Associations of the glycaemic index and the glycaemic load with risk of type 2 diabetes in 127 594 people from 20 countries (PURE): a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The association between the glycaemic index and the glycaemic load with type 2 diabetes incidence is controversial. We aimed to evaluate this association in an international cohort with diverse glycaemic index and glycaemic load diets. METHODS: The PURE study is a prospective cohort study of 127 594 adults aged 35-70 years from 20 high-income, middle-income, and low-income countries. Diet was assessed at baseline using country-specific validated food frequency questionnaires. The glycaemic index and the glycaemic load were estimated on the basis of the intake of seven categories of carbohydrate-containing foods. Participants were categorised into quintiles of glycaemic index and glycaemic load. The primary outcome was incident type 2 diabetes. Multivariable Cox Frailty models with random intercepts for study centre were used to calculate hazard ratios (HRs). FINDINGS: During a median follow-up of 11·8 years (IQR 9·0-13·0), 7326 (5·7%) incident cases of type 2 diabetes occurred. In multivariable adjusted analyses, a diet with a higher glycaemic index was significantly associated with a higher risk of diabetes (quintile 5 vs quintile 1; HR 1·15 [95% CI 1·03-1·29]). Participants in the highest quintile of the glycaemic load had a higher risk of incident type 2 diabetes compared with those in the lowest quintile (HR 1·21, 95% CI 1·06-1·37). The glycaemic index was more strongly associated with diabetes among individuals with a higher BMI (quintile 5 vs quintile 1; HR 1·23 [95% CI 1·08-1·41]) than those with a lower BMI (quintile 5 vs quintile 1; 1·10 [0·87-1·39]; p interaction=0·030). INTERPRETATION: Diets with a high glycaemic index and a high glycaemic load were associated with a higher risk of incident type 2 diabetes in a multinational cohort spanning five continents. Our findings suggest that consuming low glycaemic index and low glycaemic load diets might prevent the development of type 2 diabetes. FUNDING: Full funding sources are listed at the end of the Article.

Colchicine and the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (ACT): an open-label, factorial, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 disease is accompanied by a dysregulated immune response and hypercoagulability. The Anti-Coronavirus Therapies (ACT) inpatient trial aimed to evaluate anti-inflammatory therapy with colchicine and antithrombotic therapy with the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin for prevention of disease progression in patients hospitalised with COVID-19. METHODS: The ACT inpatient, open-label, 2 × 2 factorial, randomised, controlled trial was done at 62 clinical centres in 11 countries. Patients aged at least 18 years with symptomatic, laboratory confirmed COVID-19 who were within 72 h of hospitalisation or worsening clinically if already hospitalised were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive colchicine 1·2 mg followed by 0·6 mg 2 h later and then 0·6 mg twice daily for 28 days versus usual care; and in a second (1:1) randomisation, to the combination of rivaroxaban 2·5 mg twice daily plus aspirin 100 mg once daily for 28 days versus usual care. Investigators and patients were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary outcome, assessed at 45 days in the intention-to-treat population, for the colchicine randomisation was the composite of the need for high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death; and for the rivaroxaban plus aspirin randomisation was the composite of major thrombosis (myocardial infarction, stroke, acute limb ischaemia, or pulmonary embolism), the need for high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation, or death. The trial is registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, NCT04324463 and is ongoing. FINDINGS: Between Oct 2, 2020, and Feb 10, 2022, at 62 sites in 11 countries, 2749 patients were randomly assigned to colchicine or control and the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin or to the control. 2611 patients were included in the analysis of colchicine (n=1304) versus control (n=1307); 2119 patients were included in the analysis of rivaroxaban and aspirin (n=1063) versus control (n=1056). Follow-up was more than 98% complete. Overall, 368 (28·2%) of 1304 patients allocated to colchicine and 356 (27·2%) of 1307 allocated to control had a primary outcome (hazard ratio [HR] 1·04, 95% CI 0·90-1·21, p=0·58); and 281 (26·4%) of 1063 patients allocated to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin and 300 (28·4%) of 1056 allocated to control had a primary outcome (HR 0·92, 95% CI 0·78-1·09, p=0·32). Results were consistent in subgroups defined by vaccination status, disease severity at baseline, and timing of randomisation in relation to onset of symptoms. There was no increase in the number of patients who had at least one serious adverse event for colchicine versus control groups (87 [6·7%] of 1304 vs 90 [6·9%] of 1307) or with rivaroxaban and aspirin versus control groups (85 [8·0%] vs 91 [8·6%]). Among patients assigned to colchicine, 8 (0·61%) had adverse events that led to discontinuation of study drug, mostly gastrointestinal in nature. 17 (1·6%) patients assigned to the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin had bleeding compared with seven (0·66%) of those allocated to control (p=0·042); the number of serious bleeding events was two (0·19%) versus six (0·57%), respectively (p=0·18). No patients assigned to rivaroxaban and aspirin had serious adverse events that led to discontinuation of study drug. INTERPRETATION: Among patients hospitalised with COVID-19, neither colchicine nor the combination of rivaroxaban and aspirin prevent disease progression or death. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes for Health Research, Bayer, Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences Research Institute, Thistledown Foundation. TRANSLATIONS: For the Portuguese, Russian and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Presence of thyrotropin-releasing-hormone-immunoreactive (TRHir) amacrine cells in the retina of anuran and urodele amphibians.

The presence of thyrotropin-releasing-hormone-immunoreactive (TRH-ir) amacrine cells in the retina of amphibians is reported for the first time. The anuran and urodele retinas studied exhibit major differences in the distribution of TRH-ir cells. In the two urodele species investigated, most TRH-ir amacrine cells were located in the ganglion cell layer (GCL). These pear-shaped cells originate a dense TRH-ir dendritic plexus in strata 4-5 of the inner plexiform layer (IPL). A small number of TRH-ir amacrine cells were observed in the inner nuclear layer (INL). Most of these INL TRH-ir cells were multipolar neurons with radiating dendrites that originate a loose plexus in the IPL stratum 1. In the three anuran species investigated, most TRH-ir amacrine cells were located in the INL. Distribution of TRH-ir processes in the IPL of anurans was not so clearly layered as in urodeles, dendrites being observed throughout strata 1-5. In the toad retina THR-ir material was also observed in the outer plexiform layer, which suggests that toads may have some TRH-ir interplexiform neurons. In the frog and toad, TRH-ir fibers were also observed in the optic nerve, although their origin could not be ascertained. The number of TRH-ir amacrine cells per whole retina was higher in anurans than in urodeles, though urodeles have higher cell densities. The marked differences in distribution of TRH-ir amacrine cells observed between anurans and urodeles, and among the three anuran species, suggest different functions of TRH in retinal processing, perhaps related to the different specializations of the visual systems of these species.