV and fibrinogen ß chain confirmed by immunoassay (P < 0.05). In the GE067-005 cohort, FCN2 was nominally associated with PET amyloid (P < 0.05) replicating the association with CSF Tau/Aß42. There were nominally significant associations of complement component 3 with PET amyloid, and apolipoprotein(a), apolipoprotein A-I, ceruloplasmin, and PPY with MCI conversion to AD (all P < 0.05). In the EMIF 500 cohort FCN2 was trending toward a significant relationship with CSF Aß42 (P ≈ 0.05), while both A1AT and clusterin were nominally significantly associated with CSF Aß42 (both P < 0.05). Conclusion: Associations of plasma proteins with multiple measures of AD pathology and progression are demonstrated. To our knowledge this is the first study to report an association of FCN2 with AD pathology. Further testing of the proteins in larger independent cohorts will be important.

Generation of mouse mutants as tools in dissecting the molecular clock.

Elucidation of the molecular basis of mammalian circadian rhythms has progressed dramatically in recent years through the characterization of mouse mutants. With the implementation of numerous mouse genetics programs, comprehensive sets of mutations in genes affecting circadian output measures have been generated. Although incomplete, existing arrays of mutants have been instrumental in our understanding of how the internal SCN clock interacts with the environment and how it conveys its rhythm to remote oscillators. The use of ENU mutagenesis has proven to be a significant contributor, generating mutations leading to subtle and distinct alterations in circadian protein function. In parallel, progress with mouse gene targeting allows one to study gene function in depth by ablating it entirely, in specific tissues at specific times, or by targeting specific functional domains. This has culminated in worldwide efforts to target every gene in the mouse genome allowing researchers to study multiple gene targeting effects systematically.