Buy cialis bitcoin

€‚For the podcast associated buy cialis bitcoin with this article, please visit use this link https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/pages/Podcasts. First scienceThe COVID-19 pandemic has changed the world and has refocused science, including cardiovascular (CV) research.1 This virus not only affects the throat and lungs, but also profoundly impacts the CV system. First of buy cialis bitcoin all, male sex, obesity, hypertension,2 diabetes and cardiac conditions at large increased the risk of infection, possibly related to angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) expression,3,4 and of an unfavourable disease course. Secondly, COVID-19 affects the heart, leading to myocarditis,5,6 myocardial injury,7 scar formation and arrhythmias, and heart block,8 as well as affecting the blood vessels, leading to vascular occlusion due to local thrombus formation or embolism and eventually cardiac death.9 The mechanisms involved are the usual suspects, as outlined in the Viewpoint ‘COVID-19 is, in the end, an endothelial disease’, by Peter Libby from the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, USA and myself. It is well known that the vascular endothelium provides the crucial interface between the circulating blood and tissues, and displays remarkable properties that normally maintain homeostasis.10 This tightly regulated array of functions buy cialis bitcoin includes control of haemostasis, fibrinolysis, inflammation, oxidative stress, vascular permeability, and eventually vasomotion and vascular structure.

While these functions participate in the moment to moment regulation of the circulation and coordinate many host defence mechanisms, they can also contribute to disease when their usually homeostatic and defensive functions overreach and turn against the host, as is the case with SARS-CoV-2, the virus causing the current pandemic (Figure 1). Figure 1Cytokine storm buy cialis bitcoin. Proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-1 and TNF-α induce each other’s gene expression, unleashing an amplification loop that sustains the cytokine storm. The endothelial cell is a key target of cytokines, as they induce action of a central proinflammatory transcriptional hub, nuclear factor-κB. IL-1 also cause substantial increases in production by endothelial and other cells of IL-6, the buy cialis bitcoin instigator of the hepatocyte acute phase response.

The acute phase reactants include fibrinogen, the precursor of clot, and PAI-1, the major inhibitor of our endogenous fibrinolytic system. C-reactive protein, commonly buy cialis bitcoin elevated in COVID-19, provides a readily measured biomarker of inflammatory status. The alterations in the thrombotic/fibrinolytic balance due to the acute phase response predisposes towards thrombosis in arteries, in the microvasculature including that of organs such as the myocardium and kidney, and in veins, causing deep vein thrombosis and predisposing towards pulmonary embolism. Thus, the very same cytokines that elicit buy cialis bitcoin abnormal endothelial functions can unleash the acute phase response which together with local endothelial dysfunction can conspire to cause the clinical complications of COVID-19. The right side of this diagram aligns therapeutic agents that attack these mechanisms of the cytokine storm and may thus limit its devastating consequences (from Libby P, Lüscher T.

COVID-19 is, in the end, an endothelial disease. See pages 3038–3044).Figure buy cialis bitcoin 1Cytokine storm. Proinflammatory cytokines such as IL-1 and TNF-α induce each other’s gene expression, unleashing an amplification loop that sustains the cytokine storm. The endothelial cell is a key target buy cialis bitcoin of cytokines, as they induce action of a central proinflammatory transcriptional hub, nuclear factor-κB. IL-1 also cause substantial increases in production by endothelial and other cells of IL-6, the instigator of the hepatocyte acute phase response.

The acute phase reactants include fibrinogen, buy cialis bitcoin the precursor of clot, and PAI-1, the major inhibitor of our endogenous fibrinolytic system. C-reactive protein, commonly elevated in COVID-19, provides a readily measured biomarker of inflammatory status. The alterations in the thrombotic/fibrinolytic balance due to the acute phase response predisposes towards thrombosis in arteries, in the microvasculature including that of organs such as the myocardium and kidney, and in veins, causing deep vein thrombosis and predisposing towards pulmonary embolism. Thus, the very same cytokines that elicit abnormal endothelial functions can unleash the acute phase response buy cialis bitcoin which together with local endothelial dysfunction can conspire to cause the clinical complications of COVID-19. The right side of this diagram aligns therapeutic agents that attack these mechanisms of the cytokine storm and may thus limit its devastating consequences (from Libby P, Lüscher T.

COVID-19 is, in the end, an endothelial disease buy cialis bitcoin. See pages 3038–3044).It produces protean manifestations ranging from head to toe, wreaking seemingly indiscriminate havoc on multiple organ systems including the lungs, heart, brain, kidney, and the vasculature. This Viewpoint presents the hypothesis that COVID-19, particularly in the buy cialis bitcoin later complicated stages, represents an endothelial disease. Cytokines, protein proinflammatory mediators, are key signals that shift endothelial function from the homeostatic into the defensive mode. The endgame buy cialis bitcoin of COVID-19 involves a cytokine storm with positive feedback loops governing cytokine production that overwhelm counter-regulatory mechanisms.

This concept provides a unifying concept of this raging infection and a framework for rational treatment strategies at a time when we possess an only modest evidence base to guide our therapeutic attempts to confront this novel pandemic.11Surprisingly, emergency unit visits for acute cardiac conditions have declined markedly.12 Several reasons have been suggested. First, patients may have been wary of visiting hospitals during the pandemic.12,13 Secondly, with life on standstill, plaque ruptures and aortic dissections may have become less likely, and, thirdly, the marked reduction in pollution may also have had an influence.14 The first hypothesis is supported by the Fast Track manuscript ‘COVID-19 kills at home. The close relationship between the epidemic and the increase of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests’ by Simone Savastano and colleagues from the Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo in Italy.15 They included all consecutive out-of-hospital cardiac arrests (OHCAs) occurring in the Provinces of Lodi, Cremona, Pavia, and Mantova in the 2 months following the first documented case of COVID-19 in Lombardia compared with those that occurred in the same time window buy cialis bitcoin in 2019. The cumulative incidence of COVID-19 from 21 February to 20 April 2020 was 956/100 000 inhabitants and the cumulative incidence of OHCA was 21/100 000 inhabitants, with a 52% increase as compared with 2019 (Figure 2). A significant correlation was found between the difference in buy cialis bitcoin cumulative incidence of OHCA and the cumulative incidence of COVID-19.

Thus, the OHCA excess in 2020 is closely correlated to the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings are important for furthering the understanding of the reduced emergency unit visits and for planning of future pandemics, as outlined in an Editorial by Hanno Tan buy cialis bitcoin from the Academic Medical Center in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.16 Figure 2(A) Over a period of 60 days from 20 February, the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 per 100 000 inhabitants in the four provinces and in the overall territory (dotted line) (upper part), and the trend of the difference of OHCA between 2020 and 2019 per 100 000 inhabitants in the four provinces and in the overall territory (dotted line) (bottom part). (B) The cumulative incidence of the difference in OHCA between 2020 and 2019 per 100 000 inhabitants as a function of the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 per 100 000 inhabitants, since 20 February 2020. Dots are the observed values. The red line is the function fitted buy cialis bitcoin using fractional polynomials.

The shaded area is the 95% CI for the estimates (from Baldi E, Maria Sechi G, Mare C, Canevari F, Brancaglione A, Primi R, Klersy C, Palo A, Contri E, Ronchi V, Beretta G, Reali F, Parogni P, Facchin F, Rizzi U, Bussi D, Ruggeri S, Visconti LO, Savastano S, on behalf of the Lombardia CARe researchers. COVID-19 kills buy cialis bitcoin at home. The close relationship between the epidemic and the increase of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. See pages 3045–3054).Figure 2(A) Over a period of 60 days from 20 February, the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 per 100 000 inhabitants in the four provinces and in the overall territory (dotted line) (upper part), and buy cialis bitcoin the trend of the difference of OHCA between 2020 and 2019 per 100 000 inhabitants in the four provinces and in the overall territory (dotted line) (bottom part). (B) The cumulative incidence of the difference in OHCA between 2020 and 2019 per 100 000 inhabitants as a function of the cumulative incidence of COVID-19 per 100 000 inhabitants, since 20 February 2020.

Dots are the observed values. The red line is the buy cialis bitcoin function fitted using fractional polynomials. The shaded area is the 95% CI for the estimates (from Baldi E, Maria Sechi G, Mare C, Canevari F, Brancaglione A, Primi R, Klersy C, Palo A, Contri E, Ronchi V, Beretta G, Reali F, Parogni P, Facchin F, Rizzi U, Bussi D, Ruggeri S, Visconti LO, Savastano S, on behalf of the Lombardia CARe researchers. COVID-19 kills at home buy cialis bitcoin. The close relationship between the epidemic and the increase of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests.

See pages 3045–3054).With a prothrombotic state of the endothelium, thrombo-embolism should increase during the COVID-19 pandemic.17 buy cialis bitcoin This hypothesis is pursued in a Fast Track entitled ‘Pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients. A French multicentre cohort study’ by Ariel Cohen from the Hopital Saint-Antoine in Paris, France.18 In a retrospective multicentric observational study, the authors included consecutive patients hospitalized for COVID-19. Among 1527 patients, 6.7% patients had pulmonary embolism confirmed by computed tomographty pulmonary angiography (CTPA). Intensive care unit (ICU) transfer and mechanical ventilation were significantly higher in the pulmonary embolism group buy cialis bitcoin. In a univariable analysis, traditional venous thrombo-embolic risk factors and pulmonary lesion extension in chest CT were not associated with pulmonary embolism, while patients under anticoagulation prior to hospitalization or in whom it was introduced during hospitalization had a lower risk of pulmonary embolism, with an odds ratio of 0.37.

Male gender, prophylactic or therapeutic anticoagulation, C-reactive protein, and buy cialis bitcoin time from symptom onset to hospitalization were associated with pulmonary embolism. Thus, risk factors for pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 do not include traditional thrombo-embolic risk factors, but rather independent clinical and biological findings at admission. In line with the concept outlined above, inflammation is a major driver of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19, as further discussed in a thought-provoking Editorial by Adam Torbicki from the Centre buy cialis bitcoin of Postgraduate Medical Education in Otwock, Poland.19Inflammation is also a trigger for atrial fibrillation as it changes the electrical properties of the atrial myocardium and eventually favours tissue fibrosis.20 Furthermore, inflammation may trigger tissue factor expression in the atrial endothelium and favour thrombus formation.21 On the other hand, life on standstill may reduce sympathetic drive and hence reduce the likelihood of new-onset atrial fibrillation.22 In their article entitled ‘New-onset atrial fibrillation. Incidence, characteristics, and related events following a national COVID-19 lockdown of 5.6 million people’, Anders Holt and colleagues from the Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev and Gentofte in Hellerup, Denmark resolved this conundrum.23 During 3 weeks of lockdown, weekly incidence rates of new-onset AF were 2.3, 1.8, and 1.5 per 1000 person-years, while during the corresponding weeks in 2019, incidence rates were 3.5, 3.4, and 3.6 per 1000 person-years. Incidence rate ratios comparing buy cialis bitcoin the same weeks were 0.66, 0.53, and 0.41.

Patients diagnosed during lockdown were younger and had lower CHA2DS2-VASc-scores. During the first 3 weeks of lockdown, 7.8% of patients experienced an ischaemic stroke or death within 7 days of new-onset atrial fibrillation compared with 5.6% during the equivalent weeks in 2019, corresponding to an odds ratio of 1.41. Thus, following a national lockdown in Denmark, new-onset atrial fibrillation declined by 47%, while ischaemic stroke or death within 7 days buy cialis bitcoin increased. These complex findings are put into context in an excellent Editorial by Carina Blomstrom-Lundqvist from the Department of Medical Science in Uppsala, Sweden.24Myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery or MINS is caused by myocardial ischaemia due to a supply–demand mismatch or thrombus and is associated with an increased risk of mortality and major adverse CV events or MACE.25 In their review ‘Myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery. Diagnosis and management’ Philip Devereaux and colleagues from McMaster University in Hamilton, Canada note that the diagnostic criteria for MINS include elevated post-operative troponin levels with no evidence of a non-ischaemic aetiology during or within 30 days after non-cardiac surgery, and without ischaemic features such as chest pain or ECG changes.26 Patients with MINS should receive aspirin and a statin, unless contraindicated, and an NOAC (non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant) if not at buy cialis bitcoin high bleeding risk.

Cardiac catheterization is only recommended for those with recurrent ischaemia, heart failure, or high risk based on non-invasive imaging. Troponin should be measured for the first few days after surgery in patients ≥65 years or with atherosclerotic disease buy cialis bitcoin to avoid missing MINS and the opportunity for secondary prophylactic measures and follow-up.Finally, the issue is complemented by various Discussion Forum contributions on this very timely topic. In a contribution entitled ‘Should atrial fibrillation be considered a cardiovascular risk factor for a worse prognosis in COVID-19 patients?. €™, Fabian Sanchis-Gomar from the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Valencia, Spain discuss the recent publication ‘Characteristics and outcomes of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and cardiac disease in Northern Italy’ by Marco Metra and colleagues from Brescia, Italy.9,27 Metra et al. Respond in turn buy cialis bitcoin.

In a comment entitled ‘ACE2 is on the X chromosome. Could this buy cialis bitcoin explain COVID-19 gender differences?. €™ Felix Hernandez from the Universidad Autonoma de Madrid Centro de Biologia Molecular Severo Ochoa in Madrid, and his colleague Esther Culebras discuss the recent publication entitled ‘Circulating plasma concentrations of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 in men and women with heart failure and effects of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone inhibitors’ by Adriaan Voors and colleagues from the University Medical Center Groningen in the Netherlands.3,28 Voors et al. Respond in a separate comment.29In a contribution entitled ‘Circulating plasma angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 concentrations in patients with kidney disease’, Insa Marie Schmidt and colleagues from the Boston University in Massachusetts, USA also comment on the article by Voors et al.3,30 Voors and colleagues respond in a separate message to this piece.31 Time for the last wordsThis is buy cialis bitcoin my last Issue@aGlance in the European Heart Journal in my role of Editor-in-Chief. It has been a pleasure and honour to serve both authors and readers of this fine journal and the European Society of Cardiology over more than a decade.

My goal has always been to make it more attractive and informative for clinicians and important and stimulating for scientists worldwide. I hope you buy cialis bitcoin have enjoyed it. Needless to say, that was only possible thanks to an amazing team of editors, reviewers, authors, and editorial staff. I hope buy cialis bitcoin that you enjoy this very last issue under my leadership. The time has come to hand the European Heart Journal over to the new Editor-in-Chief, Filippo Crea from Rome.

I am certain Professor Crea will do an excellent job with his new team, retaining some of the experienced editorial buy cialis bitcoin staff from Zurich. Thank you for submitting to, reviewing for, and reading the European Heart Journal, and goodbye—I am sure we will stay in touch.With thanks to Amelia Meier-Batschelet for help with compilation of this article. References1Anker SD, Butler J, Khan MS, Abraham WT, Bauersachs J, Bocchi E, Bozkurt B, Braunwald E, Chopra VK, Cleland JG, Ezekowitz J, Filippatos G, Friede T, Hernandez AF, Lam CSP, Lindenfeld J, McMurray JJV, Mehra M, Metra M, Packer M, Pieske B, Pocock SJ, Ponikowski P, Rosano GMC, Teerlink JR, Tsutsui H, Van Veldhuisen DJ, Verma S, Voors AA, Wittes J, Zannad F, Zhang J, Seferovic P, Coats AJS. Conducting clinical trials in heart failure buy cialis bitcoin during (and after) the COVID-19 pandemic. An Expert Consensus Position Paper from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC).

Eur Heart buy cialis bitcoin J 2020;41:2109–2117.2Gao C, Cai Y, Zhang K, Zhou L, Zhang Y, Zhang X, Li Q, Li W, Yang S, Zhao X, Zhao Y, Wang H, Liu Y, Yin Z, Zhang R, Wang R, Yang M, Hui C, Wijns W, McEvoy JW, Soliman O, Onuma Y, Serruys PW, Tao L, Li F. Association of hypertension and antihypertensive treatment with COVID-19 mortality. A retrospective buy cialis bitcoin observational study. Eur Heart J 2020;41:2058–2066.3Sama IE, Ravera A, Santema BT, van Goor H, Ter Maaten JM, Cleland JGF, Rienstra M, Friedrich AW, Samani NJ, Ng LL, Dickstein K, Lang CC, Filippatos G, Anker SD, Ponikowski P, Metra M, van Veldhuisen DJ, Voors AA. Circulating plasma concentrations of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 in men and buy cialis bitcoin women with heart failure and effects of renin–angiotensin–aldosterone inhibitors.

Eur Heart J 2020;41:1810–1817.4Nicin L, Abplanalp WT, Mellentin H, Kattih B, Tombor L, John D, Schmitto JD, Heineke J, Emrich F, Arsalan M, Holubec T, Walther T, Zeiher AM, Dimmeler S. Cell type-specific expression of the putative SARS-CoV-2 receptor ACE2 in human hearts. Eur Heart J 2020;41:1804–1806.5Kim IC, Kim JY, Kim buy cialis bitcoin HA, Han S. COVID-19-related myocarditis in a 21-year-old female patient. Eur Heart J buy cialis bitcoin 2020;41:1859.6Zhou R.

Does SARS-CoV-2 cause viral myocarditis in COVID-19 patients?. Eur Heart J 2020;41:2123.7Shi S, buy cialis bitcoin Qin M, Cai Y, Liu T, Shen B, Yang F, Cao S, Liu X, Xiang Y, Zhao Q, Huang H, Yang B, Huang C. Characteristics and clinical significance of myocardial injury in patients with severe coronavirus disease 2019. Eur Heart J 2020;41:2070–2079.8Azarkish M, Laleh Far V, Eslami M, Mollazadeh R. Transient complete heart buy cialis bitcoin block in a patient with critical COVID-19.

Eur Heart J 2020;41:2131.9Inciardi RM, Adamo M, Lupi L, Cani DS, Di Pasquale M, Tomasoni D, Italia L, Zaccone G, Tedino C, Fabbricatore D, Curnis A, Faggiano P, Gorga E, Lombardi CM, Milesi G, Vizzardi E, Volpini M, Nodari S, Specchia C, Maroldi R, Bezzi M, Metra M. Characteristics and outcomes of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 and cardiac disease in Northern Italy buy cialis bitcoin. Eur Heart J 2020;41:1821–1829.10Libby P, Lüscher T. COVID-19 is, in the end, an buy cialis bitcoin endothelial disease. Eur Heart J 2020;41:3038–3044.11Pericàs JM, Hernandez-Meneses M, Sheahan TP, Quintana E, Ambrosioni J, Sandoval E, Falces C, Marcos MA, Tuset M, Vilella A, Moreno A, Miro JM.

COVID-19. From epidemiology to buy cialis bitcoin treatment. Eur Heart J 2020;41:2092–2112.12De Rosa S, Spaccarotella C, Basso C, Calabrò MP, Curcio A, Filardi PP, Mancone M, Mercuro G, Muscoli S, Nodari S, Pedrinelli R, Sinagra G, Indolfi C. Reduction of hospitalizations for myocardial infarction in Italy in the buy cialis bitcoin COVID-19 era. Eur Heart J 2020;41:2083–2088.13Mafham MM, Spata E, Goldacre R, Gair D, Curnow P, Bray M, Hollings S, Roebuck C, Gale CP, Mamas MA, Deanfield JE, de Belder MA, Luescher TF, Denwood T, Landray MJ, Emberson JR, Collins R, Morris EJA, Casadei B, Baigent C.

COVID-19 pandemic and admission buy cialis bitcoin rates for and management of acute coronary syndromes in England. Lancet 2020;396:381–389.14Lelieveld J, Münzel T. Air pollution, buy cialis bitcoin the underestimated cardiovascular risk factor. Eur Heart J 2020;41:904–905.15Baldi E, Sechi GM, Mare C, Canevari F, Brancaglione A, Primi R, Klersy C, Palo A, Contri E, Ronchi V, Beretta G, Reali F, Parogni P, Facchin F, Rizzi U, Bussi D, Ruggeri S, Oltrona Visconti L, Savastano S. COVID-19 kills at home.

