Surgery for nasal polyposis in cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a life-shortening, autosomal recessive disease that leads to abnormal electrolyte concentration in exocrine secretions. Secretion stasis in paranasal sinuses determines chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) and nasal polyposis. Endoscopic sinus surgery is used to open the sinuses and allow medical treatment to work properly. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effects of sinus surgery alone or in combination with medical treatment (non-surgical) compared to medical treatment (non-surgical) alone on both nasal and pulmonary function in people with CF diagnosed with CRS with nasal polyposis. Further, to evaluate the impact of sinus surgery (with or without medical treatment) on hospitalization rates, use of antibiotics and pulmonary exacerbation rates. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis Trials Register, compiled from electronic database searches and hand searching of journals and conference abstract books. Date of last search: 4 July 2022. We also searched other databases (Pubmed, Embase, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), Virtual Health Library and ClinicalTrials.gov). Date of last search: 18 September 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing groups who underwent endoscopic sinus surgery and groups with medical treatment alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias and evaluated the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. They contacted the authors of the included study for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 66 publications relating to 50 studies from electronic searches. Only one study fulfilled the inclusion criteria, and only limited information was available. In this study, 28 participants aged 19 to 28 years were randomized in equal numbers to either nasal irrigation alone or nasal irrigation with surgery (endoscopic polypectomy with extended sinusotomy). The certainty of the evidence was very low according to the GRADE approach. We are uncertain whether, compared to medical treatment alone, the addition of surgical intervention improves nasal symptoms, or reduces bacterial colonization, the use of antibiotics and pulmonary exacerbations. We are also uncertain whether the addition of surgery to medical treatment leads to changes in pulmonary function. There was one episode of bleeding during surgery that was corrected during the procedure with no further consequences. The study did not report on survival. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very low-certainty evidence means we are not certain if endoscopic sinus surgery to treat chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis in cystic fibrosis is effective. Future research should be multicentric to increase the number of participants and increase statistical power. Adequate randomization and allocation concealment are important to guarantee that the groups are similar. Blinding, however, may not be possible in an ethical trial; even without blinding, results can achieve high-level evidence if the outcomes used are objective parameters. Future research should follow participants of all ages for at least 12 months to evaluate the evolution of nasal polyposis, its recurrence and how symptoms may return. We also consider mortality an important outcome to be assessed. Future clinical research should consider the effects of cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulators, a new group of drugs that may affect the development of nasal polyps.

BRCA1 frameshift variants leading to extended incorrect protein C termini.

Carriers of BRCA1 germline pathogenic variants are at substantially higher risk of developing breast and ovarian cancer than the general population. Accurate identification of at-risk individuals is crucial for risk stratification and the implementation of targeted preventive and therapeutic interventions. Despite significant progress in variant classification efforts, a sizable portion of reported BRCA1 variants remain as variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUSs). Variants leading to premature protein termination and loss of essential functional domains are typically classified as pathogenic. However, the impact of frameshift variants that result in an extended incorrect terminus is not clear. Using validated functional assays, we conducted a systematic functional assessment of 17 previously reported BRCA1 extended incorrect terminus variants (EITs) and concluded that 16 constitute loss-of-function variants. This suggests that most EITs are likely to be pathogenic. However, one variant, c.5578dup, displayed a protein expression level, affinity to known binding partners, and activity in transcription and homologous recombination assays comparable to the wild-type BRCA1 protein. Twenty-three additional carriers of c.5578dup were identified at a US clinical diagnostic lab and assessed using a family history likelihood model providing, in combination with the functional data, a likely benign interpretation. These results, consistent with family history data in the current study and available data from ClinVar, indicate that most, but not all, BRCA1 variants leading to an extended incorrect terminus constitute loss-of-function variants and underscore the need for comprehensive assessment of individual variants.

Prophylactic anticoagulants for non-hospitalised people with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has impacted healthcare systems worldwide. Multiple reports on thromboembolic complications related to COVID-19 have been published, and researchers have described that people with COVID-19 are at high risk for developing venous thromboembolism (VTE). Anticoagulants have been used as pharmacological interventions to prevent arterial and venous thrombosis, and their use in the outpatient setting could potentially reduce the prevalence of vascular thrombosis and associated mortality in people with COVID-19. However, even lower doses used for a prophylactic purpose may result in adverse events such as bleeding. It is important to consider the evidence for anticoagulant use in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparators, placebo or no intervention, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 18 April 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing prophylactic anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment, another active comparator, or non-pharmacological interventions in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. We included studies that compared anticoagulants with a different dose of the same anticoagulant. We excluded studies with a duration of under two weeks. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, VTE (deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE)), and major bleeding. Our secondary outcomes were DVT, PE, need for hospitalisation, minor bleeding, adverse events, and quality of life. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included five RCTs with up to 90 days of follow-up (short term). Data were available for meta-analysis from 1777 participants. Anticoagulant compared to placebo or no treatment Five studies compared anticoagulants with placebo or no treatment and provided data for three of our outcomes of interest (all-cause mortality, major bleeding, and adverse events). The evidence suggests that prophylactic anticoagulants may lead to little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 3.61; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably reduce VTE from 3% in the placebo group to 1% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.85; 4 studies; 1259 participants; number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) = 50; moderate-certainty evidence). There may be little to no difference in major bleeding (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.78; 5 studies; 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably result in little or no difference in DVT (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.46; 3 studies; 1009 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), but probably reduce the risk of PE from 2.7% in the placebo group to 0.7% in the anticoagulant group (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.79; 3 studies; 1009 participants; NNTB 50; moderate-certainty evidence). Anticoagulants probably lead to little or no difference in reducing hospitalisation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.75; 4 studies; 1459 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and may lead to little or no difference in adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.46, 95% CI 0.90 to 6.72; 5 studies, 1777 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to a different dose of the same anticoagulant One study compared anticoagulant (higher-dose apixaban) with a different (standard) dose of the same anticoagulant and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality, VTE, or major bleeding occurred in either group during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose apixaban compared to standard-dose apixaban may lead to little or no difference in reducing the need for hospitalisation (RR 1.89, 95% CI 0.17 to 20.58; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence) or in the number of adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.54; 1 study; 278 participants; low-certainty evidence). Anticoagulant compared to antiplatelet agent One study compared anticoagulant (apixaban) with antiplatelet agent (aspirin) and reported five relevant outcomes. No cases of all-cause mortality or major bleeding occurred during the 45-day follow-up (moderate-certainty evidence). Apixaban may lead to little or no difference in VTE (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.01 to 8.65; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), need for hospitalisation (RR 3.20, 95% CI 0.13 to 77.85; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence), or adverse events (minor bleeding, RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.40 to 11.46; 1 study; 279 participants; low-certainty evidence). No included studies reported on quality of life or investigated anticoagulants compared to a different anticoagulant, or anticoagulants compared to non-pharmacological interventions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to moderate-certainty evidence from five RCTs that prophylactic anticoagulants result in little or no difference in major bleeding, DVT, need for hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with placebo or no treatment in non-hospitalised people with COVID-19. Low-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality when compared with placebo or no treatment, but moderate-certainty evidence indicates that prophylactic anticoagulants probably reduce the incidence of VTE and PE. Low-certainty evidence suggests that comparing different doses of the same prophylactic anticoagulant may result in little or no difference in need for hospitalisation or adverse events. Prophylactic anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in risk of VTE, hospitalisation, or adverse events when compared with antiplatelet agents (low-certainty evidence). Given that there were only short-term data from one study, these results should be interpreted with caution. Additional trials of sufficient duration are needed to clearly determine any effect on clinical outcomes.

Pharmacological treatment for central sleep apnoea in adults.

BACKGROUND: The term central sleep apnoea (CSA) encompasses diverse clinical situations where a dysfunctional drive to breathe leads to recurrent respiratory events, namely apnoea (complete absence of ventilation) and hypopnoea sleep (insufficient ventilation) during sleep. Studies have demonstrated that CSA responds to some extent to pharmacological agents with distinct mechanisms, such as sleep stabilisation and respiratory stimulation. Some therapies for CSA are associated with improved quality of life, although the evidence on this association is uncertain. Moreover, treatment of CSA with non-invasive positive pressure ventilation is not always effective or safe and may result in a residual apnoea-hypopnoea index. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment compared with active or inactive controls for central sleep apnoea in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was 30 August 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included parallel and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any type of pharmacological agent compared with active controls (e.g. other medications) or passive controls (e.g. placebo, no treatment or usual care) in adults with CSA as defined by the International Classification of Sleep Disorders 3rd Edition. We did not exclude studies based on the duration of intervention or follow-up. We excluded studies focusing on CSA due to periodic breathing at high altitudes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were central apnoea-hypopnoea index (cAHI), cardiovascular mortality and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes were quality of sleep, quality of life, daytime sleepiness, AHI, all-cause mortality, time to life-saving cardiovascular intervention, and non-serious adverse events. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence for each outcome. MAIN RESULTS: We included four cross-over RCTs and one parallel RCT, involving a total of 68 participants. Mean age ranged from 66 to 71.3 years and most participants were men. Four trials recruited people with CSA associated with heart failure, and one study included people with primary CSA. Types of pharmacological agents were acetazolamide (carbonic anhydrase inhibitor), buspirone (anxiolytic), theophylline (methylxanthine derivative) and triazolam (hypnotic), which were given for between three days and one week. Only the study on buspirone reported a formal evaluation of adverse events. These events were rare and mild. No studies reported serious adverse events, quality of sleep, quality of life, all-cause mortality, or time to life-saving cardiovascular intervention. Carbonic anhydrase inhibitors versus inactive control Results were from two studies of acetazolamide versus placebo (n = 12) and acetazolamide versus no acetazolamide (n = 18) for CSA associated with heart failure. One study reported short-term outcomes and the other reported intermediate-term outcomes. We are uncertain whether carbonic anhydrase inhibitors compared to inactive control reduce cAHI in the short term (mean difference (MD) -26.00 events per hour, 95% CI -43.84 to -8.16; 1 study, 12 participants; very low certainty). Similarly, we are uncertain whether carbonic anhydrase inhibitors compared to inactive control reduce AHI in the short term (MD -23.00 events per hour, 95% CI -37.70 to 8.30; 1 study, 12 participants; very low certainty) or in the intermediate term (MD -6.98 events per hour, 95% CI -10.66 to -3.30; 1 study, 18 participants; very low certainty). The effect of carbonic anhydrase inhibitors on cardiovascular mortality in the intermediate term was also uncertain (odds ratio (OR) 0.21, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.48; 1 study, 18 participants; very low certainty). Anxiolytics versus inactive control Results were based on one study of buspirone versus placebo for CSA associated with heart failure (n = 16). The median difference between groups for cAHI was -5.00 events per hour (IQR -8.00 to -0.50), the median difference for AHI was -6.00 events per hour (IQR -8.80 to -1.80), and the median difference on the Epworth Sleepiness Scale for daytime sleepiness was 0 points (IQR -1.0 to 0.00). Methylxanthine derivatives versus inactive control Results were based on one study of theophylline versus placebo for CSA associated with heart failure (n = 15). We are uncertain whether methylxanthine derivatives compared to inactive control reduce cAHI (MD -20.00 events per hour, 95% CI -32.15 to -7.85; 15 participants; very low certainty) or AHI (MD -19.00 events per hour, 95% CI -30.27 to -7.73; 15 participants; very low certainty). Hypnotics versus inactive control Results were based on one trial of triazolam versus placebo for primary CSA (n = 5). Due to very serious methodological limitations and insufficient reporting of outcome measures, we were unable to draw any conclusions regarding the effects of this intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support the use of pharmacological therapy in the treatment of CSA. Although small studies have reported positive effects of certain agents for CSA associated with heart failure in reducing the number of respiratory events during sleep, we were unable to assess whether this reduction may impact the quality of life of people with CSA, owing to scarce reporting of important clinical outcomes such as sleep quality or subjective impression of daytime sleepiness. Furthermore, the trials mostly had short-term follow-up. There is a need for high-quality trials that evaluate longer-term effects of pharmacological interventions.