The close relationship between the epidemic and the increase of out-of-hospital buy cialis bitcoin cardiac arrests. Eur Heart J 2020;41:3045–3054.16Tan HL. How does COVID-19 kill at home buy cialis bitcoin. And what should we do about it?. Eur Heart J 2020;41:3055–3057.17Gue YX, Gorog DA buy cialis bitcoin.

Reduction in ACE2 may mediate the prothrombotic phenotype in COVID-19. Eur Heart J 2020;doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa534.18Fauvel C, Weizman O, Trimaille A, Mika D, Pommier T, Pace N, Douair A, Barbin E, Fraix A, Bouchot O, Benmansour O, Godeau G, Mecheri Y, Lebourdon R, Yvorel C, Massin M, Leblon T, Chabbi C, Cugney E, Benabou L, Aubry M, Chan C, Boufoula I, Barnaud C, Bothorel L, Duceau B, Sutter W, Waldmann V, Bonnet G, Cohen A, Pezel T. Pulmonary embolism buy cialis bitcoin in COVID-19 patients. A French multicentre cohort study. Eur Heart J 2020;41:3058–3068.19Torbicki A buy cialis bitcoin.

COVID-19 and pulmonary embolism. An unwanted buy cialis bitcoin alliance. Eur Heart J 2020;41:3069–3071.20Lazzerini PE, Laghi-Pasini F, Acampa M, Srivastava U, Bertolozzi I, Giabbani B, Finizola F, Vanni F, Dokollari A, Natale M, Cevenini G, Selvi E, Migliacci N, Maccherini M, Boutjdir M, Capecchi PL. Systemic inflammation rapidly induces reversible atrial electrical remodeling. The role of interleukin-6-mediated changes buy cialis bitcoin in connexin expression.

J Am Heart Assoc 2019;8:e011006.21Steffel J, Lüscher TF, Tanner FC. Tissue factor buy cialis bitcoin in cardiovascular diseases. Molecular mechanisms and clinical implications. Circulation 2006;113:722–731.22Chen PS, Chen buy cialis bitcoin LS, Fishbein MC, Lin SF, Nattel S. Role of the autonomic nervous system in atrial fibrillation.

Pathophysiology and therapy. Circ Res 2014;114:1500–1515.23Holt A, Gislason GH, Schou M, Zareini B, Biering-Sørensen T, Phelps M, Kragholm K, Andersson buy cialis bitcoin C, Fosbøl EL, Hansen ML, Gerds TA, Køber L, Torp-Pedersen C, Lamberts M. New-onset atrial fibrillation. Incidence, characteristics, and related events following a national COVID-19 buy cialis bitcoin lockdown of 5.6 million people. Eur Heart J 2020;41:3072–3079.24Blomström-Lundqvist C.

Effects of COVID-19 buy cialis bitcoin lockdown strategies on management of atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J 2020;41:3080–3082.25Konstantinides SV, Torbicki A, Agnelli G, Danchin N, Fitzmaurice D, Galiè N, Gibbs JSR, Huisman MV, Humbert M, Kucher N, Lang I, Lankeit M, Lekakis J, Maack C, Mayer E, Meneveau N, Perrier A, Pruszczyk P, Rasmussen LH, Schindler TH, Svitil P, Vonk Noordegraaf A, Zamorano JL, Zompatori M, Zamorano JL, Achenbach S, Baumgartner H, Bax JJ, Bueno H, Dean V, Deaton C, Erol Ç, Fagard R, Ferrari R, Hasdai D, Hoes A, Kirchhof P, Knuuti J, Kolh P, Lancellotti P, Linhart A, Nihoyannopoulos P, Piepoli MF, Ponikowski P, Sirnes PA, Tamargo JL, Tendera M, Torbicki A, Wijns W, Windecker S, Erol Ç, Jimenez D, Ageno W, Agewall S, Asteggiano R, Bauersachs R, Becattini C, Bounameaux H, Büller HR, Davos CH, Deaton C, Geersing G-J, Sanchez MAG, Hendriks J, Hoes A, Kilickap M, Mareev V, Monreal M, Morais J, Nihoyannopoulos P, Popescu BA, Sanchez O, Spyropoulos AC. 2014 ESC Guidelines on the diagnosis and buy cialis bitcoin management of acute pulmonary embolism. The Task Force for the Diagnosis and Management of Acute Pulmonary Embolism of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Endorsed by the European Respiratory Society (ERS).

Eur Heart J buy cialis bitcoin 2014;35:3033–3080.26Devereaux PJ, Szczeklik W. Myocardial injury after non-cardiac surgery. Diagnosis and management buy cialis bitcoin. Eur Heart J 2020;41:3083–3091.27Sanchis-Gomar F, Perez-Quilis C, Lavie CJ. Should atrial fibrillation be considered a cardiovascular risk factor for a buy cialis bitcoin worse prognosis in COVID-19 patients?.

Eur Heart J 2020;41:3092–3093.28Culebras E, Hernández F. ACE2 is on the X chromosome. Could this buy cialis bitcoin explain COVID-19 gender differences?. Eur Heart J 2020;41:3095.29Sama IE, Voors AA. Men more buy cialis bitcoin vulnerable to COVID-19.

Explained by ACE2 on the X chromosome?. Eur Heart J 2020;41:3096.30Schmidt IM, Verma buy cialis bitcoin A, Waikar SS. Circulating plasma angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 concentrations in patients with kidney disease. Eur Heart J 2020;41:3097–3098.31Sama IE, Voors AA. Circulating plasma angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 concentration is elevated in buy cialis bitcoin patients with kidney disease and diabetes.

Eur Heart J 2020;41:3099. Published on behalf of the European buy cialis bitcoin Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The buy cialis bitcoin Author(s) 2020. For permissions, please email.

Cialis and propecia

NONE
Cialis
Levitra with dapoxetine
P force
Viagra black
Duration of action
No
Yes
No
Yes
Prescription is needed
Yes
Online
Online
Yes
Buy without prescription
Yes
Yes
Online
Online
Brand
Yes
Yes
No
Canadian pharmacy only
Take with high blood pressure
Indian Pharmacy
Nearby pharmacy
Online Drugstore
At walgreens

Patients Figure cialis and propecia 1. Figure 1. Enrollment and cialis and propecia Randomization.

Of the 1107 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 1063 underwent randomization. 541 were assigned to the remdesivir group and 522 to the cialis and propecia placebo group (Figure 1). Of those assigned to receive remdesivir, 531 patients (98.2%) received the treatment as assigned.

Forty-nine patients had remdesivir treatment discontinued before day 10 because of an adverse event cialis and propecia or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients) or because the patient withdrew consent (13). Of those assigned to receive placebo, 518 patients (99.2%) received placebo as assigned. Fifty-three patients discontinued placebo before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients), because the patient withdrew consent (15), or because the patient was found cialis and propecia to be ineligible for trial enrollment (2).

As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 patients in the remdesivir group and 340 in the placebo group had completed the trial through day 29, recovered, or died. Eight patients who received remdesivir and 9 who received placebo terminated their participation in the trial before day cialis and propecia 29. There were 132 patients in the remdesivir group and 169 in the placebo group who had not recovered and had not completed the day 29 follow-up visit.

The analysis population included 1059 patients for whom we have at least some postbaseline data available (538 in the remdesivir group and cialis and propecia 521 in the placebo group). Four of the 1063 patients were not included in the primary analysis because no postbaseline data were available at the time of the database freeze. Table 1 cialis and propecia.

Table 1. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics at Baseline. The mean cialis and propecia age of patients was 58.9 years, and 64.3% were male (Table 1).

On the basis of the evolving epidemiology of Covid-19 during the trial, 79.8% of patients were enrolled at sites in North America, 15.3% in Europe, and 4.9% in Asia (Table S1). Overall, 53.2% of the patients were white, 20.6% were black, 12.6% cialis and propecia were Asian, and 13.6% were designated as other or not reported. 249 (23.4%) were Hispanic or Latino.

Most patients had either one (27.0%) or two or more (52.1%) cialis and propecia of the prespecified coexisting conditions at enrollment, most commonly hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The median number of days between symptom onset and randomization was 9 (interquartile range, 6 to 12). Nine hundred forty-three (88.7%) patients had severe disease at enrollment as defined in the Supplementary Appendix cialis and propecia.

272 (25.6%) patients met category 7 criteria on the ordinal scale, 197 (18.5%) category 6, 421 (39.6%) category 5, and 127 (11.9%) category 4. There were cialis and propecia 46 (4.3%) patients who had missing ordinal scale data at enrollment. No substantial imbalances in baseline characteristics were observed between the remdesivir group and the placebo group.

Primary Outcome Figure cialis and propecia 2. Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier Estimates cialis and propecia of Cumulative Recoveries.

Cumulative recovery estimates are shown in the overall population (Panel A), in patients with a baseline score of 4 on the ordinal scale (not receiving oxygen. Panel B), in those with a baseline score of 5 (receiving oxygen. Panel C), in those with a baseline score of 6 cialis and propecia (receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive mechanical ventilation.

Panel D), and in those with a baseline score of 7 (receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO. Panel E) cialis and propecia. Table 2.

Table 2 cialis and propecia. Outcomes Overall and According to Score on the Ordinal Scale in the Intention-to-Treat Population. Figure 3 cialis and propecia.

Figure 3. Time to Recovery According cialis and propecia to Subgroup. The widths of the confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity and therefore cannot be used to infer treatment effects.

Race and ethnic group were reported cialis and propecia by the patients. Patients in the remdesivir group had a shorter time to recovery than patients in the placebo group (median, 11 days, as compared with 15 days. Rate ratio cialis and propecia for recovery, 1.32.

95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12 to 1.55. P<0.001. 1059 patients cialis and propecia (Figure 2 and Table 2).

Among patients with a baseline ordinal score of 5 (421 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 1.47 (95% CI, 1.17 to 1.84). Among patients with a baseline score of 4 (127 patients) and those with cialis and propecia a baseline score of 6 (197 patients), the rate ratio estimates for recovery were 1.38 (95% CI, 0.94 to 2.03) and 1.20 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.81), respectively. For those receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment (baseline ordinal scores of 7.

272 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.64 cialis and propecia to 1.42). A test of interaction of treatment with baseline score on the ordinal scale was not significant. An analysis adjusting for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable was conducted to evaluate the overall effect cialis and propecia (of the percentage of patients in each ordinal score category at baseline) on the primary outcome.

This adjusted analysis produced a similar treatment-effect estimate (rate ratio for recovery, 1.31. 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.54 cialis and propecia. 1017 patients).

Table S2 cialis and propecia in the Supplementary Appendix shows results according to the baseline severity stratum of mild-to-moderate as compared with severe. Patients who underwent randomization during the first 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.28 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57. 664 patients), whereas cialis and propecia patients who underwent randomization more than 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.81.

380 patients) (Figure 3). Key Secondary Outcome The odds of improvement in the ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, as determined by a proportional odds model at the day 15 visit, than in the placebo group (odds ratio for improvement, 1.50. 95% CI, cialis and propecia 1.18 to 1.91.

P=0.001. 844 patients) (Table cialis and propecia 2 and Fig. S5).

Mortality was cialis and propecia numerically lower in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group, but the difference was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.70. 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04. 1059 patients) cialis and propecia.

The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% and 11.9% in the remdesivir and placebo groups, respectively (Table 2). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 28 days are not reported in this preliminary analysis, given the large number of patients that had cialis and propecia yet to complete day 29 visits. An analysis with adjustment for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable showed a hazard ratio for death of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.50 to 1.10).

Safety Outcomes Serious adverse events occurred in 114 patients (21.1%) in the remdesivir group and cialis and propecia 141 patients (27.0%) in the placebo group (Table S3). 4 events (2 in each group) were judged by site investigators to be related to remdesivir or placebo. There were 28 serious respiratory failure adverse events in the remdesivir group (5.2% cialis and propecia of patients) and 42 in the placebo group (8.0% of patients).

Acute respiratory failure, hypotension, viral pneumonia, and acute kidney injury were slightly more common among patients in the placebo group. No deaths cialis and propecia were considered to be related to treatment assignment, as judged by the site investigators. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 156 patients (28.8%) in the remdesivir group and in 172 in the placebo group (33.0%) (Table S4).

The most common adverse events in the remdesivir group were anemia or decreased hemoglobin (43 events [7.9%], as compared with 47 [9.0%] in the placebo group). Acute kidney injury, decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance, or increased blood creatinine (40 cialis and propecia events [7.4%], as compared with 38 [7.3%]). Pyrexia (27 events [5.0%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]).

Hyperglycemia or increased blood glucose cialis and propecia level (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). And increased aminotransferase levels including alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, or both (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 31 [5.9%]). Otherwise, the incidence of adverse events was not found to be significantly different between the cialis and propecia remdesivir group and the placebo group.Trial Design and Oversight The RECOVERY trial was designed to evaluate the effects of potential treatments in patients hospitalized with Covid-19 at 176 National Health Service organizations in the United Kingdom and was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network.

(Details regarding this trial are provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.) The trial is being coordinated by the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, the trial sponsor. Although the randomization of patients to receive dexamethasone, cialis and propecia hydroxychloroquine, or lopinavir–ritonavir has now been stopped, the trial continues randomization to groups receiving azithromycin, tocilizumab, or convalescent plasma. Hospitalized patients were eligible for the trial if they had clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and no medical history that might, in the opinion of the attending clinician, put patients at substantial risk if they were to participate in the trial.

Initially, recruitment cialis and propecia was limited to patients who were at least 18 years of age, but the age limit was removed starting on May 9, 2020. Pregnant or breast-feeding women were eligible. Written informed consent was obtained from all the patients cialis and propecia or from a legal representative if they were unable to provide consent.

The trial was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Good Clinical Practice guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonisation and was approved by the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee cialis and propecia. The protocol with its statistical analysis plan is available at NEJM.org and on the trial website at www.recoverytrial.net.

The initial version of the manuscript was drafted by the first and last authors, developed by the writing committee, and approved by all members of the trial steering committee. The funders had no role in the analysis of the data, in the preparation or approval cialis and propecia of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The first and last members of the writing committee vouch for the completeness and accuracy of the data and for the fidelity of the trial to the protocol and statistical analysis plan.

Randomization We collected baseline data using a Web-based case-report form that included demographic data, the level of respiratory support, major coexisting illnesses, suitability of the cialis and propecia trial treatment for a particular patient, and treatment availability at the trial site. Randomization was performed with the use of a Web-based system with concealment of the trial-group assignment. Eligible and consenting patients were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the cialis and propecia usual standard of care alone or the usual standard of care plus oral or intravenous dexamethasone (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days (or until hospital discharge if sooner) or to receive one of the other suitable and available treatments that were being evaluated in the trial.

For some patients, dexamethasone was unavailable at the hospital at the time of enrollment or was considered by the managing physician to be either definitely indicated or definitely contraindicated. These patients were excluded from entry in the randomized comparison between dexamethasone and usual care and hence were not included cialis and propecia in this report. The randomly assigned treatment was prescribed by the treating clinician.

Patients and local members of the trial staff were aware of the assigned treatments cialis and propecia. Procedures A single online follow-up form was to be completed when the patients were discharged or had died or at 28 days after randomization, whichever occurred first. Information was recorded regarding the patients’ adherence to the assigned treatment, receipt of other trial treatments, duration of admission, receipt of respiratory support (with cialis and propecia duration and type), receipt of renal support, and vital status (including the cause of death).

In addition, we obtained routine health care and registry data, including information on vital status (with date and cause of death), discharge from the hospital, and respiratory and renal support therapy. Outcome Measures cialis and propecia The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days after randomization. Further analyses were specified at 6 months.

Secondary outcomes were the time until discharge from the hospital and, among patients not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization, subsequent receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) or death. Other prespecified clinical outcomes included cause-specific mortality, receipt of renal hemodialysis or hemofiltration, major cardiac arrhythmia (recorded in a subgroup), and cialis and propecia receipt and duration of ventilation. Statistical Analysis As stated in the protocol, appropriate sample sizes could not be estimated when the trial was being planned at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.

As the trial progressed, the trial steering committee, whose members were unaware of the results of the trial comparisons, determined that if 28-day mortality was 20%, then cialis and propecia the enrollment of at least 2000 patients in the dexamethasone group and 4000 in the usual care group would provide a power of at least 90% at a two-sided P value of 0.01 to detect a clinically relevant proportional reduction of 20% (an absolute difference of 4 percentage points) between the two groups. Consequently, on June 8, 2020, the steering committee closed recruitment to the dexamethasone group, since enrollment had exceeded 2000 patients. For the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, the hazard ratio from Cox regression was cialis and propecia used to estimate the mortality rate ratio.

Among the few patients (0.1%) who had not been followed for 28 days by the time of the data cutoff on July 6, 2020, data were censored either on that date or on day 29 if the patient had already been discharged. That is, in the absence of any cialis and propecia information to the contrary, these patients were assumed to have survived for 28 days. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were constructed to show cumulative mortality over the 28-day period.

Cox regression cialis and propecia was used to analyze the secondary outcome of hospital discharge within 28 days, with censoring of data on day 29 for patients who had died during hospitalization. For the prespecified composite secondary outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation or death within 28 days (among patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization), the precise date of invasive mechanical ventilation was not available, so a log-binomial regression model was used to estimate the risk ratio. Table 1 cialis and propecia.

Table 1. Characteristics of cialis and propecia the Patients at Baseline, According to Treatment Assignment and Level of Respiratory Support. Through the play of chance in the unstratified randomization, the mean age was 1.1 years older among patients in the dexamethasone group than among those in the usual care group (Table 1).

To account for this imbalance in an important prognostic factor, estimates of rate ratios were adjusted for the baseline age in three categories (<70 years, 70 to 79 years, and ≥80 years). This adjustment cialis and propecia was not specified in the first version of the statistical analysis plan but was added once the imbalance in age became apparent. Results without age adjustment (corresponding to the first version of the analysis plan) are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.

Prespecified analyses of the primary outcome cialis and propecia were performed in five subgroups, as defined by characteristics at randomization. Age, sex, level of respiratory support, days since symptom onset, and predicted 28-day mortality risk. (One further prespecified subgroup analysis regarding cialis and propecia race will be conducted once the data collection has been completed.) In prespecified subgroups, we estimated rate ratios (or risk ratios in some analyses) and their confidence intervals using regression models that included an interaction term between the treatment assignment and the subgroup of interest.

Chi-square tests for linear trend across the subgroup-specific log estimates were then performed in accordance with the prespecified plan. All P values are two-sided and cialis and propecia are shown without adjustment for multiple testing. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

The full database is held by the trial team, which collected the data from trial sites and cialis and propecia performed the analyses at the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford.To the Editor The positive antibody response to the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine described by Jackson et al. (published online on July 14 at NEJM.org)1 is a hopeful step toward controlling the Covid-19 pandemic. However, this vaccine and other DNA and RNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 continuously stimulate cialis and propecia cellular production of the target antigen.

A mechanism is required to be able to stop the antigen production after a period of time to avoid the possibility of eventual desensitization, as is seen with allergen immunotherapy.2-5 Without such a mechanism, a sustained lack of response may make SARS-CoV-2 infection a lot worse in the long run. It will be important to cialis and propecia evaluate this potential before declaring that any DNA or RNA vaccine is safe and efficacious. Ronald A.

Schachar, M.D., Ph.D.University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX [email protected]Ira H. Schachar, M.D.Stanford University, Stanford, CA Dr cialis and propecia. R.A.

Schachar reports cialis and propecia being employed by Pfizer. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this letter was reported. This letter was published cialis and propecia on August 19, 2020, at NEJM.org.5 References1.

Jackson LA, Anderson EJ, Rouphael NG, et al. An mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 — cialis and propecia preliminary report. N Engl J Med.

DOI. 10.1056/NEJMoa2022483.Free Full TextGoogle Scholar2. Su Y, Romeu-Bonilla E, Anagnostou A, Fitz-Patrick D, Hearl W, Heiland T.

Safety and long-term immunological effects of CryJ2-LAMP plasmid vaccine in Japanese red cedar atopic subjects. A phase I study. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2017;13:2804-2813.3.

Niezold T, Storcksdieck Genannt Bonsmann M, Maaske A, et al. DNA vaccines encoding DEC205-targeted antigens. Immunity or tolerance?.

Immunology 2015;145:519-533.4. Scheiblhofer S, Thalhamer J, Weiss R. DNA and mRNA vaccination against allergies.

Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2018;29:679-688.5. Barouch DH, Kunstman J, Glowczwskie J, et al. Viral escape from dominant simian immunodeficiency virus epitope-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes in DNA-vaccinated rhesus monkeys.

J Virol 2003;77:7367-7375.To the Editor Jackson et al. Report the successful results of a trial of the mRNA-1273 vaccine, which induced an impressive IgG antibody response. However, Jackson and colleagues, as well as Heaton,1 in her editorial corresponding to the article, did not comment on IgA.

IgA is a crucial first-line defense in mucosal tissues, and we wonder whether there was any increase in SARS-CoV-2–specific IgA. The role of vaccine-induced IgA is under discussion for parenteral vaccination against rotavirus.2 Since SARS-CoV-2 primarily infiltrates mucosal tissue, SARS-CoV-2–specific IgA may be necessary for full protection. Moreover, the lack of IgA may cause unprotected spread of SARS-CoV-2 from nasal mucosal tissue.

Chumakov and colleagues discussed the use of oral polio vaccine to ameliorate or prevent Covid-19.3 In both nasal and intestinal cells, Sungnak et al. Detected angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which is crucial for binding of SARS-CoV-2, and transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2), which is crucial for uptake of the virus.4 Thus, the intestinal and nasal mucosa are ideal targets for SARS-CoV-2 and for vaccination to trigger IgA responses. Studies of an oral vaccine containing attenuated SARS-CoV-2 to stimulate an early protective systemic immune response by the highly effective gut-associated immune system are warranted.

Juergen R. Schaefer, M.D.Yulia Sharkova, M.D.Tanja Nickolaus, M.D.University Clinic Marburg, Marburg, Germany [email protected] No potential conflict of interest relevant to this letter was reported. This letter was published on August 19, 2020, at NEJM.org.4 References1.

Heaton PM. The Covid-19 vaccine-development multiverse. N Engl J Med.

DOI. 10.1056/NEJMe2025111.Free Full TextGoogle Scholar2. Bines JE, Kotloff KL.

Next-generation rotavirus vaccines. Important progress but work still to be done. Lancet Infect Dis 2020;20:762-764.3.

Chumakov K, Benn CS, Aaby P, Kottilil S, Gallo R. Can existing live vaccines prevent COVID-19?. Science 2020;368:1187-1188.4.

Sungnak W, Huang N, Bécavin C, et al. SARS-CoV-2 entry factors are highly expressed in nasal epithelial cells together with innate immune genes. Nat Med 2020;26:681-687.Response The authors reply.

We agree with Schachar and Schachar that the interim findings of the phase 1 trial of the mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 are promising. These findings provided support for the initiation of the phase 2 and 3 trials that are under way. This vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle–encapsidated, nonreplicating, nucleoside-modified mRNA–based vaccine that, after entering the cell cytoplasm, results in rapid, transient expression of the vaccine antigen.1 The question regarding the duration of immunity is important, and the phase 1 and 2 trials are designed to follow participants for 1 year after the second vaccination and to obtain samples to characterize humoral and cellular immunologic responses.

The phase 3 trial is designed to follow participants for 2 years in order to allow assessment of the durability of protective immunity during that interval. In reply to Schaefer and colleagues. IgA and IgM responses are exploratory immunologic end points in the phase 1 trial, and reporting of these findings is planned as part of the reporting of the final results.

The role of monomeric IgA induced by parenteral vaccines is unknown, and monomeric IgA is unlikely to reach the mucosal compartment in substantial quantities. Mucosal delivery of vaccine would be needed to reliably induce secretory IgA localized in mucosal tissues. In a study of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the use of mRNA-1273 in nonhuman primates, intramuscular administration of the vaccine protected the animals against upper- and lower-airway challenge with SARS-CoV-2, and S-specific IgG and IgA were detected in bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid after the challenge.2 Although these findings may suggest that antibody responses correlate with protection, as noted by Corbett et al.,2 further evaluations, including passive-transfer studies and challenge studies of lower, subprotective vaccine doses in nonhuman primates, are warranted to further elucidate antibody specificities or functions that correlate with protection.

Lisa A. Jackson, M.D., M.P.H.Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA [email protected]Paul C. Roberts, Ph.D.Barney S.

Graham, M.D., Ph.D.National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, MD Since publication of their article, the authors report no further potential conflict of interest. This letter was published on August 19, 2020, at NEJM.org.2 References1. Bahl K, Senn JJ, Yuzhakov O, et al.

Preclinical and clinical demonstration of immunogenicity by mRNA vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses. Mol Ther 2017;25:1316-1327.2. Corbett KS, Flynn B, Foulds KE, et al.

Evaluation of the mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in nonhuman primates. N Engl J Med. DOI.

10.1056/NEJMoa2024671.Free Full TextGoogle ScholarTrial Population Table 1. Table 1. Characteristics of the Participants in the mRNA-1273 Trial at Enrollment.

The 45 enrolled participants received their first vaccination between March 16 and April 14, 2020 (Fig. S1). Three participants did not receive the second vaccination, including one in the 25-μg group who had urticaria on both legs, with onset 5 days after the first vaccination, and two (one in the 25-μg group and one in the 250-μg group) who missed the second vaccination window owing to isolation for suspected Covid-19 while the test results, ultimately negative, were pending.

All continued to attend scheduled trial visits. The demographic characteristics of participants at enrollment are provided in Table 1. Vaccine Safety No serious adverse events were noted, and no prespecified trial halting rules were met.

As noted above, one participant in the 25-μg group was withdrawn because of an unsolicited adverse event, transient urticaria, judged to be related to the first vaccination. Figure 1. Figure 1.

Systemic and Local Adverse Events. The severity of solicited adverse events was graded as mild, moderate, or severe (see Table S1).After the first vaccination, solicited systemic adverse events were reported by 5 participants (33%) in the 25-μg group, 10 (67%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (53%) in the 250-μg group. All were mild or moderate in severity (Figure 1 and Table S2).

Solicited systemic adverse events were more common after the second vaccination and occurred in 7 of 13 participants (54%) in the 25-μg group, all 15 in the 100-μg group, and all 14 in the 250-μg group, with 3 of those participants (21%) reporting one or more severe events. None of the participants had fever after the first vaccination. After the second vaccination, no participants in the 25-μg group, 6 (40%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (57%) in the 250-μg group reported fever.

One of the events (maximum temperature, 39.6°C) in the 250-μg group was graded severe. (Additional details regarding adverse events for that participant are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.) Local adverse events, when present, were nearly all mild or moderate, and pain at the injection site was common. Across both vaccinations, solicited systemic and local adverse events that occurred in more than half the participants included fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site.

Evaluation of safety clinical laboratory values of grade 2 or higher and unsolicited adverse events revealed no patterns of concern (Supplementary Appendix and Table S3). SARS-CoV-2 Binding Antibody Responses Table 2. Table 2.

Geometric Mean Humoral Immunogenicity Assay Responses to mRNA-1273 in Participants and in Convalescent Serum Specimens. Figure 2. Figure 2.

SARS-CoV-2 Antibody and Neutralization Responses. Shown are geometric mean reciprocal end-point enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) IgG titers to S-2P (Panel A) and receptor-binding domain (Panel B), PsVNA ID50 responses (Panel C), and live virus PRNT80 responses (Panel D). In Panel A and Panel B, boxes and horizontal bars denote interquartile range (IQR) and median area under the curve (AUC), respectively.

Whisker endpoints are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The convalescent serum panel includes specimens from 41 participants. Red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay.

The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent serum panel. In Panel C, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median ID50, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR.

In the convalescent serum panel, red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay. The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent panel. In Panel D, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median PRNT80, respectively.

Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The three convalescent serum specimens were also tested in ELISA and PsVNA assays. Because of the time-intensive nature of the PRNT assay, for this preliminary report, PRNT results were available only for the 25-μg and 100-μg dose groups.Binding antibody IgG geometric mean titers (GMTs) to S-2P increased rapidly after the first vaccination, with seroconversion in all participants by day 15 (Table 2 and Figure 2A).

Dose-dependent responses to the first and second vaccinations were evident. Receptor-binding domain–specific antibody responses were similar in pattern and magnitude (Figure 2B). For both assays, the median magnitude of antibody responses after the first vaccination in the 100-μg and 250-μg dose groups was similar to the median magnitude in convalescent serum specimens, and in all dose groups the median magnitude after the second vaccination was in the upper quartile of values in the convalescent serum specimens.

The S-2P ELISA GMTs at day 57 (299,751 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 206,071 to 436,020] in the 25-μg group, 782,719 [95% CI, 619,310 to 989,244] in the 100-μg group, and 1,192,154 [95% CI, 924,878 to 1,536,669] in the 250-μg group) exceeded that in the convalescent serum specimens (142,140 [95% CI, 81,543 to 247,768]). SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Responses No participant had detectable PsVNA responses before vaccination. After the first vaccination, PsVNA responses were detected in less than half the participants, and a dose effect was seen (50% inhibitory dilution [ID50].

Figure 2C, Fig. S8, and Table 2. 80% inhibitory dilution [ID80].

Fig. S2 and Table S6). However, after the second vaccination, PsVNA responses were identified in serum samples from all participants.

The lowest responses were in the 25-μg dose group, with a geometric mean ID50 of 112.3 (95% CI, 71.2 to 177.1) at day 43. The higher responses in the 100-μg and 250-μg groups were similar in magnitude (geometric mean ID50, 343.8 [95% CI, 261.2 to 452.7] and 332.2 [95% CI, 266.3 to 414.5], respectively, at day 43). These responses were similar to values in the upper half of the distribution of values for convalescent serum specimens.

Before vaccination, no participant had detectable 80% live-virus neutralization at the highest serum concentration tested (1:8 dilution) in the PRNT assay. At day 43, wild-type virus–neutralizing activity capable of reducing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity by 80% or more (PRNT80) was detected in all participants, with geometric mean PRNT80 responses of 339.7 (95% CI, 184.0 to 627.1) in the 25-μg group and 654.3 (95% CI, 460.1 to 930.5) in the 100-μg group (Figure 2D). Neutralizing PRNT80 average responses were generally at or above the values of the three convalescent serum specimens tested in this assay.

Good agreement was noted within and between the values from binding assays for S-2P and receptor-binding domain and neutralizing activity measured by PsVNA and PRNT (Figs. S3 through S7), which provides orthogonal support for each assay in characterizing the humoral response induced by mRNA-1273. SARS-CoV-2 T-Cell Responses The 25-μg and 100-μg doses elicited CD4 T-cell responses (Figs.

S9 and S10) that on stimulation by S-specific peptide pools were strongly biased toward expression of Th1 cytokines (tumor necrosis factor α >. Interleukin 2 >. Interferon γ), with minimal type 2 helper T-cell (Th2) cytokine expression (interleukin 4 and interleukin 13).

CD8 T-cell responses to S-2P were detected at low levels after the second vaccination in the 100-μg dose group (Fig. S11)..

Patients Figure 1 buy cialis bitcoin http://sw.keimfarben.de/best-online-cialis/. Figure 1. Enrollment and buy cialis bitcoin Randomization.

Of the 1107 patients who were assessed for eligibility, 1063 underwent randomization. 541 were buy cialis bitcoin assigned to the remdesivir group and 522 to the placebo group (Figure 1). Of those assigned to receive remdesivir, 531 patients (98.2%) received the treatment as assigned.

Forty-nine patients had remdesivir treatment discontinued before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious buy cialis bitcoin adverse event other than death (36 patients) or because the patient withdrew consent (13). Of those assigned to receive placebo, 518 patients (99.2%) received placebo as assigned. Fifty-three patients discontinued placebo before day 10 because of an adverse event or a serious adverse event other than death (36 patients), because the patient withdrew consent (15), or because the patient was found buy cialis bitcoin to be ineligible for trial enrollment (2).

As of April 28, 2020, a total of 391 patients in the remdesivir group and 340 in the placebo group had completed the trial through day 29, recovered, or died. Eight patients who received remdesivir and 9 who received placebo buy cialis bitcoin terminated their participation in the trial before day 29. There were 132 patients in the remdesivir group and 169 in the placebo group who had not recovered and had not completed the day 29 follow-up visit.

The analysis population included 1059 patients for whom we have buy cialis bitcoin at least some postbaseline data available (538 in the remdesivir group and 521 in the placebo group). Four of the 1063 patients were not included in the primary analysis because no postbaseline data were available at the time of the database freeze. Table 1 buy cialis bitcoin.

Table 1. Demographic and Clinical Characteristics at Baseline. The mean age buy cialis bitcoin of patients was 58.9 years, and 64.3% were male (Table 1).

On the basis of the evolving epidemiology of Covid-19 during the trial, 79.8% of patients were enrolled at sites in North America, 15.3% in Europe, and 4.9% in Asia (Table S1). Overall, 53.2% of the patients were white, 20.6% were black, 12.6% were Asian, and 13.6% were designated as buy cialis bitcoin other or not reported. 249 (23.4%) were Hispanic or Latino.

Most patients had either one (27.0%) or two or more (52.1%) of the prespecified coexisting conditions at enrollment, most buy cialis bitcoin commonly hypertension (49.6%), obesity (37.0%), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (29.7%). The median number of days between symptom onset and randomization was 9 (interquartile range, 6 to 12). Nine hundred buy cialis bitcoin forty-three (88.7%) patients had severe disease at enrollment as defined in the Supplementary Appendix.

272 (25.6%) patients met category 7 criteria on the ordinal scale, 197 (18.5%) category 6, 421 (39.6%) category 5, and 127 (11.9%) category 4. There were buy cialis bitcoin 46 (4.3%) patients who had missing ordinal scale data at enrollment. No substantial imbalances in baseline characteristics were observed between the remdesivir group and the placebo group.

Primary Outcome Figure 2 buy cialis bitcoin. Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier Estimates of Cumulative Recoveries buy cialis bitcoin.

Cumulative recovery estimates are shown in the overall population (Panel A), in patients with a baseline score of 4 on the ordinal scale (not receiving oxygen. Panel B), in those with a baseline score of 5 (receiving oxygen. Panel C), in those with a baseline score of 6 (receiving high-flow oxygen or noninvasive buy cialis bitcoin mechanical ventilation.

Panel D), and in those with a baseline score of 7 (receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO. Panel E) buy cialis bitcoin. Table 2.

Table 2 buy cialis bitcoin. Outcomes Overall and According to Score on the Ordinal Scale in the Intention-to-Treat Population. Figure 3 buy cialis bitcoin.

Figure 3. Time to buy cialis bitcoin Recovery According to Subgroup. The widths of the confidence intervals have not been adjusted for multiplicity and therefore cannot be used to infer treatment effects.

Race and buy cialis bitcoin ethnic group were reported by the patients. Patients in the remdesivir group had a shorter time to recovery than patients in the placebo group (median, 11 days, as compared with 15 days. Rate ratio buy cialis bitcoin for recovery, 1.32.

95% confidence interval [CI], 1.12 to 1.55. P<0.001. 1059 patients buy cialis bitcoin (Figure 2 and Table 2).

Among patients with a baseline ordinal score of 5 (421 patients), the rate ratio for recovery was 1.47 (95% CI, 1.17 to 1.84). Among patients with a baseline buy cialis bitcoin score of 4 (127 patients) and those with a baseline score of 6 (197 patients), the rate ratio estimates for recovery were 1.38 (95% CI, 0.94 to 2.03) and 1.20 (95% CI, 0.79 to 1.81), respectively. For those receiving mechanical ventilation or ECMO at enrollment (baseline ordinal scores of 7.

272 patients), the buy cialis bitcoin rate ratio for recovery was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.64 to 1.42). A test of interaction of treatment with baseline score on the ordinal scale was not significant. An analysis adjusting for baseline ordinal score as buy cialis bitcoin a stratification variable was conducted to evaluate the overall effect (of the percentage of patients in each ordinal score category at baseline) on the primary outcome.

This adjusted analysis produced a similar treatment-effect estimate (rate ratio for recovery, 1.31. 95% CI, 1.12 to 1.54 buy cialis bitcoin. 1017 patients).

Table S2 in the Supplementary Appendix shows results according to the baseline severity stratum of mild-to-moderate as compared with severe buy cialis bitcoin. Patients who underwent randomization during the first 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.28 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.57. 664 patients), whereas buy cialis bitcoin patients who underwent randomization more than 10 days after the onset of symptoms had a rate ratio for recovery of 1.38 (95% CI, 1.05 to 1.81.

380 patients) (Figure 3). Key Secondary Outcome The odds of improvement in the ordinal scale score were higher in the remdesivir group, as determined by a proportional odds model at the day 15 visit, than in the placebo group (odds ratio for improvement, 1.50. 95% CI, 1.18 buy cialis bitcoin to 1.91.

P=0.001. 844 patients) (Table 2 buy cialis bitcoin and Fig. S5).

Mortality was buy cialis bitcoin numerically lower in the remdesivir group than in the placebo group, but the difference was not significant (hazard ratio for death, 0.70. 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.04. 1059 patients) buy cialis bitcoin.

The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 14 days were 7.1% and 11.9% in the remdesivir and placebo groups, respectively (Table 2). The Kaplan–Meier estimates of mortality by 28 days are not reported in this preliminary analysis, given the large number of patients buy cialis bitcoin that had yet to complete day 29 visits. An analysis with adjustment for baseline ordinal score as a stratification variable showed a hazard ratio for death of 0.74 (95% CI, 0.50 to 1.10).

Safety Outcomes Serious adverse events occurred in 114 patients (21.1%) in the remdesivir group buy cialis bitcoin and 141 patients (27.0%) in the placebo group (Table S3). 4 events (2 in each group) were judged by site investigators to be related to remdesivir or placebo. There were 28 serious respiratory failure adverse events in the remdesivir group (5.2% buy cialis bitcoin of patients) and 42 in the placebo group (8.0% of patients).

Acute respiratory failure, hypotension, viral pneumonia, and acute kidney injury were slightly more common among patients in the placebo group. No deaths were considered to be related to treatment assignment, as judged buy cialis bitcoin by the site investigators. Grade 3 or 4 adverse events occurred in 156 patients (28.8%) in the remdesivir group and in 172 in the placebo group (33.0%) (Table S4).

The most common adverse events in the remdesivir group were anemia or decreased hemoglobin (43 events [7.9%], as compared with 47 [9.0%] in the placebo group). Acute kidney injury, buy cialis bitcoin decreased estimated glomerular filtration rate or creatinine clearance, or increased blood creatinine (40 events [7.4%], as compared with 38 [7.3%]). Pyrexia (27 events [5.0%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]).

Hyperglycemia or increased blood glucose level buy cialis bitcoin (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 17 [3.3%]). And increased aminotransferase levels including alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, or both (22 events [4.1%], as compared with 31 [5.9%]). Otherwise, the incidence of adverse events was not found to be significantly different between the remdesivir group and the placebo group.Trial Design and Oversight The RECOVERY trial was designed to evaluate the effects of potential treatments in patients hospitalized with Covid-19 at 176 National Health Service organizations in the United buy cialis bitcoin Kingdom and was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network.

(Details regarding this trial are provided in the Supplementary Appendix, available with the full text of this article at NEJM.org.) The trial is being coordinated by the Nuffield Department of Population Health at the University of Oxford, the trial sponsor. Although the randomization of patients to receive dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, or lopinavir–ritonavir has now been stopped, the trial continues randomization to groups receiving azithromycin, tocilizumab, or buy cialis bitcoin convalescent plasma. Hospitalized patients were eligible for the trial if they had clinically suspected or laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and no medical history that might, in the opinion of the attending clinician, put patients at substantial risk if they were to participate in the trial.

Initially, recruitment was buy cialis bitcoin limited to patients who were at least 18 years of age, but the age limit was removed starting on May 9, 2020. Pregnant or breast-feeding women were eligible. Written informed consent was obtained from all the patients or from a legal representative if they were unable to buy cialis bitcoin provide consent.