Assessment of small in-frame indels and C-terminal nonsense variants of BRCA1 using a validated functional assay.

BRCA1 (Breast Cancer 1, early onset) is linked to breast and ovarian cancer predisposition. Still, the risks conferred by a significant portion of BRCA1 variants identified in the population remains unknown. Most of these variants of uncertain significance are missense alterations. However, the functional implications of small in-frame deletions and/or insertions (indels) are also difficult to predict. Our group has previously evaluated the functional impact of 347 missense variants using an extensively validated transcriptional activity assay. Here we show a systematic assessment of 30 naturally occurring in-frame indels located at the C-terminal region of BRCA1. We identified positions sensitive and tolerant to alterations, expanding the knowledge of structural determinants of BRCA1 function. We further designed and assessed the impact of four single codon deletions in the tBRCT linker region and six nonsense variants at the C-terminus end of BRCA1. Amino acid substitutions, deletions or insertions in the disordered region do not significantly impact activity and are not likely to constitute pathogenic alleles. On the other hand, a sizeable fraction of in-frame indels at the BRCT domain significantly impact function. We then use a Bayesian integrative statistical model to derive the probability of pathogenicity for each variant. Our data highlights the importance of assessing the impact of small in-frame indels in BRCA1 to improve risk assessment and clinical decisions for carriers.

Functional Restoration of BRCA1 Nonsense Mutations by Aminoglycoside-Induced Readthrough.

BRCA1 is a major tumor suppressor that functions in the accurate repair of DNA double-strand breaks via homologous recombination (HR). Nonsense mutations in BRCA1 lead to inactive truncated protein products and are associated with high risk of breast and ovarian cancer. These mutations generate premature termination codons (PTCs). Different studies have shown that aminoglycosides can induce PTC suppression by promoting stop codon readthrough and restoring full-length (FL) protein expression. The use of these compounds has been studied in clinical trials for genetic diseases such as cystic fibrosis and Duchenne muscular dystrophy, with encouraging results. Here we show proof-of-concept data demonstrating that the aminoglycoside G418 can induce BRCA1 PTC readthrough and restore FL protein synthesis and function. We first demonstrate that G418 treatment restores BRCA1 FL protein synthesis in HCC1395, a human breast tumor cell line carrying the R1751X mutation. HCC1395 cells treated with G418 also recover HR DNA repair and restore cell cycle checkpoint activation. A set of naturally occurring BRCA1 nonsense variants encoding different PTCs was evaluated in a GFP C-terminal BRCA1 construct model and BRCA1 PTC readthrough levels vary depending on the stop codon context. Because PTC readthrough could generate FL protein carrying pathogenic missense mutations, variants representing the most probable acquired amino acid substitutions in consequence of readthrough were functionally assessed by a validated transcription activation assay. Overall, this is the first study that evaluates the readthrough of PTC variants with clinical relevance in the breast and ovarian cancer-predisposing gene BRCA1.

Anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The primary manifestation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis and thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, or arterial thrombosis. People with COVID-19 who develop thromboembolism have a worse prognosis. Anticoagulants such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants are used for the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolism. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential. However, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate. OBJECTIVES: To assess the benefits and harms of anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention in people hospitalised with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 14 April 2021. We also checked the reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified, and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group and with a retrospective design (all previously included studies) as we were able to include better study designs. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and necessity for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used Cochrane RoB 1 to assess the risk of bias for RCTs, ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We meta-analysed data when appropriate. MAIN RESULTS: We included seven studies (16,185 participants) with participants hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. Studies were from Brazil (2), Iran (1), Italy (1), and the USA (1), and two involved more than country. The mean age of participants was 55 to 68 years and the follow-up period ranged from 15 to 90 days. The studies assessed the effects of heparinoids, direct anticoagulants or vitamin K antagonists, and reported sparse data or did not report some of our outcomes of interest: necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life. Higher-dose versus lower-dose anticoagulants (4 RCTs, 4647 participants) Higher-dose anticoagulants result in little or no difference in all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.16, 4489 participants; 4 RCTs) and increase minor bleeding (RR 3.28, 95% CI 1.75 to 6.14, 1196 participants; 3 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (high-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants probably reduce pulmonary embolism (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.70, 4360 participants; 4 RCTs), and slightly increase major bleeding (RR 1.78, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.80, 4400 participants; 4 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (moderate-certainty evidence). Higher-dose anticoagulants may result in little or no difference in deep vein thrombosis (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.03, 3422 participants; 4 RCTs), stroke (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.03, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), major adverse limb events (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99, 1176 participants; 2 RCTs), myocardial infarction (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.55, 4349 participants; 3 RCTs), atrial fibrillation (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.70, 562 participants; 1 study), or thrombocytopenia (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.24, 2789 participants; 2 RCTs) compared to lower-dose anticoagulants up to 30 days (low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether higher-dose anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Anticoagulants versus no treatment (3 prospective NRS, 11,538 participants) Anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence is very uncertain due to two study results being at critical and serious risk of bias (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.74, 8395 participants; 3 NRS; very low-certainty evidence). It is uncertain if anticoagulants have any effect on necessity for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, stroke, myocardial infarction and quality of life (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Ongoing studies We found 62 ongoing studies in hospital settings (60 RCTs, 35,470 participants; 2 prospective NRS, 120 participants) in 20 different countries. Thirty-five ongoing studies plan to report mortality and 26 plan to report necessity for additional respiratory support. We expect 58 studies to be completed in December 2021, and four in July 2022. From 60 RCTs, 28 are comparing different doses of anticoagulants, 24 are comparing anticoagulants versus no anticoagulants, seven are comparing different types of anticoagulants, and one did not report detail of the comparator group. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: When compared to a lower-dose regimen, higher-dose anticoagulants result in little to no difference in all-cause mortality and increase minor bleeding in people hospitalised with COVID-19 up to 30 days. Higher-dose anticoagulants possibly reduce pulmonary embolism, slightly increase major bleeding, may result in little to no difference in hospitalisation time, and may result in little to no difference in deep vein thrombosis, stroke, major adverse limb events, myocardial infarction, atrial fibrillation, or thrombocytopenia.  Compared with no treatment, anticoagulants may reduce all-cause mortality but the evidence comes from non-randomised studies and is very uncertain. It is unclear whether anticoagulants have any effect on the remaining outcomes compared to no anticoagulants (very low-certainty evidence or no data). Although we are very confident that new RCTs will not change the effects of different doses of anticoagulants on mortality and minor bleeding, high-quality RCTs are still needed, mainly for the other primary outcome (necessity for additional respiratory support), the comparison with no anticoagulation, when comparing the types of anticoagulants and giving anticoagulants for a prolonged period of time.

Enzyme replacement therapy with galsulfase for mucopolysaccharidosis type VI.

BACKGROUND: Mucopolysaccharidosis type VI (MPS VI) or Maroteaux-Lamy syndrome is a rare genetic disorder caused by the deficiency of arylsulphatase B. The resultant accumulation of dermatan sulphate causes lysosomal damage. The clinical symptoms are related to skeletal dysplasia (i.e. short stature and degenerative joint disease). Other manifestations include cardiac disease, impaired pulmonary function, ophthalmological complications, hepatosplenomegaly, sinusitis, otitis, hearing loss and sleep apnea. Intellectual impairment is generally absent. Clinical manifestation is typically by two or three years of age; however, slowly progressive cases may not present until adulthood. Enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) with galsulfase is considered a new approach for treating MPS VI. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of treating MPS VI by ERT with galsulfase compared to other interventions, placebo or no intervention. SEARCH METHODS: Eletronic searches were performed on the Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group's Inborn Errors of Metabolism Trials Register. Date of the latest search:  09 June 2021. Further searches of the following databases were also performed: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, the Journal of Inherited Metabolic Disease, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and ClinicalTrials.gov. Date of the latest search: 20 August 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled clinical studies of ERT with galsulfase compared to other interventions or placebo. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently screened the studies, assessed the risk of bias, extracted data and assessed the certainty of the the evidence using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: One study was included involving 39 participants who received either ERT with galsulfase (recombinant human arylsulphatase B) or placebo. This small study was considered overall to have an unclear risk of bias in relation to the design and implementation of the study, since the authors did not report how both the allocation generation and concealment were performed. Given the very low certainty of the evidence, we are uncertain whether at 24 weeks there was a difference between groups in relation to the 12-minute walk test, mean difference (MD) of 92.00 meters (95% confidence interval (CI) 11.00 to 172.00), or the three-minute stair climb, MD 5.70 (95% CI -0.10 to 11.50). In relation to respiratory tests, we are uncertain whether galsulfase makes any difference as compared to placebo in forced vital capacity in litres (FVC (L) (absolute change in baseline), given the very low certainty of the evidence. Cardiac function was not reported in the included study. We found that galsulfase, as compared to placebo, may decrease urinary glycosaminoglycan levels at 24 weeks, MD -227.00 (95% CI -264.00 to -190.00) (low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether there are differences between the galsulfase and placebo groups in relation to adverse events (very low-certainty evidence). In general, the dose of galsulfase was well tolerated and there were no differences between groups. These events include drug-related adverse events, serious and severe adverse events, those during infusion, drug-related adverse events during infusion, and deaths. More infusion-related reactions were observed in the galsulfase group and were managed with interruption or slowing of infusion rate or administration of antihistamines or corticosteroids drugs. No deaths occurred during the study.   AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The results of this review are based only on one small study (a 24-week randomised phase of the study and prior to the open-label extension). We are uncertain whether galsulfase is more effective than placebo, for treating people with MPS VI, in relation to the 12-minute walk test or the three-minute stair climb, as the certainty of the evidence has been assessed as very low. We found that galsulfase may reduce urinary glycosaminoglycans levels. We are also uncertain whether there are any differences between treatment groups in relation to cardiac or pulmonary functions, liver or spleen volume, overnight apnea-hypopnea, height and weight, quality of life and adverse effects. Further studies are needed to obtain more information on the long-term effectiveness and safety of ERT with galsulfase.