The trial was conducted in accordance with the principles of the Good Clinical Practice guidelines of the International Conference on Harmonisation and was approved by the U.K. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency and the buy cialis bitcoin Cambridge East Research Ethics Committee. The protocol with its statistical analysis plan is available at NEJM.org and on the trial website at www.recoverytrial.net.

The initial version of the manuscript was drafted by the first and last authors, developed by the writing committee, and approved by all members of the trial steering committee. The funders had no role in the analysis of the data, in buy cialis bitcoin the preparation or approval of the manuscript, or in the decision to submit the manuscript for publication. The first and last members of the writing committee vouch for the completeness and accuracy of the data and for the fidelity of the trial to the protocol and statistical analysis plan.

Randomization We collected buy cialis bitcoin baseline data using a Web-based case-report form that included demographic data, the level of respiratory support, major coexisting illnesses, suitability of the trial treatment for a particular patient, and treatment availability at the trial site. Randomization was performed with the use of a Web-based system with concealment of the trial-group assignment. Eligible and consenting patients were assigned in a 2:1 ratio to receive either the usual standard of care alone or the usual standard of care plus oral or intravenous dexamethasone buy cialis bitcoin (at a dose of 6 mg once daily) for up to 10 days (or until hospital discharge if sooner) or to receive one of the other suitable and available treatments that were being evaluated in the trial.

For some patients, dexamethasone was unavailable at the hospital at the time of enrollment or was considered by the managing physician to be either definitely indicated or definitely contraindicated. These patients buy cialis bitcoin were excluded from entry in the randomized comparison between dexamethasone and usual care and hence were not included in this report. The randomly assigned treatment was prescribed by the treating clinician.

Patients and local members buy cialis bitcoin of the trial staff were aware of the assigned treatments. Procedures A single online follow-up form was to be completed when the patients were discharged or had died or at 28 days after randomization, whichever occurred first. Information was recorded buy cialis bitcoin regarding the patients’ adherence to the assigned treatment, receipt of other trial treatments, duration of admission, receipt of respiratory support (with duration and type), receipt of renal support, and vital status (including the cause of death).

In addition, we obtained routine health care and registry data, including information on vital status (with date and cause of death), discharge from the hospital, and respiratory and renal support therapy. Outcome Measures The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days after randomization buy cialis bitcoin. Further analyses were specified at 6 months.

Secondary outcomes were the time until discharge from the hospital and, among patients not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at the time of randomization, subsequent receipt of invasive mechanical ventilation (including extracorporeal membrane oxygenation) or death. Other prespecified clinical outcomes included buy cialis bitcoin cause-specific mortality, receipt of renal hemodialysis or hemofiltration, major cardiac arrhythmia (recorded in a subgroup), and receipt and duration of ventilation. Statistical Analysis As stated in the protocol, appropriate sample sizes could not be estimated when the trial was being planned at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic.

As the trial progressed, the trial steering committee, whose members were unaware of the results of the trial comparisons, determined that if 28-day mortality was 20%, then the enrollment of at least 2000 patients in the dexamethasone group and 4000 in the usual care group would provide a power of at buy cialis bitcoin least 90% at a two-sided P value of 0.01 to detect a clinically relevant proportional reduction of 20% (an absolute difference of 4 percentage points) between the two groups. Consequently, on June 8, 2020, the steering committee closed recruitment to the dexamethasone group, since enrollment had exceeded 2000 patients. For the primary outcome of 28-day mortality, the hazard ratio from Cox regression was used to buy cialis bitcoin estimate the mortality rate ratio.

Among the few patients (0.1%) who had not been followed for 28 days by the time of the data cutoff on July 6, 2020, data were censored either on that date or on day 29 if the patient had already been discharged. That is, in the buy cialis bitcoin absence of any information to the contrary, these patients were assumed to have survived for 28 days. Kaplan–Meier survival curves were constructed to show cumulative mortality over the 28-day period.

Cox regression was used to analyze the buy cialis bitcoin secondary outcome of hospital discharge within 28 days, with censoring of data on day 29 for patients who had died during hospitalization. For the prespecified composite secondary outcome of invasive mechanical ventilation or death within 28 days (among patients who were not receiving invasive mechanical ventilation at randomization), the precise date of invasive mechanical ventilation was not available, so a log-binomial regression model was used to estimate the risk ratio. Table 1 buy cialis bitcoin.

Table 1. Characteristics of the Patients buy cialis bitcoin at Baseline, According to Treatment Assignment and Level of Respiratory Support. Through the play of chance in the unstratified randomization, the mean age was 1.1 years older among patients in the dexamethasone group than among those in the usual care group (Table 1).

To account for this imbalance in an important prognostic factor, estimates of rate ratios were adjusted for the baseline age in three categories (<70 years, 70 to 79 years, and ≥80 years). This adjustment was not specified in the first version of buy cialis bitcoin the statistical analysis plan but was added once the imbalance in age became apparent. Results without age adjustment (corresponding to the first version of the analysis plan) are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.

Prespecified analyses of the primary outcome were performed in five subgroups, as defined by characteristics buy cialis bitcoin at randomization. Age, sex, level of respiratory support, days since symptom onset, and predicted 28-day mortality risk. (One further prespecified subgroup analysis regarding race will be conducted once the data collection has been completed.) In prespecified subgroups, we estimated rate ratios (or risk ratios in some analyses) and their confidence intervals using regression models buy cialis bitcoin that included an interaction term between the treatment assignment and the subgroup of interest.

Chi-square tests for linear trend across the subgroup-specific log estimates were then performed in accordance with the prespecified plan. All P values are two-sided and are shown without adjustment for multiple testing buy cialis bitcoin. All analyses were performed according to the intention-to-treat principle.

The full database is held by the trial team, which collected the data from trial sites and performed the analyses at the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford.To the Editor The positive antibody response to the messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine buy cialis bitcoin described by Jackson et al. (published online on July 14 at NEJM.org)1 is a hopeful step toward controlling the Covid-19 pandemic. However, this vaccine and other DNA and buy cialis bitcoin RNA vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 continuously stimulate cellular production of the target antigen.

A mechanism is required to be able to stop the antigen production after a period of time to avoid the possibility of eventual desensitization, as is seen with allergen immunotherapy.2-5 Without such a mechanism, a sustained lack of response may make SARS-CoV-2 infection a lot worse in the long run. It will be important to evaluate this potential before declaring that any DNA buy cialis bitcoin or RNA vaccine is safe and efficacious. Ronald A.

Schachar, M.D., Ph.D.University of Texas at Arlington, Arlington, TX [email protected]Ira H. Schachar, M.D.Stanford University, buy cialis bitcoin Stanford, CA Dr. R.A.

Schachar reports being employed by Pfizer buy cialis bitcoin. No other potential conflict of interest relevant to this letter was reported. This letter was published on buy cialis bitcoin August 19, 2020, at NEJM.org.5 References1.

Jackson LA, Anderson EJ, Rouphael NG, et al. An mRNA vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 buy cialis bitcoin — preliminary report. N Engl J Med.

DOI. 10.1056/NEJMoa2022483.Free Full TextGoogle Scholar2. Su Y, Romeu-Bonilla E, Anagnostou A, Fitz-Patrick D, Hearl W, Heiland T.

Safety and long-term immunological effects of CryJ2-LAMP plasmid vaccine in Japanese red cedar atopic subjects. A phase I study. Hum Vaccin Immunother 2017;13:2804-2813.3.

Niezold T, Storcksdieck Genannt Bonsmann M, Maaske A, et al. DNA vaccines encoding DEC205-targeted antigens. Immunity or tolerance?.

Immunology 2015;145:519-533.4. Scheiblhofer S, Thalhamer J, Weiss R. DNA and mRNA vaccination against allergies.

Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2018;29:679-688.5. Barouch DH, Kunstman J, Glowczwskie J, et al. Viral escape from dominant simian immunodeficiency virus epitope-specific cytotoxic T lymphocytes in DNA-vaccinated rhesus monkeys.

J Virol 2003;77:7367-7375.To the Editor Jackson et al. Report the successful results of a trial of the mRNA-1273 vaccine, which induced an impressive IgG antibody response. However, Jackson and colleagues, as well as Heaton,1 in her editorial corresponding to the article, did not comment on IgA.

IgA is a crucial first-line defense in mucosal tissues, and we wonder whether there was any increase in SARS-CoV-2–specific IgA. The role of vaccine-induced IgA is under discussion for parenteral vaccination against rotavirus.2 Since SARS-CoV-2 primarily infiltrates mucosal tissue, SARS-CoV-2–specific IgA may be necessary for full protection. Moreover, the lack of IgA may cause unprotected spread of SARS-CoV-2 from nasal mucosal tissue.

Chumakov and colleagues discussed the use of oral polio vaccine to ameliorate or prevent Covid-19.3 In both nasal and intestinal cells, Sungnak et al. Detected angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), which is crucial for binding of SARS-CoV-2, and transmembrane serine protease 2 (TMPRSS2), which is crucial for uptake of the virus.4 Thus, the intestinal and nasal mucosa are ideal targets for SARS-CoV-2 and for vaccination to trigger IgA responses. Studies of an oral vaccine containing attenuated SARS-CoV-2 to stimulate an early protective systemic immune response by the highly effective gut-associated immune system are warranted.

Juergen R. Schaefer, M.D.Yulia Sharkova, M.D.Tanja Nickolaus, M.D.University Clinic Marburg, Marburg, Germany [email protected] No potential conflict of interest relevant to this letter was reported. This letter was published on August 19, 2020, at NEJM.org.4 References1.

Heaton PM. The Covid-19 vaccine-development multiverse. N Engl J Med.

DOI. 10.1056/NEJMe2025111.Free Full TextGoogle Scholar2. Bines JE, Kotloff KL.

Next-generation rotavirus vaccines. Important progress but work still to be done. Lancet Infect Dis 2020;20:762-764.3.

Chumakov K, Benn CS, Aaby P, Kottilil S, Gallo R. Can existing live vaccines prevent COVID-19?. Science 2020;368:1187-1188.4.

Sungnak W, Huang N, Bécavin C, et al. SARS-CoV-2 entry factors are highly expressed in nasal epithelial cells together with innate immune genes. Nat Med 2020;26:681-687.Response The authors reply.

We agree with Schachar and Schachar that the interim findings of the phase 1 trial of the mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 are promising. These findings provided support for the initiation of the phase 2 and 3 trials that are under way. This vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle–encapsidated, nonreplicating, nucleoside-modified mRNA–based vaccine that, after entering the cell cytoplasm, results in rapid, transient expression of the vaccine antigen.1 The question regarding the duration of immunity is important, and the phase 1 and 2 trials are designed to follow participants for 1 year after the second vaccination and to obtain samples to characterize humoral and cellular immunologic responses.

The phase 3 trial is designed to follow participants for 2 years in order to allow assessment of the durability of protective immunity during that interval. In reply to Schaefer and colleagues. IgA and IgM responses are exploratory immunologic end points in the phase 1 trial, and reporting of these findings is planned as part of the reporting of the final results.

The role of monomeric IgA induced by parenteral vaccines is unknown, and monomeric IgA is unlikely to reach the mucosal compartment in substantial quantities. Mucosal delivery of vaccine would be needed to reliably induce secretory IgA localized in mucosal tissues. In a study of SARS-CoV-2 infection and the use of mRNA-1273 in nonhuman primates, intramuscular administration of the vaccine protected the animals against upper- and lower-airway challenge with SARS-CoV-2, and S-specific IgG and IgA were detected in bronchoalveolar-lavage fluid after the challenge.2 Although these findings may suggest that antibody responses correlate with protection, as noted by Corbett et al.,2 further evaluations, including passive-transfer studies and challenge studies of lower, subprotective vaccine doses in nonhuman primates, are warranted to further elucidate antibody specificities or functions that correlate with protection.

Lisa A. Jackson, M.D., M.P.H.Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA [email protected]Paul C. Roberts, Ph.D.Barney S.

Graham, M.D., Ph.D.National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Bethesda, MD Since publication of their article, the authors report no further potential conflict of interest. This letter was published on August 19, 2020, at NEJM.org.2 References1. Bahl K, Senn JJ, Yuzhakov O, et al.

Preclinical and clinical demonstration of immunogenicity by mRNA vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses. Mol Ther 2017;25:1316-1327.2. Corbett KS, Flynn B, Foulds KE, et al.

Evaluation of the mRNA-1273 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 in nonhuman primates. N Engl J Med. DOI.

10.1056/NEJMoa2024671.Free Full TextGoogle ScholarTrial Population Table 1. Table 1. Characteristics of the Participants in the mRNA-1273 Trial at Enrollment.

The 45 enrolled participants received their first vaccination between March 16 and April 14, 2020 (Fig. S1). Three participants did not receive the second vaccination, including one in the 25-μg group who had urticaria on both legs, with onset 5 days after the first vaccination, and two (one in the 25-μg group and one in the 250-μg group) who missed the second vaccination window owing to isolation for suspected Covid-19 while the test results, ultimately negative, were pending.

All continued to attend scheduled trial visits. The demographic characteristics of participants at enrollment are provided in Table 1. Vaccine Safety No serious adverse events were noted, and no prespecified trial halting rules were met.

As noted above, one participant in the 25-μg group was withdrawn because of an unsolicited adverse event, transient urticaria, judged to be related to the first vaccination. Figure 1. Figure 1.

Systemic and Local Adverse Events. The severity of solicited adverse events was graded as mild, moderate, or severe (see Table S1).After the first vaccination, solicited systemic adverse events were reported by 5 participants (33%) in the 25-μg group, 10 (67%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (53%) in the 250-μg group. All were mild or moderate in severity (Figure 1 and Table S2).

Solicited systemic adverse events were more common after the second vaccination and occurred in 7 of 13 participants (54%) in the 25-μg group, all 15 in the 100-μg group, and all 14 in the 250-μg group, with 3 of those participants (21%) reporting one or more severe events. None of the participants had fever after the first vaccination. After the second vaccination, no participants in the 25-μg group, 6 (40%) in the 100-μg group, and 8 (57%) in the 250-μg group reported fever.

One of the events (maximum temperature, 39.6°C) in the 250-μg group was graded severe. (Additional details regarding adverse events for that participant are provided in the Supplementary Appendix.) Local adverse events, when present, were nearly all mild or moderate, and pain at the injection site was common. Across both vaccinations, solicited systemic and local adverse events that occurred in more than half the participants included fatigue, chills, headache, myalgia, and pain at the injection site.

Evaluation of safety clinical laboratory values of grade 2 or higher and unsolicited adverse events revealed no patterns of concern (Supplementary Appendix and Table S3). SARS-CoV-2 Binding Antibody Responses Table 2. Table 2.

Geometric Mean Humoral Immunogenicity Assay Responses to mRNA-1273 in Participants and in Convalescent Serum Specimens. Figure 2. Figure 2.

SARS-CoV-2 Antibody and Neutralization Responses. Shown are geometric mean reciprocal end-point enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) IgG titers to S-2P (Panel A) and receptor-binding domain (Panel B), PsVNA ID50 responses (Panel C), and live virus PRNT80 responses (Panel D). In Panel A and Panel B, boxes and horizontal bars denote interquartile range (IQR) and median area under the curve (AUC), respectively.

Whisker endpoints are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The convalescent serum panel includes specimens from 41 participants. Red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay.

The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent serum panel. In Panel C, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median ID50, respectively. Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR.

In the convalescent serum panel, red dots indicate the 3 specimens that were also tested in the PRNT assay. The other 38 specimens were used to calculate summary statistics for the box plot in the convalescent panel. In Panel D, boxes and horizontal bars denote IQR and median PRNT80, respectively.

Whisker end points are equal to the maximum and minimum values below or above the median ±1.5 times the IQR. The three convalescent serum specimens were also tested in ELISA and PsVNA assays. Because of the time-intensive nature of the PRNT assay, for this preliminary report, PRNT results were available only for the 25-μg and 100-μg dose groups.Binding antibody IgG geometric mean titers (GMTs) to S-2P increased rapidly after the first vaccination, with seroconversion in all participants by day 15 (Table 2 and Figure 2A).

Dose-dependent responses to the first and second vaccinations were evident. Receptor-binding domain–specific antibody responses were similar in pattern and magnitude (Figure 2B). For both assays, the median magnitude of antibody responses after the first vaccination in the 100-μg and 250-μg dose groups was similar to the median magnitude in convalescent serum specimens, and in all dose groups the median magnitude after the second vaccination was in the upper quartile of values in the convalescent serum specimens.

The S-2P ELISA GMTs at day 57 (299,751 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 206,071 to 436,020] in the 25-μg group, 782,719 [95% CI, 619,310 to 989,244] in the 100-μg group, and 1,192,154 [95% CI, 924,878 to 1,536,669] in the 250-μg group) exceeded that in the convalescent serum specimens (142,140 [95% CI, 81,543 to 247,768]). SARS-CoV-2 Neutralization Responses No participant had detectable PsVNA responses before vaccination. After the first vaccination, PsVNA responses were detected in less than half the participants, and a dose effect was seen (50% inhibitory dilution [ID50].

Figure 2C, Fig. S8, and Table 2. 80% inhibitory dilution [ID80].

Fig. S2 and Table S6). However, after the second vaccination, PsVNA responses were identified in serum samples from all participants.

The lowest responses were in the 25-μg dose group, with a geometric mean ID50 of 112.3 (95% CI, 71.2 to 177.1) at day 43. The higher responses in the 100-μg and 250-μg groups were similar in magnitude (geometric mean ID50, 343.8 [95% CI, 261.2 to 452.7] and 332.2 [95% CI, 266.3 to 414.5], respectively, at day 43). These responses were similar to values in the upper half of the distribution of values for convalescent serum specimens.

Before vaccination, no participant had detectable 80% live-virus neutralization at the highest serum concentration tested (1:8 dilution) in the PRNT assay. At day 43, wild-type virus–neutralizing activity capable of reducing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity by 80% or more (PRNT80) was detected in all participants, with geometric mean PRNT80 responses of 339.7 (95% CI, 184.0 to 627.1) in the 25-μg group and 654.3 (95% CI, 460.1 to 930.5) in the 100-μg group (Figure 2D). Neutralizing PRNT80 average responses were generally at or above the values of the three convalescent serum specimens tested in this assay.

Good agreement was noted within and between the values from binding assays for S-2P and receptor-binding domain and neutralizing activity measured by PsVNA and PRNT (Figs. S3 through S7), which provides orthogonal support for each assay in characterizing the humoral response induced by mRNA-1273. SARS-CoV-2 T-Cell Responses The 25-μg and 100-μg doses elicited CD4 T-cell responses (Figs.

S9 and S10) that on stimulation by S-specific peptide pools were strongly biased toward expression of Th1 cytokines (tumor necrosis factor α >. Interleukin 2 >. Interferon γ), with minimal type 2 helper T-cell (Th2) cytokine expression (interleukin 4 and interleukin 13).

CD8 T-cell responses to S-2P were detected at low levels after the second vaccination in the 100-μg dose group (Fig. S11)..

What should I watch for while using Cialis?

If you notice any changes in your vision while taking this drug, call your doctor or health care professional as soon as possible. Stop using Cialis and call your health care provider right away if you have a loss of sight in one or both eyes.

Contact you doctor or health care professional right away if the erection lasts longer than 4 hours or if it becomes painful. This may be a sign of serious problem and must be treated right away to prevent permanent damage.

If you experience symptoms of nausea, dizziness, chest pain or arm pain upon initiation of sexual activity after taking Cialis, you should refrain from further activity and call your doctor or health care professional as soon as possible.

Do not drink alcohol to excess (examples, 5 glasses of wine or 5 shots of whiskey) when taking Cialis. When taken in excess, alcohol can increase your chances of getting a headache or getting dizzy, increasing your heart rate or lowering your blood pressure.

Using Cialis does not protect you or your partner against HIV infection (the virus that causes AIDS) or other sexually transmitted diseases.

Generic cialis canada safe

NONE

Community care? generic cialis canada safe http://sw.keimfarben.de/best-online-cialis/. Our Editor’s Choice this month explores a novel approach to care delivery, the Physician Response Unit (PRU), which aims to reduce ED attendances by finding a community solution to the emergency complaint. Joy and generic cialis canada safe colleagues’ retrospective analysis of 12 months of data from this service, which is based in London, demonstrated that of nearly 2000 patients attended to, 67% remained in the community. The authors conclude that this model of care is a successful demonstration of integration and collaboration that also reduced ambulance conveyances and ED attendances. These results are promising, however, as the excellent commentary by Professor Sue Mason identifies, some unanswered questions remain.

Whether these results can generic cialis canada safe be generalised across the wider NHS, beyond the unique confines of the capital, and in light of starkly heterogenous healthcare systems and workforces remains unknown.Moving closer to the front doorPhysician in Triage (PIT) remains a controversial topic in EM. In an interesting analysis of PIT from Israel, Schwarzfuchs and colleagues present an uncontrolled before-after analysis of the impacts of this triage strategy on a single time-critical condition, STEMI. At the EMJ, we usually discourage this type of study generic cialis canada safe. However, here, the authors demonstrate how, with the inclusion of an appropriate logistic regression to consider confounders, this methodology may be an appropriate way to evaluate such interventions which may be difficult to do within a randomised controlled trial. €œMinutes mean myocardium” and as such the reduction in door-to-balloon time of 9 min when a senior physician was present, demonstrated here, may lend further support to the implementation of PIT.

This is certainly a rich area for quality improvement work evaluating such targeted interventions for our patients.All generic cialis canada safe about the Bayes’We welcome an observational analysis from Hautz and colleagues that seeks to explain the patient, physician and contextual factors associated with diagnostic test ordering. Baye’s theorem describes the probability of an event based on the prior knowledge conditions that may relate to that event. A key concept we should all adopt in test ordering. However, this manuscript goes further in exploring that prior generic cialis canada safe knowledge by evaluating physician experience, patient and situational context. Rather surprisingly, in this single centre analysis of 473 patients and 38 physicians, these factors seem to have a limited impact on test ordering.

Rather, it seems that, uncertainty around the patient’s condition (high acuity) and case difficulty generic cialis canada safe seem to influence test ordering more. So, uncertain pre-test probability equates to higher degrees of diagnostic test ordering. The Reverend Bayes would be turning in his grave.WellnessNow, unlike ever before, it is important to establish the need for physical and psychological recuperation among our staff. The first manuscript within our generic cialis canada safe Wellness cialis vs flomax section, from Graham and colleagues (this months Reader’s Choice) evaluates the Need For Recovery (NFR) Score in 168 emergency workers at a single site. The high NFR in this population provides a quantifiable insight into our high work intensity but further validation is required beyond a single site.

Over to you TERN….While knowing the extent of the problem is of great importance, what we do about it is perhaps a greater challenge. We would therefore encourage our generic cialis canada safe readers to take home some of the top tips included in our expert practice review this month, Top Ten Evidence-Based Countermeasures for Night Shift Workers by Wallace and Haber.There’s a bug going around…We have had a record number of submissions during the COVID-19 pandemic and the extent to which the EM community has pulled together to inform clinical practice at this time has been breath taking. We are sorry we cannot accept all your excellent work. It is a pleasure to publish a number of Reports from the Front on this topic ranging from patient level generic cialis canada safe interventions such as proning, to invaluable lessons from systems wide responses to the pandemic. However, the importance of evidence-based medicine has never been higher and this is discussed in our excellent Concepts paper by some very eminent EM Professors.Introducing SONO case seriesLastly, this month sees the first in a series of SONO cases published in the EMJ.

This will be a regular feature and is a case-based approach to demonstrate how ED Ultrasound can influence and improve patient care.As demand for healthcare in the UK rises, the challenges become those of trying to meet this demand in a patient-centred way whilst managing changes in the delivery of healthcare to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of services. This requires an increased level of understanding and cooperation between different generic cialis canada safe healthcare professionals, provider organisations and patients. The changes mean reconsidering traditional roles and where appropriate, redefining professional roles, areas of responsibility and team structures, and renegotiating the boundaries between acute and community care. Government policy has emphasised the need for the NHS to provide increased patient choice, ease of access and delivery of a high-quality service. This is relevant to providers of emergency care services which need to develop new ways of meeting patient needs closer to generic cialis canada safe home and work environments.

In emergency care, ambulance services have had to consider new types of responses to those usually provided. Policy initiatives have meant local NHS organisations assuming responsibility for managing and monitoring how local services respond to urgent and non-urgent 999 ambulance calls generic cialis canada safe. Alongside this, the NHS Long Term Plan emphasises the importance of integrating care through a more joined-up multidisciplinary approach that spans boundaries between primary and secondary care but aims to keep patients out of hospital.At the same time, we are facing workforce crisis across the NHS. This is especially the case in emergency medicine. Failure to generic cialis canada safe seek new opportunities to develop the workforce will only lead to further attrition.

The challenge is how to do this in a sustainable, cost-effective and generalisable manner that leads to clear benefits for the workforce, services and patients. Currently, the emphasis is on the deployment of non-medical practitioner roles in EDs and ambulance services, such as ….

Community care? buy cialis bitcoin does daily cialis work. Our Editor’s Choice this month explores a novel approach to care delivery, the Physician Response Unit (PRU), which aims to reduce ED attendances by finding a community solution to the emergency complaint. Joy and colleagues’ retrospective analysis of 12 months of data from this service, buy cialis bitcoin which is based in London, demonstrated that of nearly 2000 patients attended to, 67% remained in the community.

The authors conclude that this model of care is a successful demonstration of integration and collaboration that also reduced ambulance conveyances and ED attendances. These results are promising, however, as the excellent commentary by Professor Sue Mason identifies, some unanswered questions remain. Whether these buy cialis bitcoin results can be generalised across the wider NHS, beyond the unique confines of the capital, and in light of starkly heterogenous healthcare systems and workforces remains unknown.Moving closer to the front doorPhysician in Triage (PIT) remains a controversial topic in EM.

In an interesting analysis of PIT from Israel, Schwarzfuchs and colleagues present an uncontrolled before-after analysis of the impacts of this triage strategy on a single time-critical condition, STEMI. At the buy cialis bitcoin EMJ, we usually discourage this type of study. However, here, the authors demonstrate how, with the inclusion of an appropriate logistic regression to consider confounders, this methodology may be an appropriate way to evaluate such interventions which may be difficult to do within a randomised controlled trial.

€œMinutes mean myocardium” and as such the reduction in door-to-balloon time of 9 min when a senior physician was present, demonstrated here, may lend further support to the implementation of PIT. This is certainly a rich area for quality improvement work evaluating such targeted interventions for our patients.All about the Bayes’We welcome an observational analysis from Hautz and colleagues that seeks buy cialis bitcoin to explain the patient, physician and contextual factors associated with diagnostic test ordering. Baye’s theorem describes the probability of an event based on the prior knowledge conditions that may relate to that event.

A key concept we should all adopt in test ordering. However, this buy cialis bitcoin manuscript goes further in exploring that prior knowledge by evaluating physician experience, patient and situational context. Rather surprisingly, in this single centre analysis of 473 patients and 38 physicians, these factors seem to have a limited impact on test ordering.

Rather, it seems that, uncertainty around the patient’s condition (high acuity) and case buy cialis bitcoin difficulty seem to influence test ordering more. So, uncertain pre-test probability equates to higher degrees of diagnostic test ordering. The Reverend Bayes would be turning in his grave.WellnessNow, unlike ever before, it is important to establish the need for physical and psychological recuperation among our staff.

The first manuscript within our Wellness section, from Graham and colleagues (this months Reader’s Choice) evaluates buy cialis bitcoin the Need For Recovery (NFR) Score in 168 emergency workers at a single site. The high NFR in this population provides a quantifiable insight into our high work intensity but further validation is required beyond a single site. Over to you TERN….While knowing the extent of the problem is of great importance, what we do about it is perhaps a greater challenge.

We would therefore encourage our readers to take home some of the top tips included in our expert practice review this buy cialis bitcoin month, Top Ten Evidence-Based Countermeasures for Night Shift Workers by Wallace and Haber.There’s a bug going around…We have had a record number of submissions during the COVID-19 pandemic and the extent to which the EM community has pulled together to inform clinical practice at this time has been breath taking. We are sorry we cannot accept all your excellent work. It is a pleasure buy cialis bitcoin to publish a number of Reports from the Front on this topic ranging from patient level interventions such as proning, to invaluable lessons from systems wide responses to the pandemic.

However, the importance of evidence-based medicine has never been higher and this is discussed in our excellent Concepts paper by some very eminent EM Professors.Introducing SONO case seriesLastly, this month sees the first in a series of SONO cases published in the EMJ. This will be a regular feature and is a case-based approach to demonstrate how ED Ultrasound can influence and improve patient care.As demand for healthcare in the UK rises, the challenges become those of trying to meet this demand in a patient-centred way whilst managing changes in the delivery of healthcare to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of services. This requires an increased level of understanding and cooperation between different healthcare professionals, provider organisations buy cialis bitcoin and patients.

The changes mean reconsidering traditional roles and where appropriate, redefining professional roles, areas of responsibility and team structures, and renegotiating the boundaries between acute and community care. Government policy has emphasised the need for the NHS to provide increased patient choice, ease of access and delivery of a high-quality service. This is buy cialis bitcoin relevant to providers of emergency care services which need to develop new ways of meeting patient needs closer to home and work environments.

In emergency care, ambulance services have had to consider new types of responses to those usually provided. Policy initiatives have meant local NHS organisations assuming responsibility for managing and monitoring how local services respond to urgent and non-urgent 999 ambulance buy cialis bitcoin calls. Alongside this, the NHS Long Term Plan emphasises the importance of integrating care through a more joined-up multidisciplinary approach that spans boundaries between primary and secondary care but aims to keep patients out of hospital.At the same time, we are facing workforce crisis across the NHS.

This is especially the case in emergency medicine. Failure to seek new opportunities to develop the workforce will only lead to further buy cialis bitcoin attrition. The challenge is how to do this in a sustainable, cost-effective and generalisable manner that leads to clear benefits for the workforce, services and patients.

Currently, the emphasis is on the deployment of non-medical practitioner roles in EDs and ambulance services, such as ….

Cialis at the pool

NONE

Michal Mor hopes that one day, checking metabolism could be as routine as brushing cialis at the pool your teeth. “The vision is that everyone manages lifestyle based on their unique metabolism,” she says. “It’s this metric that will help us live longer and healthier.” In May, Mor and her twin sister Merav — both of them Ironman competitors with doctorates in psychology — cialis at the pool launched Lumen.

The device, they say, helps users track and “hack” their metabolism. It’s a simple concept. Breathe into cialis at the pool the small black device, no bigger than an asthma inhaler, and receive a status report on what's called your metabolic flexibility.

Then use that information to make lifestyle changes to boost performance and see an uptick in health.The gadget has arrived among rising clamour from biohackers, intermittent fasting aficionados and rival tech developers (such as ketosis tracker Keyto) that insist the secret to a long, healthy life boils down to one major thing. Our metabolism.Are they right?. Metabolic FlexibilityLoosely speaking, metabolism cialis at the pool refers to the bodily processes that supply us with energy.

These collective processes are designed to move primarily between two major states. Absorptive (fed) and postabsorptive (fasting). In the former, usually after a meal, the body burns carbohydrates from food and stores excess as glycogen for cialis at the pool later use.

In the latter, it burns this stored fuel instead. (There is a third state, cialis at the pool starvation, but it only occurs where the body is deprived of nutrients for an extended period of time and begins to break down muscle.) Metabolic flexibility is the term used to describe the efficiency and speed with which you move between the two states. Despite throwing up 42 million search results on Google and acting as the main talking point at biohacking summits the world over, the concept of metabolic flexibility has only been circulating for about two decades.

In 1999, endocrinologist David E. Kelley compared the effects of an overnight fast cialis at the pool on lean versus obese patients. Leaner people, he found, adapted far more quickly, their bodies promptly switching to a postabsorptive state.

Obese patients didn’t adapt nearly as fast — they were metabolically inflexible.In the years since Kelley coined the term, “it’s become very sexy,” says Eric Ravussin, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center. In fact, it’s been adopted as a sort of shorthand for optimal cialis at the pool health. Red hot chilies, ice-cold showers and endless cups of green tea are just a few of the hacks recommended online by people who argue we can push our metabolism more efficiently between these two states to achieve goals in weight loss, exercise and overall health.As Kelley’s initial discovery would suggest, there is evidence of a link between metabolic flexibility and both weight management and exercise.

A 2019 paper published in Cell Metabolism found the body’s ability to switch between fuels in response to the composition of diet was linked to a susceptibility to weight gain. And a review published in the same journal two years earlier highlighted evidence that efficiently matching “fuel availability with metabolic machinery” could help boost athletic performance.But Merav Mor, and other advocates, go far beyond metabolic flexibility as a tool for weight loss or shaving a few seconds off a 100-meter cialis at the pool sprint. They claim that it can help create a stronger immune system, improve sleep and boost longevity.The science doesn’t back up these broader health claims, though, says Ravussin.

Not least because a robust human study would take 100 years, he points out. The only cialis at the pool indicators we have of a link between metabolic flexibility and longevity right now are in mice. A 2015 review in Nature Cell Biology confirmed that studies have shown calorie restriction in mice can improve metabolic flexibility and increase lifespan.“It's like any other kind of bright, shiny object,” says Susan Roberts, lead scientist of the Energy Metabolism Team at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging.

“Something new comes into science, and it sounds so attractive we cialis at the pool think that maybe it's the solution to everybody's problem. But does metabolic flexibility account for 1 percent of health?. 50 percent?.

0.01 cialis at the pool percent?. That, for me, remains the question.”The other question is, what can we do about it?. Metabolism HackThe creators of Lumen say we all have the capacity to hack metabolic flexibility for optimal health.

Its devices provide users with a metabolic level based on the composition of a single breath, or what’s cialis at the pool known as respiratory quotient (RQ). The idea is that when our metabolism is in a postabsorptive or fasted state, less carbon dioxide is released. Holding your breath for 10 seconds before exhaling into the device, Lumen say, captures this RQ and gives an accurate reading on your current metabolic state.The premise is that a “healthy body is one that relies on fat stores in the morning,” says Mor.

If the cialis at the pool device detects this postabsorptive state first thing, then you’re on the right track. If not, Lumen recommends lifestyle changes around sleep, exercise or diet, that help you improve it for next time. Easy.Or is it?.

There are links between lifestyle factors cialis at the pool and metabolic performance. Sleep deprivation can damage overall metabolic health, for instance, while regular exercise can help prevent diseases linked to metabolism, such as type 2 diabetes.But our ability to hack metabolism is limited. “Your metabolism is mostly determined by your body composition and your genetic background,” says cialis at the pool Ravussin.

Back in the ’90s, Ravussin studied Pima Indians living in Arizona over an eight year period — a group with the second highest prevalence of obesity in the world. Genes, he discovered, were crucial.Even [which] Mor accepts that factors such as age and historic activity levels play into the extent to which you can tinker with metabolism. “But there’s no question about seeing improvement,” she says.For Roberts, of all the various ways we can boost health, painstakingly tracking cialis at the pool metabolism isn’t where she would focus efforts now.

“We need another couple of years of studies and then maybe it'll prove to be important,” she says. “But at this point, there are more important things. Do you cialis at the pool eat junk food?.

Do you eat late at night?. Do you stop eating at 6 p.m. And give cialis at the pool your stomach time to recover?.

These are areas with really good evidence. This is all just a bit premature.”.

Michal Mor hopes that one day, checking metabolism could be buy cialis bitcoin as routine as brushing your teeth. “The vision is that everyone manages lifestyle based on their unique metabolism,” she says. “It’s this metric that will help us live buy cialis bitcoin longer and healthier.” In May, Mor and her twin sister Merav — both of them Ironman competitors with doctorates in psychology — launched Lumen. The device, they say, helps users track and “hack” their metabolism.

It’s a simple concept. Breathe into the small black device, no bigger than an asthma inhaler, and receive a status report on what's buy cialis bitcoin called your metabolic flexibility. Then use that information to make lifestyle changes to boost performance and see an uptick in health.The gadget has arrived among rising clamour from biohackers, intermittent fasting aficionados and rival tech developers (such as ketosis tracker Keyto) that insist the secret to a long, healthy life boils down to one major thing. Our metabolism.Are they right?.

Metabolic FlexibilityLoosely speaking, metabolism refers to buy cialis bitcoin the bodily processes that supply us with energy. These collective processes are designed to move primarily between two major states. Absorptive (fed) and postabsorptive (fasting). In the former, usually after a meal, the body burns carbohydrates from food buy cialis bitcoin and stores excess as glycogen for later use.

In the latter, it burns this stored fuel instead. (There is a third state, starvation, but it only occurs where the body is deprived of nutrients buy cialis bitcoin for an extended period of time and begins to break down muscle.) Metabolic flexibility is the term used to describe the efficiency and speed with which you move between the two states. Despite throwing up 42 million search results on Google and acting as the main talking point at biohacking summits the world over, the concept of metabolic flexibility has only been circulating for about two decades. In 1999, endocrinologist David E.

Kelley compared the effects of an overnight fast on lean versus obese buy cialis bitcoin patients. Leaner people, he found, adapted far more quickly, their bodies promptly switching to a postabsorptive state. Obese patients didn’t adapt nearly as fast — they were metabolically inflexible.In the years since Kelley coined the term, “it’s become very sexy,” says Eric Ravussin, director of the Nutrition Obesity Research Center at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center. In fact, it’s been adopted as a buy cialis bitcoin sort of shorthand for optimal health.

Red hot chilies, ice-cold showers and endless cups of green tea are just a few of the hacks recommended online by people who argue we can push our metabolism more efficiently between these two states to achieve goals in weight loss, exercise and overall health.As Kelley’s initial discovery would suggest, there is evidence of a link between metabolic flexibility and both weight management and exercise. A 2019 paper published in Cell Metabolism found the body’s ability to switch between fuels in response to the composition of diet was linked to a susceptibility to weight gain. And a review published in the same journal two years earlier highlighted evidence that efficiently matching “fuel availability with metabolic machinery” could help boost athletic performance.But Merav Mor, and other advocates, go far beyond metabolic flexibility as a tool for weight buy cialis bitcoin loss or shaving a few seconds off a 100-meter sprint. They claim that it can help create a stronger immune system, improve sleep and boost longevity.The science doesn’t back up these broader health claims, though, says Ravussin.

Not least because a robust human study would take 100 years, he points out. The only indicators we have of a link between metabolic flexibility and buy cialis bitcoin longevity right now are in mice. A 2015 review in Nature Cell Biology confirmed that studies have shown calorie restriction in mice can improve metabolic flexibility and increase lifespan.“It's like any other kind of bright, shiny object,” says Susan Roberts, lead scientist of the Energy Metabolism Team at the Jean Mayer USDA Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging. “Something new comes into science, and it sounds so attractive buy cialis bitcoin we think that maybe it's the solution to everybody's problem.

But does metabolic flexibility account for 1 percent of health?. 50 percent?. 0.01 percent? buy cialis bitcoin. That, for me, remains the question.”The other question is, what can we do about it?.

Metabolism HackThe creators of Lumen say we all have the capacity to hack metabolic flexibility for optimal health. Its devices provide users with a metabolic level based on the composition of a single breath, buy cialis bitcoin or what’s known as respiratory quotient (RQ). The idea is that when our metabolism is in a postabsorptive or fasted state, less carbon dioxide is released. Holding your breath for 10 seconds before exhaling into the device, Lumen say, captures this RQ and gives an accurate reading on your current metabolic state.The premise is that a “healthy body is one that relies on fat stores in the morning,” says Mor.

If the buy cialis bitcoin device detects this postabsorptive state first thing, then you’re on the right track. If not, Lumen recommends lifestyle changes around sleep, exercise or diet, that help you improve it for next time. Easy.Or is it?. There buy cialis bitcoin are links between lifestyle factors and metabolic performance.