Integration of functional assay data results provides strong evidence for classification of hundreds of BRCA1 variants of uncertain significance.

PURPOSE: BRCA1 pathogenic variant heterozygotes are at a substantially increased risk for breast and ovarian cancer. The widespread uptake of testing has led to a significant increase in the detection of missense variants in BRCA1, the vast majority of which are variants of uncertain clinical significance (VUS), posing a challenge to genetic counseling. Here, we harness a wealth of functional data for thousands of variants to aid in variant classification. METHODS: We have collected, curated, and harmonized functional data for 2701 missense variants representing 24.5% of possible missense variants in BRCA1. Results were harmonized across studies by converting data into binary categorical variables (functional impact versus no functional impact). Using a panel of reference variants we identified a subset of assays with high sensitivity and specificity (≥80%) and apply the American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics/Association for Molecular Pathology (ACMG/AMP) variant interpretation guidelines to assign evidence criteria for classification. RESULTS: Integration of data from validated assays provided ACMG/AMP evidence criteria in favor of pathogenicity for 297 variants or against pathogenicity for 2058 representing 96.2% of current VUS functionally assessed. We also explore discordant results and identify limitations in the approach. CONCLUSION: High quality functional data are available for BRCA1 missense variants and provide evidence for classification of 2355 VUS according to their pathogenicity.

PALB2 Variants: Protein Domains and Cancer Susceptibility.

Since its discovery, partner and localizer of breast cancer 2 (BRCA2) (PALB2) has emerged as a major tumor suppressor gene linked to breast cancer (BC), pancreatic cancer (PC), and ovarian cancer (OC) susceptibility. Its protein product plays a pivotal role in the maintenance of genome integrity. Here we discuss the first functional evaluation of a large set of PALB2 missense variants of uncertain significance (VUSs). Assessment of 136 VUSs interrogating a range of PALB2 biological functions resulted in the identification of 15 variants with consistent loss of function across different assays. All loss-of-function variants are located at the PALB2 coiled coil (CC) or at the WD40 domain, highlighting the importance of modular domains mechanistically involved in the DNA damage response (DDR) and pinpointing their roles in tumor suppression.