Sleep deprivation can damage overall metabolic health, for instance, while regular exercise can help prevent diseases linked to metabolism, such as type 2 diabetes.But our ability to hack metabolism is limited. “Your metabolism is mostly determined by your buy cialis bitcoin body composition and your genetic background,” says Ravussin. Back in the ’90s, Ravussin studied Pima Indians living in Arizona over an eight year period — a group with the second highest prevalence of obesity in the world. Genes, he discovered, were crucial.Even [which] Mor accepts that factors such as age and historic activity levels play into the extent to which you can tinker with metabolism.

“But there’s no question about seeing improvement,” buy cialis bitcoin she says.For Roberts, of all the various ways we can boost health, painstakingly tracking metabolism isn’t where she would focus efforts now. “We need another couple of years of studies and then maybe it'll prove to be important,” she says. “But at this point, there are more important things. Do you eat buy cialis bitcoin junk food?.

Do you eat late at night?. Do you stop eating at 6 p.m. And give your stomach time to recover?. These are areas with really good evidence.

Cialis 20g

NONE

Start Preamble Centers cialis 20g for Medicare &. Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. Extension of timeline for publication of final rule cialis 20g. This notice announces an extension of the timeline for publication of a Medicare final rule in accordance with the Social Security Act, which allows us to extend the timeline for publication of the final rule.

As of August 26, 2020, the timeline for publication of cialis 20g the final rule to finalize the provisions of the October 17, 2019 proposed rule (84 FR 55766) is extended until August 31, 2021. Start Further Info Lisa O. Wilson, (410) 786-8852. End Further cialis 20g Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information In the October 17, 2019 Federal Register (84 FR 55766), we published a proposed rule that addressed undue regulatory impact and burden of the physician self-referral law.

The proposed rule was issued in conjunction with the Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services' (CMS) Patients over Paperwork initiative and the Department of Health and Human Services' (the Department or HHS) Regulatory Sprint to cialis 20g Coordinated Care. In the proposed rule, we proposed exceptions to the physician self-referral law for certain value-based compensation arrangements between or among physicians, providers, and suppliers. A new exception for certain arrangements under which a physician receives limited remuneration for items or services actually provided by the physician.

A new exception for donations of cybersecurity technology and related services cialis 20g. And amendments to the existing exception for electronic health records (EHR) items and services. The proposed rule also provides critically necessary guidance for physicians and health care providers and suppliers whose financial relationships are governed by the physician cialis 20g self-referral statute and regulations. This notice announces an extension of the timeline for publication of the final rule and the continuation of effectiveness of the proposed rule.

Section 1871(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) requires us to establish and publish a regular timeline for the publication of final regulations based on the previous publication of a proposed regulation. In accordance with section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Act, the timeline may vary among different regulations cialis 20g based on differences in the complexity of the regulation, the number and scope of comments received, and other relevant factors, but may not be longer than 3 years except under exceptional circumstances. In addition, in accordance with section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Act, the Secretary may extend the initial targeted publication date of the final regulation if the Secretary, no later than the regulation's previously established proposed publication date, publishes a notice with the new target date, and such notice includes a brief explanation of the justification for the variation. We announced in the Spring 2020 Unified cialis 20g Agenda (June 30, 2020, www.reginfo.gov) that we would issue the final rule in August 2020.

However, we are still working through the Start Printed Page 52941complexity of the issues raised by comments received on the proposed rule and therefore we are not able to meet the announced publication target date. This notice extends the timeline for publication of the final rule until August 31, 2021 cialis 20g. Start Signature Dated. August 24, 2020.

Wilma M cialis 20g. Robinson, Deputy Executive Secretary to the Department, Department of Health and Human Services. End Signature End Supplemental Information [FR Doc cialis 20g. 2020-18867 Filed 8-26-20.

8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4120-01-PStart Preamble Notice of amendment. The Secretary issues this amendment pursuant to section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act to add additional categories of Qualified Persons and amend the category of disease, health condition, cialis 20g or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures. This amendment to the Declaration published on March 17, 2020 (85 FR 15198) is effective as of August 24, 2020. Start Further cialis 20g Info Robert P.

Kadlec, MD, MTM&H, MS, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone. 202-205-2882. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to issue a Declaration to provide liability immunity to certain individuals and entities (Covered Persons) against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of medical countermeasures (Covered Countermeasures), except for claims involving “willful misconduct” as defined in the PREP Act.

Under the PREP Act, a Declaration may be amended as circumstances warrant. The PREP Act was enacted on December 30, 2005, as Public Law 109-148, Division C, § 2. It amended the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, adding section 319F-3, which addresses liability immunity, and section 319F-4, which creates a compensation program. These sections are codified at 42 U.S.C.

247d-6d and 42 U.S.C. 247d-6e, respectively. Section 319F-3 of the PHS Act has been amended by the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act (PAHPRA), Public Law 113-5, enacted on March 13, 2013 and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Public Law 116-136, enacted on March 27, Start Printed Page 521372020, to expand Covered Countermeasures under the PREP Act. On January 31, 2020, the Secretary declared a public health emergency pursuant to section 319 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C.

247d, effective January 27, 2020, for the entire United States to aid in the response of the nation's health care community to the COVID-19 outbreak. Pursuant to section 319 of the PHS Act, the Secretary renewed that declaration on April 26, 2020, and July 25, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the Secretary issued a Declaration under the PREP Act for medical countermeasures against COVID-19 (85 FR 15198, Mar. 17, 2020) (the Declaration).

On April 10, the Secretary amended the Declaration under the PREP Act to extend liability immunity to covered countermeasures authorized under the CARES Act (85 FR 21012, Apr. 15, 2020). On June 4, the Secretary amended the Declaration to clarify that covered countermeasures under the Declaration include qualified countermeasures that limit the harm COVID-19 might otherwise cause. The Secretary now amends section V of the Declaration to identify as qualified persons covered under the PREP Act, and thus authorizes, certain State-licensed pharmacists to order and administer, and pharmacy interns (who are licensed or registered by their State board of pharmacy and acting under the supervision of a State-licensed pharmacist) to administer, any vaccine that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends to persons ages three through 18 according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule (ACIP-recommended vaccines).[] The Secretary also amends section VIII of the Declaration to clarify that the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures includes not only COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or a virus mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases.

Description of This Amendment by Section Section V. Covered Persons Under the PREP Act and the Declaration, a “qualified person” is a “covered person.” Subject to certain limitations, a covered person is immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration or use of a covered countermeasure if a declaration under subsection (b) has been issued with respect to such countermeasure. €œQualified person” includes (A) a licensed health professional or other individual who is authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense such countermeasures under the law of the State in which the countermeasure was prescribed, administered, or dispensed. Or (B) “a person within a category of persons so identified in a declaration by the Secretary” under subsection (b) of the PREP Act.

42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(8).[] By this amendment to the Declaration, the Secretary identifies an additional category of persons who are qualified persons under section 247d-6d(i)(8)(B).[] On May 8, 2020, CDC reported, “The identified declines in routine pediatric vaccine ordering and doses administered might indicate that U.S. Children and their communities face increased risks for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases,” and suggested that a decrease in rates of routine childhood vaccinations were due to changes in healthcare access, social distancing, and other COVID-19 mitigation strategies.[] The report also stated that “[p]arental concerns about potentially exposing their children to COVID-19 during well child visits might contribute to the declines observed.” [] On July 10, 2020, CDC reported its findings of a May survey it conducted to assess the capacity of pediatric health care practices to provide immunization services to children during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey, which was limited to practices participating in the Vaccines for Children program, found that, as of mid-May, 15 percent of Northeast pediatric practices were closed, 12.5 percent of Midwest practices were closed, 6.2 percent of practices in the South were closed, and 10 percent of practices in the West were closed.

Most practices had reduced office hours for in-person visits. When asked whether their practices would likely be able to accommodate new patients for immunization services through August, 418 practices (21.3 percent) either responded that this was not likely or the practice was permanently closed or not resuming immunization services for all patients, and 380 (19.6 percent) responded that they were unsure. Urban practices and those in the Northeast were less likely to be able to accommodate new patients compared with rural practices and those in the South, Midwest, or West.[] In response to these troubling developments, CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics have stressed, “Well-child visits and vaccinations are essential services and help make sure children are protected.” [] The Secretary re-emphasizes that important recommendation to parents and legal guardians here. If your child is due for a well-child visit, contact your pediatrician's or other primary-care provider's office and ask about ways that the office safely offers well-child visits and vaccinations.

Many medical offices are taking extra steps to make sure that well-child visits can occur safely during the COVID-19 pandemic, including. Scheduling sick visits and well-child visits during different times of the Start Printed Page 52138day or days of the week, or at different locations. Asking patients to remain outside until it is time for their appointments to reduce the number of people in waiting rooms. Adhering to recommended social (physical) distancing and other infection-control practices, such as the use of masks.

The decrease in childhood-vaccination rates is a public health threat and a collateral harm caused by COVID-19. Together, the United States must turn to available medical professionals to limit the harm and public health threats that may result from decreased immunization rates. We must quickly do so to avoid preventable infections in children, additional strains on our healthcare system, and any further increase in avoidable adverse health consequences—particularly if such complications coincide with additional resurgence of COVID-19. Together with pediatricians and other healthcare professionals, pharmacists are positioned to expand access to childhood vaccinations.

Many States already allow pharmacists to administer vaccines to children of any age.[] Other States permit pharmacists to administer vaccines to children depending on the age—for example, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, or 12 years of age and older.[] Few States restrict pharmacist-administered vaccinations to only adults.[] Many States also allow properly trained individuals under the supervision of a trained pharmacist to administer those vaccines.[] Pharmacists are well positioned to increase access to vaccinations, particularly in certain areas or for certain populations that have too few pediatricians and other primary-care providers, or that are otherwise medically underserved.[] As of 2018, nearly 90 percent of Americans lived within five miles of a community pharmacy.[] Pharmacies often offer extended hours and added convenience. What is more, pharmacists are trusted healthcare professionals with established relationships with their patients. Pharmacists also have strong relationships with local medical providers and hospitals to refer patients as appropriate. For example, pharmacists already play a significant role in annual influenza vaccination.

In the early 2018-19 season, they administered the influenza vaccine to nearly a third of all adults who received the vaccine.[] Given the potential danger of serious influenza and continuing COVID-19 outbreaks this autumn and the impact that such concurrent outbreaks may have on our population, our healthcare system, and our whole-of-nation response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we must quickly expand access to influenza vaccinations. Allowing more qualified pharmacists to administer the influenza vaccine to children will make vaccinations more accessible. Therefore, the Secretary amends the Declaration to identify State-licensed pharmacists (and pharmacy interns acting under their supervision if the pharmacy intern is licensed or registered by his or her State board of pharmacy) as qualified persons under section 247d-6d(i)(8)(B) when the pharmacist orders and either the pharmacist or the supervised pharmacy intern administers vaccines to individuals ages three through 18 pursuant to the following requirements. The vaccine must be FDA-authorized or FDA-approved.

The vaccination must be ordered and administered according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule.[] The licensed pharmacist must complete a practical training program of at least 20 hours that is approved by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). This training Start Printed Page 52139program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines.[] The licensed or registered pharmacy intern must complete a practical training program that is approved by the ACPE. This training program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines.[] The licensed pharmacist and licensed or registered pharmacy intern must have a current certificate in basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation.[] The licensed pharmacist must complete a minimum of two hours of ACPE-approved, immunization-related continuing pharmacy education during each State licensing period.[] The licensed pharmacist must comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the jurisdiction in which he or she administers vaccines, including informing the patient's primary-care provider when available, submitting the required immunization information to the State or local immunization information system (vaccine registry), complying with requirements with respect to reporting adverse events, and complying with requirements whereby the person administering a vaccine must review the vaccine registry or other vaccination records prior to administering a vaccine.[] The licensed pharmacist must inform his or her childhood-vaccination patients and the adult caregivers accompanying the children of the importance of a well-child visit with a pediatrician or other licensed primary-care provider and refer patients as appropriate.[] These requirements are consistent with those in many States that permit licensed pharmacists to order and administer vaccines to children and permit licensed or registered pharmacy interns acting under their supervision to administer vaccines to children.[] Administering vaccinations to children age three and older is less complicated and requires less training and resources than administering vaccinations to younger children. That is because ACIP generally recommends administering intramuscular injections in the deltoid muscle for individuals age three and older.[] For individuals less than three years of age, ACIP generally recommends administering intramuscular injections in the anterolateral aspect of the thigh muscle.[] Administering injections in the thigh muscle often presents additional complexities and requires additional training and resources including additional personnel to safely position the child while another healthcare professional injects the vaccine.[] Moreover, as of 2018, 40% of three-year-olds were enrolled in preprimary programs (i.e.

Preschool or kindergarten programs).[] Preprimary programs are beginning in the coming weeks or months, so the Secretary has concluded that it is particularly important for individuals ages three through 18 to receive ACIP-recommended vaccines according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule. All States require children to be vaccinated against certain communicable diseases as a condition of school attendance. These laws often apply to both public and private schools with identical immunization and exemption provisions.[] As nurseries, preschools, kindergartens, and schools reopen, increased access to childhood vaccinations is essential to ensuring children can return. Notwithstanding any State or local scope-of-practice legal requirements, (1) qualified licensed pharmacists are identified as qualified persons to order and administer ACIP-recommended vaccines and (2) qualified State-licensed or registered pharmacy interns are identified as qualified persons to administer the ACIP-recommended vaccines ordered by their supervising qualified licensed pharmacist.[] Both the PREP Act and the June 4, 2020 Second Amendment to the Declaration define “covered countermeasures” to include qualified pandemic and epidemic products that “limit the harm such pandemic or epidemic might otherwise cause.” [] The troubling decrease in ACIP-recommended childhood vaccinations and the resulting increased risk of associated diseases, adverse health conditions, and other threats are categories of harms otherwise caused by Start Printed Page 52140COVID-19 as set forth in Sections VI and VIII of this Declaration.[] Hence, such vaccinations are “covered countermeasures” under the PREP Act and the June 4, 2020 Second Amendment to the Declaration.

Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed to affect the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, including an injured party's ability to obtain compensation under that program. Covered countermeasures that are subject to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program authorized under 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq. Are covered under this Declaration for the purposes of liability immunity and injury compensation only to the extent that injury compensation is not provided under that Program.

All other terms and conditions of the Declaration apply to such covered countermeasures. Section VIII. Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat As discussed, the troubling decrease in ACIP-recommended childhood vaccinations and the resulting increased risk of associated diseases, adverse health conditions, and other threats are categories of harms otherwise caused by COVID-19. The Secretary therefore amends section VIII, which describes the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures, to clarify that the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures is not only COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or a virus mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases.

Amendments to Declaration Amended Declaration for Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act Coverage for medical countermeasures against COVID-19. Sections V and VIII of the March 10, 2020 Declaration under the PREP Act for medical countermeasures against COVID-19, as amended April 10, 2020 and June 4, 2020, are further amended pursuant to section 319F-3(b)(4) of the PHS Act as described below. All other sections of the Declaration remain in effect as published at 85 FR 15198 (Mar. 17, 2020) and amended at 85 FR 21012 (Apr.

15, 2020) and 85 FR 35100 (June 8, 2020). 1. Covered Persons, section V, delete in full and replace with. V.

Covered Persons 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(2), (3), (4), (6), (8)(A) and (B) Covered Persons who are afforded liability immunity under this Declaration are “manufacturers,” “distributors,” “program planners,” “qualified persons,” and their officials, agents, and employees, as those terms are defined in the PREP Act, and the United States. In addition, I have determined that the following additional persons are qualified persons. (a) Any person authorized in accordance with the public health and medical emergency response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction, as described in Section VII below, to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute or dispense the Covered Countermeasures, and their officials, agents, employees, contractors and volunteers, following a Declaration of an emergency.

(b) any person authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense the Covered Countermeasures or who is otherwise authorized to perform an activity under an Emergency Use Authorization in accordance with Section 564 of the FD&C Act. (c) any person authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense Covered Countermeasures in accordance with Section 564A of the FD&C Act. And (d) a State-licensed pharmacist who orders and administers, and pharmacy interns who administer (if the pharmacy intern acts under the supervision of such pharmacist and the pharmacy intern is licensed or registered by his or her State board of pharmacy), vaccines that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends to persons ages three through 18 according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule. Such State-licensed pharmacists and the State-licensed or registered interns under their supervision are qualified persons only if the following requirements are met.

The vaccine must be FDA-authorized or FDA-approved. The vaccination must be ordered and administered according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule. The licensed pharmacist must complete a practical training program of at least 20 hours that is approved by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). This training program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines.

The licensed or registered pharmacy intern must complete a practical training program that is approved by the ACPE. This training program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines. The licensed pharmacist and licensed or registered pharmacy intern must have a current certificate in basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The licensed pharmacist must complete a minimum of two hours of ACPE-approved, immunization-related continuing pharmacy education during each State licensing period.

The licensed pharmacist must comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the jurisdiction in which he or she administers vaccines, including informing the patient's primary-care provider when available, submitting the required immunization information to the State or local immunization information system (vaccine registry), complying with requirements with respect to reporting adverse events, and complying with requirements whereby the person administering a vaccine must review the vaccine registry or other vaccination records prior to administering a vaccine. The licensed pharmacist must inform his or her childhood-vaccination patients and the adult caregiver accompanying the child of the importance of a well-child visit with a pediatrician or other licensed primary-care provider and refer patients as appropriate. Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed to affect the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, including an injured party's ability to obtain compensation under that program. Covered countermeasures that are subject to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program authorized under 42 U.S.C.

300aa-10 et seq. Are covered under this Declaration for the purposes of liability immunity and injury compensation only to the extent that injury compensation is not provided under that Program. All other Start Printed Page 52141terms and conditions of the Declaration apply to such covered countermeasures. 2.

Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat, section VIII, delete in full and replace with. VIII. Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(2)(A) The category of disease, health condition, or threat for which I recommend the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures is not only COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or a virus mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases.

Start Authority 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d. End Authority Start Signature Dated. August 19, 2020.

Alex M. Azar II, Secretary of Health and Human Services. End Signature End Supplemental Information [FR Doc. 2020-18542 Filed 8-20-20.

Start Preamble http://sw.keimfarben.de/best-online-cialis/ Centers for buy cialis bitcoin Medicare &. Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. Extension of buy cialis bitcoin timeline for publication of final rule. This notice announces an extension of the timeline for publication of a Medicare final rule in accordance with the Social Security Act, which allows us to extend the timeline for publication of the final rule. As of August 26, 2020, the timeline for publication of the final rule to finalize the provisions of the October 17, 2019 proposed buy cialis bitcoin rule (84 FR 55766) is extended until August 31, 2021.

Start Further Info Lisa O. Wilson, (410) 786-8852. End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information In the October 17, 2019 Federal Register (84 FR 55766), we published a proposed rule that addressed buy cialis bitcoin undue regulatory impact and burden of the physician self-referral law. The proposed rule was issued in conjunction with the Centers for Medicare &. Medicaid Services' (CMS) Patients over Paperwork initiative and the Department buy cialis bitcoin of Health and Human Services' (the Department or HHS) Regulatory Sprint to Coordinated Care.

In the proposed rule, we proposed exceptions to the physician self-referral law for certain value-based compensation arrangements between or among physicians, providers, and suppliers. A new exception for certain arrangements under which a physician receives limited remuneration for items or services actually provided by the physician. A new buy cialis bitcoin exception for donations of cybersecurity technology and related services. And amendments to the existing exception for electronic health records (EHR) items and services. The proposed rule also provides critically necessary guidance for physicians and health care buy cialis bitcoin providers and suppliers whose financial relationships are governed by the physician self-referral statute and regulations.

This notice announces an extension of the timeline for publication of the final rule and the continuation of effectiveness of the proposed rule. Section 1871(a)(3)(A) of the Social Security Act (the Act) requires us to establish and publish a regular timeline for the publication of final regulations based on the previous publication of a proposed regulation. In accordance buy cialis bitcoin with section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Act, the timeline may vary among different regulations based on differences in the complexity of the regulation, the number and scope of comments received, and other relevant factors, but may not be longer than 3 years except under exceptional circumstances. In addition, in accordance with section 1871(a)(3)(B) of the Act, the Secretary may extend the initial targeted publication date of the final regulation if the Secretary, no later than the regulation's previously established proposed publication date, publishes a notice with the new target date, and such notice includes a brief explanation of the justification for the variation. We announced in buy cialis bitcoin the Spring 2020 Unified Agenda (June 30, 2020, www.reginfo.gov) that we would issue the final rule in August 2020.

However, we are still working through the Start Printed Page 52941complexity of the issues raised by comments received on the proposed rule and therefore we are not able to meet the announced publication target date. This notice extends the timeline for publication of the final rule until August 31, 2021 buy cialis bitcoin. Start Signature Dated. August 24, 2020. Wilma M buy cialis bitcoin.

Robinson, Deputy Executive Secretary to the Department, Department of Health and Human Services. End Signature End buy cialis bitcoin Supplemental Information [FR Doc. 2020-18867 Filed 8-26-20. 8:45 am]BILLING CODE 4120-01-PStart Preamble Notice of amendment. The Secretary issues this amendment pursuant to section 319F-3 of the Public Health Service Act to add additional categories of Qualified Persons and amend the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends buy cialis bitcoin the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures.

This amendment to the Declaration published on March 17, 2020 (85 FR 15198) is effective as of August 24, 2020. Start Further Info Robert buy cialis bitcoin P. Kadlec, MD, MTM&H, MS, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201. Telephone. 202-205-2882.

End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information The Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) authorizes the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) to issue a Declaration to provide liability immunity to certain individuals and entities (Covered Persons) against any claim of loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the manufacture, distribution, administration, or use of medical countermeasures (Covered Countermeasures), except for claims involving “willful misconduct” as defined in the PREP Act. Under the PREP Act, a Declaration may be amended as circumstances warrant. The PREP Act was enacted on December 30, 2005, as Public Law 109-148, Division C, § 2. It amended the Public Health Service (PHS) Act, adding section 319F-3, which addresses liability immunity, and section 319F-4, which creates a compensation program. These sections are codified at 42 U.S.C.

247d-6d and 42 U.S.C. 247d-6e, respectively. Section 319F-3 of the PHS Act has been amended by the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Reauthorization Act (PAHPRA), Public Law 113-5, enacted on March 13, 2013 and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, Public Law 116-136, enacted on March 27, Start Printed Page 521372020, to expand Covered Countermeasures under the PREP Act. On January 31, 2020, the Secretary declared a public health emergency pursuant to section 319 of the PHS Act, 42 U.S.C. 247d, effective January 27, 2020, for the entire United States to aid in the response of the nation's health care community to the COVID-19 outbreak.

Pursuant to section 319 of the PHS Act, the Secretary renewed that declaration on April 26, 2020, and July 25, 2020. On March 10, 2020, the Secretary issued a Declaration under the PREP Act for medical countermeasures against COVID-19 (85 FR 15198, Mar. 17, 2020) (the Declaration). On April 10, the Secretary amended the Declaration under the PREP Act to extend liability immunity to covered countermeasures authorized under the CARES Act (85 FR 21012, Apr. 15, 2020).

On June 4, the Secretary amended the Declaration to clarify that covered countermeasures under the Declaration include qualified countermeasures that limit the harm COVID-19 might otherwise cause. The Secretary now amends section V of the Declaration to identify as qualified persons covered under the PREP Act, and thus authorizes, certain State-licensed pharmacists to order and administer, and pharmacy interns (who are licensed or registered by their State board of pharmacy and acting under the supervision of a State-licensed pharmacist) to administer, any vaccine that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends to persons ages three through 18 according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule (ACIP-recommended vaccines).[] The Secretary also amends section VIII of the Declaration to clarify that the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures includes not only COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or a virus mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases. Description of This Amendment by Section Section V. Covered Persons Under the PREP Act and the Declaration, a “qualified person” is a “covered person.” Subject to certain limitations, a covered person is immune from suit and liability under Federal and State law with respect to all claims for loss caused by, arising out of, relating to, or resulting from the administration or use of a covered countermeasure if a declaration under subsection (b) has been issued with respect to such countermeasure. €œQualified person” includes (A) a licensed health professional or other individual who is authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense such countermeasures under the law of the State in which the countermeasure was prescribed, administered, or dispensed.

Or (B) “a person within a category of persons so identified in a declaration by the Secretary” under subsection (b) of the PREP Act. 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(i)(8).[] By this amendment to the Declaration, the Secretary identifies an additional category of persons who are qualified persons under section 247d-6d(i)(8)(B).[] On May 8, 2020, CDC reported, “The identified declines in routine pediatric vaccine ordering and doses administered might indicate that U.S. Children and their communities face increased risks for outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases,” and suggested that a decrease in rates of routine childhood vaccinations were due to changes in healthcare access, social distancing, and other COVID-19 mitigation strategies.[] The report also stated that “[p]arental concerns about potentially exposing their children to COVID-19 during well child visits might contribute to the declines observed.” [] On July 10, 2020, CDC reported its findings of a May survey it conducted to assess the capacity of pediatric health care practices to provide immunization services to children during the COVID-19 pandemic. The survey, which was limited to practices participating in the Vaccines for Children program, found that, as of mid-May, 15 percent of Northeast pediatric practices were closed, 12.5 percent of Midwest practices were closed, 6.2 percent of practices in the South were closed, and 10 percent of practices in the West were closed.

Most practices had reduced office hours for in-person visits. When asked whether their practices would likely be able to accommodate new patients for immunization services through August, 418 practices (21.3 percent) either responded that this was not likely or the practice was permanently closed or not resuming immunization services for all patients, and 380 (19.6 percent) responded that they were unsure. Urban practices and those in the Northeast were less likely to be able to accommodate new patients compared with rural practices and those in the South, Midwest, or West.[] In response to these troubling developments, CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics have stressed, “Well-child visits and vaccinations are essential services and help make sure children are protected.” [] The Secretary re-emphasizes that important recommendation to parents and legal guardians here. If your child is due for a well-child visit, contact your pediatrician's or other primary-care provider's office and ask about ways that the office safely offers well-child visits and vaccinations. Many medical offices are taking extra steps to make sure that well-child visits can occur safely during the COVID-19 pandemic, including.

Scheduling sick visits and well-child visits during different times of the Start Printed Page 52138day or days of the week, or at different locations. Asking patients to remain outside until it is time for their appointments to reduce the number of people in waiting rooms. Adhering to recommended social (physical) distancing and other infection-control practices, such as the use of masks. The decrease in childhood-vaccination rates is a public health threat and a collateral harm caused by COVID-19. Together, the United States must turn to available medical professionals to limit the harm and public health threats that may result from decreased immunization rates.

We must quickly do so to avoid preventable infections in children, additional strains on our healthcare system, and any further increase in avoidable adverse health consequences—particularly if such complications coincide with additional resurgence of COVID-19. Together with pediatricians and other healthcare professionals, pharmacists are positioned to expand access to childhood vaccinations. Many States already allow pharmacists to administer vaccines to children of any age.[] Other States permit pharmacists to administer vaccines to children depending on the age—for example, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, or 12 years of age and older.[] Few States restrict pharmacist-administered vaccinations to only adults.[] Many States also allow properly trained individuals under the supervision of a trained pharmacist to administer those vaccines.[] Pharmacists are well positioned to increase access to vaccinations, particularly in certain areas or for certain populations that have too few pediatricians and other primary-care providers, or that are otherwise medically underserved.[] As of 2018, nearly 90 percent of Americans lived within five miles of a community pharmacy.[] Pharmacies often offer extended hours and added convenience. What is more, pharmacists are trusted healthcare professionals with established relationships with their patients. Pharmacists also have strong relationships with local medical providers and hospitals to refer patients as appropriate.

For example, pharmacists already play a significant role in annual influenza vaccination. In the early 2018-19 season, they administered the influenza vaccine to nearly a third of all adults who received the vaccine.[] Given the potential danger of serious influenza and continuing COVID-19 outbreaks this autumn and the impact that such concurrent outbreaks may have on our population, our healthcare system, and our whole-of-nation response to the COVID-19 pandemic, we must quickly expand access to influenza vaccinations. Allowing more qualified pharmacists to administer the influenza vaccine to children will make vaccinations more accessible. Therefore, the Secretary amends the Declaration to identify State-licensed pharmacists (and pharmacy interns acting under their supervision if the pharmacy intern is licensed or registered by his or her State board of pharmacy) as qualified persons under section 247d-6d(i)(8)(B) when the pharmacist orders and either the pharmacist or the supervised pharmacy intern administers vaccines to individuals ages three through 18 pursuant to the following requirements. The vaccine must be FDA-authorized or FDA-approved.

The vaccination must be ordered and administered according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule.[] The licensed pharmacist must complete a practical training program of at least 20 hours that is approved by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE). This training Start Printed Page 52139program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines.[] The licensed or registered pharmacy intern must complete a practical training program that is approved by the ACPE. This training program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines.[] The licensed pharmacist and licensed or registered pharmacy intern must have a current certificate in basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation.[] The licensed pharmacist must complete a minimum of two hours of ACPE-approved, immunization-related continuing pharmacy education during each State licensing period.[] The licensed pharmacist must comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the jurisdiction in which he or she administers vaccines, including informing the patient's primary-care provider when available, submitting the required immunization information to the State or local immunization information system (vaccine registry), complying with requirements with respect to reporting adverse events, and complying with requirements whereby the person administering a vaccine must review the vaccine registry or other vaccination records prior to administering a vaccine.[] The licensed pharmacist must inform his or her childhood-vaccination patients and the adult caregivers accompanying the children of the importance of a well-child visit with a pediatrician or other licensed primary-care provider and refer patients as appropriate.[] These requirements are consistent with those in many States that permit licensed pharmacists to order and administer vaccines to children and permit licensed or registered pharmacy interns acting under their supervision to administer vaccines to children.[] Administering vaccinations to children age three and older is less complicated and requires less training and resources than administering vaccinations to younger children. That is because ACIP generally recommends administering intramuscular injections in the deltoid muscle for individuals age three and older.[] For individuals less than three years of age, ACIP generally recommends administering intramuscular injections in the anterolateral aspect of the thigh muscle.[] Administering injections in the thigh muscle often presents additional complexities and requires additional training and resources including additional personnel to safely position the child while another healthcare professional injects the vaccine.[] Moreover, as of 2018, 40% of three-year-olds were enrolled in preprimary programs (i.e. Preschool or kindergarten programs).[] Preprimary programs are beginning in the coming weeks or months, so the Secretary has concluded that it is particularly important for individuals ages three through 18 to receive ACIP-recommended vaccines according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule.

All States require children to be vaccinated against certain communicable diseases as a condition of school attendance. These laws often apply to both public and private schools with identical immunization and exemption provisions.[] As nurseries, preschools, kindergartens, and schools reopen, increased access to childhood vaccinations is essential to ensuring children can return. Notwithstanding any State or local scope-of-practice legal requirements, (1) qualified licensed pharmacists are identified as qualified persons to order and administer ACIP-recommended vaccines and (2) qualified State-licensed or registered pharmacy interns are identified as qualified persons to administer the ACIP-recommended vaccines ordered by their supervising qualified licensed pharmacist.[] Both the PREP Act and the June 4, 2020 Second Amendment to the Declaration define “covered countermeasures” to include qualified pandemic and epidemic products that “limit the harm such pandemic or epidemic might otherwise cause.” [] The troubling decrease in ACIP-recommended childhood vaccinations and the resulting increased risk of associated diseases, adverse health conditions, and other threats are categories of harms otherwise caused by Start Printed Page 52140COVID-19 as set forth in Sections VI and VIII of this Declaration.[] Hence, such vaccinations are “covered countermeasures” under the PREP Act and the June 4, 2020 Second Amendment to the Declaration. Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed to affect the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, including an injured party's ability to obtain compensation under that program. Covered countermeasures that are subject to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program authorized under 42 U.S.C.

300aa-10 et seq. Are covered under this Declaration for the purposes of liability immunity and injury compensation only to the extent that injury compensation is not provided under that Program. All other terms and conditions of the Declaration apply to such covered countermeasures. Section VIII. Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat As discussed, the troubling decrease in ACIP-recommended childhood vaccinations and the resulting increased risk of associated diseases, adverse health conditions, and other threats are categories of harms otherwise caused by COVID-19.

The Secretary therefore amends section VIII, which describes the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures, to clarify that the category of disease, health condition, or threat for which he recommends the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures is not only COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or a virus mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases. Amendments to Declaration Amended Declaration for Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act Coverage for medical countermeasures against COVID-19. Sections V and VIII of the March 10, 2020 Declaration under the PREP Act for medical countermeasures against COVID-19, as amended April 10, 2020 and June 4, 2020, are further amended pursuant to section 319F-3(b)(4) of the PHS Act as described below. All other sections of the Declaration remain in effect as published at 85 FR 15198 (Mar. 17, 2020) and amended at 85 FR 21012 (Apr.

15, 2020) and 85 FR 35100 (June 8, 2020). 1. Covered Persons, section V, delete in full and replace with. V. Covered Persons 42 U.S.C.

247d-6d(i)(2), (3), (4), (6), (8)(A) and (B) Covered Persons who are afforded liability immunity under this Declaration are “manufacturers,” “distributors,” “program planners,” “qualified persons,” and their officials, agents, and employees, as those terms are defined in the PREP Act, and the United States. In addition, I have determined that the following additional persons are qualified persons. (a) Any person authorized in accordance with the public health and medical emergency response of the Authority Having Jurisdiction, as described in Section VII below, to prescribe, administer, deliver, distribute or dispense the Covered Countermeasures, and their officials, agents, employees, contractors and volunteers, following a Declaration of an emergency. (b) any person authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense the Covered Countermeasures or who is otherwise authorized to perform an activity under an Emergency Use Authorization in accordance with Section 564 of the FD&C Act. (c) any person authorized to prescribe, administer, or dispense Covered Countermeasures in accordance with Section 564A of the FD&C Act.

And (d) a State-licensed pharmacist who orders and administers, and pharmacy interns who administer (if the pharmacy intern acts under the supervision of such pharmacist and the pharmacy intern is licensed or registered by his or her State board of pharmacy), vaccines that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) recommends to persons ages three through 18 according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule. Such State-licensed pharmacists and the State-licensed or registered interns under their supervision are qualified persons only if the following requirements are met. The vaccine must be FDA-authorized or FDA-approved. The vaccination must be ordered and administered according to ACIP's standard immunization schedule. The licensed pharmacist must complete a practical training program of at least 20 hours that is approved by the Accreditation Council for Pharmacy Education (ACPE).

This training program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines. The licensed or registered pharmacy intern must complete a practical training program that is approved by the ACPE. This training program must include hands-on injection technique, clinical evaluation of indications and contraindications of vaccines, and the recognition and treatment of emergency reactions to vaccines. The licensed pharmacist and licensed or registered pharmacy intern must have a current certificate in basic cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The licensed pharmacist must complete a minimum of two hours of ACPE-approved, immunization-related continuing pharmacy education during each State licensing period.

The licensed pharmacist must comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the jurisdiction in which he or she administers vaccines, including informing the patient's primary-care provider when available, submitting the required immunization information to the State or local immunization information system (vaccine registry), complying with requirements with respect to reporting adverse events, and complying with requirements whereby the person administering a vaccine must review the vaccine registry or other vaccination records prior to administering a vaccine. The licensed pharmacist must inform his or her childhood-vaccination patients and the adult caregiver accompanying the child of the importance of a well-child visit with a pediatrician or other licensed primary-care provider and refer patients as appropriate. Nothing in this Declaration shall be construed to affect the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, including an injured party's ability to obtain compensation under that program. Covered countermeasures that are subject to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program authorized under 42 U.S.C. 300aa-10 et seq.

Are covered under this Declaration for the purposes of liability immunity and injury compensation only to the extent that injury compensation is not provided under that Program. All other Start Printed Page 52141terms and conditions of the Declaration apply to such covered countermeasures. 2. Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat, section VIII, delete in full and replace with. VIII.

Category of Disease, Health Condition, or Threat 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d(b)(2)(A) The category of disease, health condition, or threat for which I recommend the administration or use of the Covered Countermeasures is not only COVID-19 caused by SARS-CoV-2 or a virus mutating therefrom, but also other diseases, health conditions, or threats that may have been caused by COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, or a virus mutating therefrom, including the decrease in the rate of childhood immunizations, which will lead to an increase in the rate of infectious diseases. Start Authority 42 U.S.C. 247d-6d. End Authority Start Signature Dated.

August 19, 2020. Alex M. Azar II, Secretary of Health and Human Services. End Signature End Supplemental Information [FR Doc. 2020-18542 Filed 8-20-20.

Cialis dosing

NONE

IntroductionIn recent years, many studies can you buy cialis over the counter have been published on new diagnostic possibilities and management approaches in cohorts of patients suspected to have a disorder/difference of sex development (DSD).1–13 Based on these cialis dosing studies, it has become clear that services and institutions still differ in the composition of the multidisciplinary teams that provide care for patients who have a DSD.11 14 Several projects have now worked to resolve this variability in care. The European Cooperation in Science and Technology (EU COST) action BM1303 ‘A systematic elucidation of differences of sex development’ has been a platform to achieve European agreement on harmonisation of clinical management and laboratory practices.15–17 Another such initiative involved an update of the 2006 DSD consensus document by an international group of professionals and patient representatives.18 These initiatives have highlighted how cultural and financial aspects and the availability of resources differ significantly cialis dosing between countries and societies, a situation that hampers supranational agreement on common diagnostic protocols. As only a few national guidelines have been published in international journals, comparison of these guidelines is difficult even though such a comparison is necessary to capture the differences and initiate actions to overcome them. Nonetheless, four DSD (expert) centres located in the Netherlands and Flanders (the Dutch-speaking Northern part of Belgium) have collaborated to produce a detailed guideline on diagnostics in DSD.19 This shows that a supranational guideline can be a reasonable approach for countries cialis dosing with similarly structured healthcare systems and similar resources. Within the guideline there is agreement that optimisation of expertise and care can be achieved through centralisation, for example, by limiting analysis of next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based diagnostic panels to only a few centres and by centralising pathological review of gonadal tissues.

International networks such as the European Reference Network for rare endocrine conditions (EndoERN), in which DSD is embedded, may cialis dosing facilitate the expansion of this kind of collaboration across Europe.This paper highlights key discussion points in the Dutch-Flemish guideline that have been insufficiently addressed in the literature thus far because they reflect evolving technologies or less visible stakeholders. For example, prenatal observation of an atypical aspect of the genitalia indicating a possible DSD is becoming increasingly common, and we discuss appropriate counselling and a diagnostic approach for these cases, including the option of using NGS-based genetic testing. So far, little attention has been paid to this process.20 21 Furthermore, informing patients and/or their parents about atypical sex development and why this may warrant referral to a specialised team may be challenging, especially for professionals with cialis dosing limited experience in DSD.22 23 Therefore, a section of the Dutch-Flemish guideline was written for these healthcare providers. Moreover, this enables DSD specialists to refer to the guideline when advising a referral. Transition from the prenatal to the postnatal team and from the paediatric to cialis dosing the adult team requires optimal communication between the specialists involved.

Application of NGS-based techniques may lead to a higher diagnostic yield, providing a molecular genetic diagnosis in previously unsolved cases.16 We address the timing of this testing and the problems associated with this technique such as the interpretation of variants of unknown clinical significance (VUS). Similarly, histopathological interpretation and classification of removed gonadal tissue is challenging and would benefit from international collaboration and centralisation of expertise.MethodsFor the guideline revision, an interdisciplinary cialis dosing multicentre group was formed with all members responsible for updating the literature for a specific part of the guideline. Literature search in PubMed was not systematic, but rather intended to be broad in order to cover all areas and follow expert opinions. This approach is more in line with the Clinical Practice Advisory Document method described by Burke et al24 for guidelines involving genetic practice because it is often troublesome to substantiate such guidelines with sufficient evidence due to the rapid changes in cialis dosing testing methods, for example, gene panels. All input provided by the group was synthesised by the chairperson (YvB), who also reviewed abstracts of papers on DSD published between 2010 and September 2017 for the guideline and up to October 2019 for this paper.