Prophylactic anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a serious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The primary manifestation is respiratory insufficiency that can also be related to diffuse pulmonary microthrombosis in people with COVID-19. This disease also causes thromboembolic events, such as pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, arterial thrombosis, catheter thrombosis, and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy. Recent studies have indicated a worse prognosis for people with COVID-19 who developed thromboembolism. Anticoagulants are medications used in the prevention and treatment of venous or arterial thromboembolic events. Several drugs are used in the prophylaxis and treatment of thromboembolic events, such as heparinoids (heparins or pentasaccharides), vitamin K antagonists and direct anticoagulants. Besides their anticoagulant properties, heparinoids have an additional anti-inflammatory potential, that may affect the clinical evolution of people with COVID-19. Some practical guidelines address the use of anticoagulants for thromboprophylaxis in people with COVID-19, however, the benefit of anticoagulants for people with COVID-19 is still under debate. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of prophylactic anticoagulants versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention, on mortality and the need for respiratory support in people hospitalised with COVID-19. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS and IBECS databases, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and medRxiv preprint database from their inception to 20 June 2020. We also checked reference lists of any relevant systematic reviews identified and contacted specialists in the field for additional references to trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-RCTs, cluster-RCTs and cohort studies that compared prophylactic anticoagulants (heparin, vitamin K antagonists, direct anticoagulants, and pentasaccharides) versus active comparator, placebo or no intervention for the management of people hospitalised with COVID-19. We excluded studies without a comparator group. Primary outcomes were all-cause mortality and need for additional respiratory support. Secondary outcomes were mortality related to COVID-19, deep vein thrombosis (DVT), pulmonary embolism, major bleeding, adverse events, length of hospital stay and quality of life. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. We used ROBINS-I to assess risk of bias for non-randomised studies (NRS) and GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. We reported results narratively. MAIN RESULTS: We identified no RCTs or quasi-RCTs that met the inclusion criteria. We included seven retrospective NRS (5929 participants), three of which were available as preprints. Studies were conducted in China, Italy, Spain and the USA. All of the studies included people hospitalised with COVID-19, in either intensive care units, hospital wards or emergency departments. The mean age of participants (reported in 6 studies) ranged from 59 to 72 years. Only three included studies reported the follow-up period, which varied from 8 to 35 days. The studies did not report on most of our outcomes of interest: need for additional respiratory support, mortality related to COVID-19, DVT, pulmonary embolism, adverse events, and quality of life. Anticoagulants (all types) versus no treatment (6 retrospective NRS, 5685 participants) One study reported a reduction in all-cause mortality (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.26 to 0.66; 2075 participants). One study reported a reduction in mortality only in a subgroup of 395 people who required mechanical ventilation (hazard ratio (HR) 0.86, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.89). Three studies reported no differences in mortality (adjusted OR 1.64, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.92; 449 participants; unadjusted OR 1.66, 95% CI 0.76 to 3.64; 154 participants and adjusted risk ratio (RR) 1.15, 95% CI 0.29 to 2.57; 192 participants). One study reported zero events in both intervention groups (42 participants). The overall risk of bias for all-cause mortality was critical and the certainty of the evidence was very low. One NRS reported bleeding events in 3% of the intervention group and 1.9% of the control group (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.96 to 2.71; 2773 participants; low-certainty evidence). Therapeutic-dose anticoagulants versus prophylactic-dose anticoagulants (1 retrospective NRS, 244 participants) The study reported a reduction in all-cause mortality (adjusted HR 0.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.46) and a lower absolute rate of death in the therapeutic group (34.2% versus 53%). The overall risk of bias for all-cause mortality was serious and the certainty of the evidence was low. The study also reported bleeding events in 31.7% of the intervention group and 20.5% of the control group (OR 1.8, 95% CI 0.96 to 3.37; low-certainty evidence). Ongoing studies We found 22 ongoing studies in hospital settings (20 RCTs, 14,730 participants; 2 NRS, 997 participants) in 10 different countries (Australia (1), Brazil (1), Canada (2), China (3), France (2), Germany (1), Italy (4), Switzerland (1), UK (1) and USA (6)). Twelve ongoing studies plan to report mortality and six plan to report additional respiratory support. Thirteen studies are expected to be completed in December 2020 (6959 participants), eight in July 2021 (8512 participants), and one in December 2021 (256 participants). Four of the studies plan to include 1000 participants or more. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the risks and benefits of prophylactic anticoagulants for people hospitalised with COVID-19. Since there are 22 ongoing studies that plan to evaluate more than 15,000 participants in this setting, we will add more robust evidence to this review in future updates.

DNA damage response and repair in perspective: Aedes aegypti, Drosophila melanogaster and Homo sapiens.

BACKGROUND: The maintenance of genomic integrity is the responsibility of a complex network, denominated the DNA damage response (DDR), which controls the lesion detection and DNA repair. The main repair pathways are base excision repair (BER), nucleotide excision repair (NER), mismatch repair (MMR), homologous recombination repair (HR) and non-homologous end joining repair (NHEJ). They correct double-strand breaks (DSB), single-strand breaks, mismatches and others, or when the damage is quite extensive and repair insufficient, apoptosis is activated. METHODS: In this study we used the BLAST reciprocal best-hit methodology to search for DDR orthologs proteins in Aedes aegypti. We also provided a comparison between Ae. aegypti, D. melanogaster and human DDR network. RESULTS: Our analysis revealed the presence of ATR and ATM signaling, including the H2AX ortholog, in Ae. aegypti. Key DDR proteins (orthologs to RAD51, Ku and MRN complexes, XP-components, MutS and MutL) were also identified in this insect. Other proteins were not identified in both Ae. aegypti and D. melanogaster, including BRCA1 and its partners from BRCA1-A complex, TP53BP1, PALB2, POLk, CSA, CSB and POLß. In humans, their absence affects DSB signaling, HR and sub-pathways of NER and BER. Seven orthologs not known in D. melanogaster were found in Ae. aegypti (RNF168, RIF1, WRN, RAD54B, RMI1, DNAPKcs, ARTEMIS). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of key DDR proteins in Ae. aegypti suggests that the main DDR pathways are functional in this insect, and the identification of proteins not known in D. melanogaster can help fill gaps in the DDR network. The mapping of the DDR network in Ae. aegypti can support mosquito biology studies and inform genetic manipulation approaches applied to this vector.

Germline variants in cancer genes in high-risk non-BRCA patients from Puerto Rico.

Inherited pathogenic variants in genes that confer moderate to high risk of breast cancer may explain up to 50% of familial breast cancer. This study aimed at identifying inherited pathogenic variants in breast cancer cases from Puerto Rico that were not linked to BRCA1 or BRCA2. Forty-eight breast cancer patients that met the clinical criteria for BRCA testing but had received a negative BRCA1/2 result were recruited. Fifty-three genes previously implicated in hereditary cancer predisposition were captured using the BROCA Agilent cancer risk panel followed by massively parallel sequencing. Missense variants of uncertain clinical significance in CHEK2 were evaluated using an in vitro kinase assays to determine their impact on function. Pathogenic variants were identified in CHEK2, MUTYH, and RAD51B in four breast cancer patients, which represented 8.3% of the cohort. We identified three rare missense variants of uncertain significance in CHEK2 and two variants (p.Pro484Leu and p.Glu239Lys) showed markedly decreased kinase activity in vitro comparable to a known pathogenic variant. Interestingly, the local ancestry at the RAD51B locus in the carrier of p.Arg47* was predicted to be of African origin. In this cohort, 12.5% of the BRCA-negative breast cancer patients were found to carry a known pathogenic variant or a variant affecting protein activity. This study reveals an unmet clinical need of genetic testing that could benefit a significant proportion of at-risk Latinas. It also highlights the complexity of Hispanic populations as pathogenic factors may originate from any of the ancestral populations that make up their genetic backgrounds.

No Evidence for the Pathogenicity of the BRCA2 c.6937 + 594T>G Deep Intronic Variant: A Case-Control Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The role of deep intronic variants in hereditary cancer susceptibility has been largely understudied. Previously, the BRCA2 c.6937 + 594T>G variant has been shown to preferentially promote the inclusion of a 95 nucleotide cryptic exon and to introduce a premature termination codon. Our objective was to further assess the pathogenicity of the BRCA2 c.6937 + 594T>G deep intronic variant. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined the association between BRCA2 c.6937 + 594T>G and breast cancer (BC) risk in 464 BC cases and 497 noncancer controls from Puerto Rico. RESULTS: The overall frequency of the G allele was 2.1% in this population. There was no association between the TG/GG genotypes and BC risk in the uncorrected model and after correcting for confounders. There was only one carrier of the GG genotype. This individual did not have personal or family history of cancer and did not meet the National Comprehensive Cancer Network criteria for hereditary cancer genetic testing. CONCLUSIONS: Although previous work has demonstrated that the BRCA2 c.6937 + 594T>G variant affects splicing, this association study does not support a pathogenic role for the BRCA2 c.6937 + 594T>G intronic variant in breast and ovarian cancer syndrome susceptibility. Furthermore, it emphasizes the need to take into account multiple diverse populations in association studies for the assessment of variant pathogenicity.

Physical Activity Interventions in Faith-Based Organizations: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: To review and assess the effectiveness of physical activity interventions delivered in faith-based organizations. DATA SOURCE: We searched the Cochrane Library, DoPHER, EMBASE, LILACS, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, WHO ICTRP, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases until January 2016, without restriction of language or publication date. STUDY INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION CRITERIA: Randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials investigating physical activity interventions for adults delivered in faith-based organizations. DATA EXTRACTION: Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed study methodological quality. DATA SYNTHESIS: We used relative risk and mean difference with 95% confidence interval to estimate the effect of the interventions on measures of physical activity, physical fitness, and health. RESULTS: The review included 18 studies. Study participants were predominantly female, and the majority of trials were conducted in the United States. Study heterogeneity did not allow us to conduct meta-analyses. Although interventions delivered in faith-based organizations increased physical activity and positively influenced measures of health and fitness in participants, the quality of the evidence was very low. CONCLUSION: Faith-based organizations are promising settings to promote physical activity, consequently addressing health disparities. However, high-quality randomized clinical trials are needed to adequately assess the effectiveness of interventions delivered in faith-based organizations.

Is surgical debridement necessary in the diabetic foot treated with photodynamic therapy?

Background: Diabetic patients are susceptible to developing foot ulcers with serious complications such as osteomyelitis and amputations. Treatment approaches are still empirical and the benefit of usual procedures such as surgical debridement has not been properly evaluated. Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) is a non-invasive and highly efficient method for the treatment of the diabetic foot, being able to eradicate the infection and to stimulate healing, decreasing considerably the amputation risk. In the day-to-day practice of our service, we have been faced with the question whether debridement is necessary before PDT. In here, we designed a study to answer that question. Methods: Patients were divided in two groups: In one of the groups (n = 17), debridement was performed before PDT and in the other (n = 40) only PDT treatment was performed. PDT sessions were performed once a week in all patients until healing was achieved, as indicated by visual inspection as well as by radiographic and laboratory exams. At the start of the study, the two groups had no statistical differences concerning their clinical features: average age, gender, insulin use, diabetes mellitus onset time and previous amputations. Results: PDT was effective in the treatment of 100% of the patients showing no relapses after one year of follow up. The group submitted to PDT without previous debridement had a statistically significant (p = 0.036, Mann-Whitney) shorter cure time (29 days, ~27%). Conclusion: Our data indicates that debridement is not necessary in the treatment of diabetic foot in patients that have enough peripheral arterial perfusion. In addition, we reproduced previous studies confirming that PDT is an efficient, safe, simple and affordable treatment method for the diabetic foot.

The Role of PALB2 in the DNA Damage Response and Cancer Predisposition.

The deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) damage response (DDR) is a major feature in the maintenance of genome integrity and in the suppression of tumorigenesis. PALB2 (Partner and Localizer of Breast Cancer 2 (BRCA2)) plays an important role in maintaining genome integrity through its role in the Fanconi anemia (FA) and homologous recombination (HR) DNA repair pathways. Since its identification as a BRCA2 interacting partner, PALB2 has emerged as a pivotal tumor suppressor protein associated to hereditary cancer susceptibility to breast and pancreatic cancers. In this review, we discuss how other DDR proteins (such as the kinases Ataxia Telangiectasia Mutated (ATM) and ATM- and Rad3-Related (ATR), mediators BRCA1 (Breast Cancer 1)/BRCA2 and effectors RAD51/DNA Polymerase η (Polη) interact with PALB2 to orchestrate DNA repair. We also examine the involvement of PALB2 mutations in the predisposition to cancer and the role of PALB2 in stimulating error-free DNA repair through the FA/HR pathway.

DNA repair genes PAXIP1 and TP53BP1 expression is associated with breast cancer prognosis.

Despite remarkable advances in diagnosis, prognosis and treatment, advanced or recurrent breast tumors have limited therapeutic approaches. Many treatment strategies try to explore the limitations of DNA damage response (DDR) in tumor cells to selectively eliminate them. BRCT (BRCA1 C-terminal) domains are present in a superfamily of proteins involved in cell cycle checkpoints and the DDR. Tandem BRCT domains (tBRCT) represent a distinct class of these domains. We investigated the expression profile of 7 tBRCT genes (BARD1, BRCA1, LIG4, ECT2, MDC1, PAXIP1/PTIP and TP53BP1) in breast cancer specimens and observed a high correlation between PAXIP1 and TP53BP1 gene expression in tumor samples. Tumors with worse prognosis (tumor grade 3 and triple negative) showed reduced expression of tBRCT genes, notably, PAXIP1 and TP53BP1. Survival analyses data indicated that tumor status of both genes may impact prognosis. PAXIP1 and 53BP1 protein levels followed gene expression results, i.e., are intrinsically correlated, and also reduced in more advanced tumors. Evaluation of both genes in triple negative breast tumor samples which were characterized for their BRCA1 status showed that PAXIP1 is overexpressed in BRCA1 mutant tumors. Taken together our findings indicate that PAXIP1 status correlates with breast cancer staging, in a manner similar to what has been characterized for TP53BP1.

BRCA1 recruitment to damaged DNA sites is dependent on CDK9.

Double strand break lesions, the most toxic type of DNA damage, are repaired primarily through 2 distinct pathways: homology-directed recombination (HR) and non-homologous end-joining (NHEJ). BRCA1 and 53BP1, 2 proteins containing the BRCT modular domain, play an important role in DNA damage response (DDR) by orchestrating the decision between HR and NHEJ, but the precise mechanisms regarding both pathways are not entirely understood. Previously, our group identified a putative interaction between BRCA1 and BARD1 (BRCA1-associated RING domain 1) and the cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK9). CDK9 is a component of the positive transcription elongation complex and has been implicated in genome integrity maintenance associated with the replication stress response. Here we show that CDK9 interacts with endogenous BRCA1 and BARD1 mediated by their RING finger and BRCT domains, and describe CDK9 ionizing radiation-induced foci (IRIF) formation and its co-localization with BRCA1 in DNA damage sites. Cells lacking CDK9 are characterized by an altered γ-H2AX foci dynamics after DNA damage, a reduced efficiency in HR but not in NHEJ repair, failure to form BRCA1 and RAD51 IRIF and increased sensitivity to genotoxic agents. These data indicate that CDK9 is a player in the DDR and is consistent with its participation in HR pathway by modulating BRCA1 response.

Statins for aortic valve stenosis.

BACKGROUND: Aortic valve stenosis is the most common type of valvular heart disease in the USA and Europe. Aortic valve stenosis is considered similar to atherosclerotic disease. Some studies have evaluated statins for aortic valve stenosis. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of statins in aortic valve stenosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS - IBECS, Web of Science and CINAHL Plus. These databases were searched from their inception to 24 November 2015. We also searched trials in registers for ongoing trials. We used no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) comparing statins alone or in association with other systemic drugs to reduce cholesterol levels versus placebo or usual care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Primary outcomes were severity of aortic valve stenosis (evaluated by echocardiographic criteria: mean pressure gradient, valve area and aortic jet velocity), freedom from valve replacement and death from cardiovascular cause. Secondary outcomes were hospitalisation for any reason, overall mortality, adverse events and patient quality of life.Two review authors independently selected trials for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The GRADE methodology was employed to assess the quality of result findings and the GRADE profiler (GRADEPRO) was used to import data from Review Manager 5.3 to create a 'Summary of findings' table. MAIN RESULTS: We included four RCTs with 2360 participants comparing statins (1185 participants) with placebo (1175 participants). We found low-quality evidence for our primary outcome of severity of aortic valve stenosis, evaluated by mean pressure gradient (mean difference (MD) -0.54, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.88 to 0.80; participants = 1935; studies = 2), valve area (MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.28 to 0.14; participants = 127; studies = 2), and aortic jet velocity (MD -0.06, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.14; participants = 155; study = 1). Moderate-quality evidence showed no effect on freedom from valve replacement with statins (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.06; participants = 2360; studies = 4), and no effect on muscle pain as an adverse event (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.09; participants = 2204; studies = 3; moderate-quality evidence). Low- and very low-quality evidence showed uncertainty around the effect of statins on death from cardiovascular cause (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.15; participants = 2297; studies = 3; low-quality evidence) and hospitalisation for any reason (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.84; participants = 155; study = 1; very low-quality evidence). None of the four included studies reported on overall mortality and patient quality of life. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Result findings showed uncertainty surrounding the effect of statins for aortic valve stenosis.The quality of evidence from the reported outcomes ranged from moderate to very low. These results give support to European and USA guidelines (2012 and 2014, respectively) that so far there is no clinical treatment option for aortic valve stenosis.