Abstracts had to be written in English and were identified using a broad range of Medical Subject Headings terms (eg, DSD, genetic, review, diagnosis, diagnostics, cialis dosing 46,XX DSD, 46,XY DSD, guideline, multidisciplinary care). Next, potentially relevant papers on diagnostic procedures in DSD were selected. Case reports were excluded, as cialis dosing were articles that were not open access or retrievable through institutional access. Based on this, a draft guideline was produced that was in line with the international principles of good diagnostic care in DSD. This draft was discussed by the writing committee and, after having obtained agreement on remaining points of discussion, revised into cialis dosing a final draft.

This version was sent to a broad group of professionals from academic centres and DSD teams whose members had volunteered to review the draft guideline. After receiving and cialis dosing incorporating their input, the final version was presented to the paediatric and genetic associations for approval. After approval by the members of the paediatric (NVK), clinical genetic (VKGN) and genetic laboratory (VKGL) associations, the guideline was published on their respective websites.19 Although Turner syndrome and Klinefelter syndrome are considered to be part of the DSD spectrum, they are not extensively discussed in this diagnostic guideline as guidelines dedicated to these syndromes already exist.25 26 However, some individuals with Turner syndrome or Klinefelter syndrome may present with ambiguous or atypical genitalia and may therefore initially follow the DSD diagnostic process.Guideline highlightsPrenatal settingPresentationThe most frequent prenatal presentation of a DSD condition is atypical genitalia found on prenatal ultrasound as an isolated finding or in combination with other structural anomalies. This usually occurs after the 20-week routine medical ultrasound for screening of congenital anomalies, but may also occur earlier, for example, when a commercial ultrasound is performed at the request of the parents.Another way DSD can be diagnosed before birth is when invasive prenatal genetic testing carried out for a different reason, for example, due to suspicion of other structural anomalies, reveals a discrepancy between the genotypic sex cialis dosing and the phenotypic sex seen by ultrasound. In certified laboratories, the possibility of a sample switch is extremely low but should be ruled out immediately.

More often, the discrepancy will be due to sex-chromosome mosaicism or a true form of DSD.A situation now occurring with cialis dosing increasing frequency is a discrepancy between the genotypic sex revealed by non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), which is now available to high-risk pregnant women in the Netherlands and to all pregnant women in Belgium, and later ultrasound findings. NIPT screens for CNVs in the fetus. However, depending on legal restrictions and/or ethical considerations, cialis dosing the X and Y chromosomes are not always included in NIPT analysis and reports. If the X and Y chromosomes are included, it is important to realise that the presence of a Y-chromosome does not necessarily imply male fetal development. At the time that NIPT is performed (usually 11–13 weeks), cialis dosing genital development cannot be reliably appreciated by ultrasound, so any discrepancy or atypical aspect of the genitalia will only be noticed later in pregnancy and should prompt further evaluation.Counselling and diagnosticsIf a DSD is suspected, first-line sonographers and obstetricians should refer the couple to their colleague prenatal specialists working with or in a DSD team.

After confirming an atypical genital on ultrasound, the specialist team should offer the couple a referral for genetic counselling to discuss the possibility of performing invasive prenatal testing (usually an amniocentesis) to identify an underlying cause that fits the ultrasound findings.22 23 To enable the parents to make a well-informed decision, prenatal counselling should, in our opinion, include. Information on the ultrasound cialis dosing findings and the limitations of this technique. The procedure(s) that can be followed, including the risks associated with an amniocentesis. And the type cialis dosing of information genetic testing can and cannot provide. Knowing which information has been provided and what words have been used by the prenatal specialist is very helpful for those involved in postnatal care.It is important that parents understand that the biological sex of a baby is determined by a complex interplay of chromosomes, genes and hormones, and thus that assessment of the presence or absence of a Y-chromosome alone is insufficient to assign the sex of their unborn child or, as in any unborn child, say anything about the child’s future gender identity.Expecting parents can be counselled by the clinical geneticist and the psychologist from the DSD team, although other DSD specialists can also be involved.

The clinical geneticist should be experienced in prenatal counselling and well informed about the diagnostic cialis dosing possibilities given the limited time span in which test results need to be available to allow parents to make a well-informed decision about whether or not to continue the pregnancy. Termination of pregnancy can be considered, for instance, in a syndromic form of DSD with multiple malformations, but when the DSD occurs as an apparently isolated condition, expecting cialis dosing parents may also consider termination of pregnancy, which, although considered controversial by some, is legal in Belgium and the Netherlands. The psychologist of the DSD team can support parents during and after pregnancy and help them cope with feelings of uncertainty and eventual considerations of a termination of pregnancy, as well as with practical issues, for example, how to inform others. The stress of not knowing exactly what the child’s genitalia will look like and uncertainty about the diagnosis, cialis dosing treatment and prognosis cannot be avoided completely. Parents are informed that if the postnatal phenotype is different from what was prenatally expected, the advice given about diagnostic testing can be adjusted accordingly, for example, if a hypospadias is milder than was expected based on prenatal ultrasound images.

In our experience, parents appreciate having already spoken to some members cialis dosing of the DSD team during pregnancy and having a contact person before birth.After expert prenatal counselling, a significant number of pregnant couples decline prenatal testing (personal experience IALG, MK, ABD, YvB, MC and HC-vdG). At birth, umbilical cord blood is a good source for (molecular) karyotyping and storage of DNA and can be obtained by the obstetrician, midwife or neonatologist. The terminology cialis dosing used in communication with parents should be carefully chosen,22 23 and midwives and staff of neonatal and delivery units should be clearly instructed to use gender-neutral and non-stigmatising vocabulary (eg, ‘your baby’) as long as sex assignment is pending.An algorithm for diagnostic evaluation of a suspected DSD in the prenatal situation is proposed in figure 1. When couples opt for invasive prenatal diagnosis, the genetic analysis usually involves an (SNP)-array. It was recently estimated that >30% of individuals who have a DSD have additional structural anomalies, with cardiac and neurological anomalies and fetal growth restriction being particularly common.27 28 If additional anomalies are seen, the geneticist can consider specific gene defects cialis dosing that may underlie a known genetic syndrome or carry out NGS.

NGS-based techniques have also now made their appearance in prenatal diagnosis of congenital anomalies.29 30 Panels using these techniques can be specific for genes involved in DSD, or be larger panels covering multiple congenital anomalies, and are usually employed with trio-analysis to compare variants identified in the child with the parents’ genetics.29–31 Finding a genetic cause before delivery can help reduce parental stress in the neonatal period and speed up decisions regarding gender assignment. In such cases there is no tight time limit, and cialis dosing we propose completing the analysis well before the expected delivery.Disorders/differences of sex development (DSD) in the prenatal setting. A diagnostic algorithm. *SOX9. Upstream anomalies and balanced translocations at promotor sites!.

Conventional karyotyping can be useful. NGS, next-generation sequencing." data-icon-position data-hide-link-title="0">Figure 1 Disorders/differences of sex development (DSD) in the prenatal setting. A diagnostic algorithm. *SOX9. Upstream anomalies and balanced translocations at promotor sites!.

Conventional karyotyping can be useful. NGS, next-generation sequencing.First contact by a professional less experienced in DSDWhereas most current guidelines start from the point when an individual has been referred to the DSD team,1 15 the Dutch-Flemish guideline dedicates a chapter to healthcare professionals less experienced in DSD as they are often the first to suspect or identify such a condition. Apart from the paper of Indyk,7 little guidance is available for these professionals about how to act in such a situation. The chapter in the Dutch-Flemish guideline summarises the various clinical presentations that a DSD can have and provides information on how to communicate with parents and/or patients about the findings of the physical examination, the first-line investigations and the need for prompt referral to a specialised centre for further evaluation. Clinical examples are offered to illustrate some of these recurring situations.

The medical issues in DSD can be very challenging, and the social and psychological impact is high. For neonates with ambiguous genitalia, sex assignment is an urgent and crucial issue, and it is mandatory that parents are informed that it is possible to postpone registration of their child’s sex. In cases where sex assignment has already taken place, the message that the development of the gonads or genitalia is still atypical is complicated and distressing for patients and parents or carers. A list of contact details for DSD centres and patient organisations in the Netherlands and Flanders is attached to the Dutch-Flemish guideline. Publishing such a list, either in guidelines or online, can help healthcare professionals find the nearest centres for consultations and provide patients and patient organisations with an overview of the centres where expertise is available.Timing and place of genetic testing using NGS-based gene panelsThe diagnostic workup that is proposed for 46,XX and 46,XY DSD is shown in figures 2 and 3, respectively.

Even with the rapidly expanding molecular possibilities, a (family) history and a physical examination remain the essential first steps in the diagnostic process. Biochemical and hormonal screening aim at investigating serum electrolytes, renal function and the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axes. Ultrasound screening of kidneys and internal genitalia, as well as establishing genotypic sex, should be accomplished within 48 hours and complete the baseline diagnostic work-up of a child born with ambiguous genitalia.1 16 32 3346,XX disorders/differences of sex development (DSD) in the postnatal setting. A diagnostic algorithm. NGS, next-generation sequencing.

CAH, Congenital adrenal hyperplasia. AMH, Anti-Müllerian Hormone." data-icon-position data-hide-link-title="0">Figure 2 46,XX disorders/differences of sex development (DSD) in the postnatal setting. A diagnostic algorithm. NGS, next-generation sequencing. CAH, Congenital adrenal hyperplasia.

AMH, Anti-Müllerian Hormone.46,XY disorders/differences of sex development (DSD) in the postnatal setting. A diagnostic algorithm. * SOX9. Upstream anomalies and balanced translocations at promotor sites!. Conventional karyotyping can be useful.

NGS, next-generation sequencing." data-icon-position data-hide-link-title="0">Figure 3 46,XY disorders/differences of sex development (DSD) in the postnatal setting. A diagnostic algorithm. *SOX9. Upstream anomalies and balanced translocations at promotor sites!. Conventional karyotyping can be useful.

NGS, next-generation sequencing.Very recently, a European position paper has been published focusing on the genetic workup of DSD.16 It highlights the limitations and drawbacks of NGS-based tests, which include the chance of missing subtle structural variants such as CNVs and mosaicism and the fact that NGS cannot detect methylation defects or other epigenetic changes.16 28 31 Targeted DNA analysis is preferred in cases where hormonal investigations suggest a block in steroidogenesis (eg, 11-β-hydroxylase deficiency, 21-hydroxylase deficiency), or in the context of a specific clinical constellation such as the often coincidental finding of Müllerian structures in a boy with normal external genitalia or cryptorchidism, that is, persistent Müllerian duct syndrome.33 34 Alternative tests should also be considered depending on the available information. Sometimes, a simple mouth swab for FISH analysis can detect mosaic XY/X in a male with hypospadias or asymmetric gonadal development or in a female with little or no Turner syndrome stigmata and a normal male molecular karyotyping profile or peripheral blood karyotype. Such targeted testing avoids incidental findings and is cheaper and faster than analysis of a large NGS-based panel, although the cost difference is rapidly declining.However, due to the genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity of DSD conditions, the most cost-effective next steps in the majority of cases are whole exome sequencing followed by panel analysis of genes involved in genital development and function or trio-analysis of a large gene panel (such as a Mendeliome).16 35–38 Pretest genetic counselling involves discussing what kind of information will be reported to patients or parents and the chance of detecting VUS, and the small risk of incidental findings when analysing a DSD panel should be mentioned. Laboratories also differ in what class of variants they report.39 In our experience, the fear of incidental findings is a major reason why some parents refrain from genetic testing.Timing of the DSD gene panel analysis is also important. While some patients or parents prefer that all diagnostic procedures be performed as soon as possible, others need time to reflect on the complex information related to more extensive genetic testing and on its possible consequences.

If parents or patients do not consent to panel-based genetic testing, analysis of specific genes, such as WT1, should be considered when appropriate in view of the clinical consequences if a mutation is present (eg, clinical surveillance of renal function and screening for Wilms’ tumour in the case of WT1 mutations). Genes that are more frequently involved in DSD (eg, SRY, NR5A1) and that match the specific clinical and hormonal features in a given patient could also be considered for sequencing. Targeted gene analysis may also be preferred in centres located in countries that do not have the resources or technical requirements to perform NGS panel-based genetic testing. Alternatively, participation by these centres in international collaborative networks may allow them to outsource the molecular genetic workup abroad.Gene panels differ between centres and are regularly updated based on scientific progress. A comparison of DSD gene panels used in recent studies can be found at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-018-0010-8%23Sec46.15 The panels currently used at the coauthors’ institutions can be found on their respective websites.

Given the pace of change, it is important to regularly consider repeating analysis in patients with an unexplained DSD, for example, when they transition into adult care or when they move from one centre to another. This also applies to patients in whom a clinical diagnosis has never been genetically confirmed. Confusion may arise when the diagnosis cannot be confirmed or when a mutation is identified in a different gene, for example, NR5A1 in someone with a clinical diagnosis of CAIS that has other consequences for relatives. Hence, new genetic counselling should always accompany new diagnostic endeavours.Class 3 variants and histopathological examinationsThe rapidly evolving diagnostic possibilities raise new questions. What do laboratories report?.

How should we deal with the frequent findings of mainly unique VUS or class 3 variants (ACMG recommendation) in the many different DSD-related genes in the diagnostic setting?. Reporting VUS can be a source of uncertainty for parents, but not reporting these variants precludes further investigations to determine their possible pathogenicity. It can also be difficult to prove variant pathogenicity, both on gene-level and variant-level.39 Moreover, given the gonad-specific expression of some genes and the variable phenotypic spectrum and reduced penetrance, segregation analysis is not always informative. A class 3 variant that does not fit the clinical presentation may be unrelated to the observed phenotype, but it could also represent a newly emerging phenotype. This was recently demonstrated by the identification of the NR5A1 mutation, R92W, in individuals with 46,XX testicular and ovotesticular DSD.40 This gene had previously been associated with 46,XY DSD.

In diagnostic laboratories, there is usually no capacity or expertise to conduct large-scale functional studies to determine pathogenicity of these unique class 3 VUS in the different genes involved in DSD. Functional validation of variants identified in novel genes may be more attractive in a research context. However, for individual families with VUS in well-established DSD genes such as AR or HSD17B3, functional analysis may provide a confirmed diagnosis that implies for relatives the option of undergoing their own DNA analysis and estimating the genetic risk of their own future offspring. This makes genetic follow-up important in these cases and demonstrates the usefulness of international databases and networks and the centralisation of functional studies of genetic variants in order to reduce costs and maximise expertise.The same is true for histopathological description, germ-cell tumour risk assessment in specific forms of DSD and classification of gonadal samples. Germ-cell tumour risk is related to the type of DSD (among other factors), but it is impossible to make risk estimates in individual cases.41–44 Gonadectomy may be indicated in cases with high-risk dysgenetic abdominal gonads that cannot be brought into a stable superficial (ie, inguinal, labioscrotal) position that allows clinical or radiological surveillance, or to avoid virilisation due to 5-alpha reductase deficiency in a 46,XY girl with a stable female gender identity.45 Pathological examination of DSD gonads requires specific expertise.

For example, the differentiation between benign germ cell abnormalities, such as delayed maturation and (pre)malignant development of germ cells, is crucial for clinical management but can be very troublesome.46 Centralised pathological examination of gonadal biopsy and gonadectomy samples in one centre, or a restricted number of centres, on a national scale can help to overcome the problem of non-uniform classification and has proven feasible in the Netherlands and Belgium. We therefore believe that uniform assessment and classification of gonadal differentiation patterns should also be addressed in guidelines on DSD management.International databases of gonadal tissues are crucial for learning more about the risk of malignancy in different forms of DSD, but they are only reliable if uniform criteria for histological classification are strictly applied.46 These criteria could be incorporated in many existing networks such as the I-DSD consortium, the Disorders of Sex Development Translational Research Network, the European Reference Network on Urogenital Diseases (eUROGEN), the EndoERN and COST actions.15–17 47Communication at the transition from paediatric to adult carePaediatric and adult teams need to collaborate closely to facilitate a well-organised transition from paediatric to adult specialist care.15 48–50 Both teams need to exchange information optimally and should consider transition as a longitudinal process rather than a fixed moment in time. Age-appropriate information is key at all ages, and an overview of topics to be discussed at each stage is described by Cools et al.15 Table 1 shows an example of how transition can be organised.View this table:Table 1 Example of transition table as used in the DSD clinic of the Erasmus Medical CenterPsychological support and the continued provision of information remains important for individuals with a DSD at all ages.15 22 In addition to the information given by the DSD team members, families and patients can benefit from resources such as support groups and information available on the internet.47 Information available online should be checked for accuracy and completeness when referring patients and parents to internet sites.Recommendations for future actionsMost guidelines and articles on the diagnosis and management of DSD are aimed at specialists and are only published in specialist journals or on websites for endocrinologists, urologists or geneticists. Yet there is a need for guidelines directed towards first-line and second-line healthcare workers that summarise the recommendations about the first crucial steps in the management of DSD. These should be published in widely available general medical journals and online, along with a national list of DSD centres.

Furthermore, DSD (expert) centres should provide continuous education to all those who may be involved in the identification of individuals with a DSD in order to enable these healthcare professionals to recognise atypical genitalia, to promptly refer individuals who have a DSD and to inform the patient and parents about this and subsequent diagnostic procedures.As DSD continues to be a rare condition, it will take time to evaluate the effects of having such a guideline on the preparedness of first-line and second-line healthcare workers to recognise DSD conditions. One way to evaluate this might be the development and use of questionnaires asking patients, carers and families and referring physicians how satisfied they were with the initial medical consultation and referral and what could be improved. A helpful addition to existing international databases that collect information on genetic variations would be a list of centres that offer suitable functional studies for certain genes, ideally covering the most frequently mutated genes (at minimum).Patient organisations can also play an important role in informing patients about newly available diagnostic or therapeutic strategies and options, and their influence and specific role has now been recognised and discussed in several publications.17 47 However, it should be kept in mind that these organisations do not represent all patients, as a substantial number of patients and parents are not member of such an organisation.Professionals have to provide optimal medical care based on well-established evidence, or at least on broad consensus. Yet not everything can be regulated by recommendations and guidelines. Options, ideas and wishes should be openly discussed between professionals, patients and families within their confidential relationship.

This will enable highly individualised holistic care tailored to the patient’s needs and expectations. Once they are well-informed of all available options, parents and/or patients can choose what they consider the optimal care for their children or themselves.15 16ConclusionThe Dutch-Flemish guideline uniquely addresses some topics that are under-represented in the literature, thus adding some key aspects to those addressed in recent consensus papers and guidelines.15–17 33 47As more children with a DSD are now being identified prenatally, and the literature on prenatal diagnosis of DSD remains scarce,20 21 we propose a prenatal diagnostic algorithm and emphasise the importance of having a prenatal specialist involved in or collaborating with DSD (expert) centres.We also stress that good communication between all involved parties is essential. Professionals should be well informed about protocols and communication. Collaboration between centres is necessary to optimise aspects of care such as uniform interpretation of gonadal pathology and functional testing of class 3 variants found by genetic testing. Guidelines can provide a framework within which individualised patient care should be discussed with all stakeholders.AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank the colleagues of the DSD teams for their input in and critical reading of the Dutch-Flemish guideline.

Amsterdam University Center (AMC and VU), Maastricht University Medical Center, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, University Medical Center Groningen, University Medical Center Utrecht, Ghent University Hospital. The authors would like to thank Kate McIntyre for editing the revised manuscript and Tom de Vries Lentsch for providing the figures as a PDF. Three of the authors of this publication are members of the European Reference Network for rare endocrine diseases—Project ID 739543.IntroductionEndometrial cancer is the most common gynaecological malignancy in the developed world.1 Its incidence has risen over the last two decades as a consequence of the ageing population, fewer hysterectomies for benign disease and the obesity epidemic. In the USA, it is estimated that women have a 1 in 35 lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and in contrast to cancers of most other sites, cancer-specific mortality has risen by approximately 2% every Read More Here year since 2008 related to the rapidly rising incidence.2Endometrial cancer has traditionally been classified into type I and type II based on morphology.3 The more common subtype, type I, is mostly comprised of endometrioid tumours and is oestrogen-driven, arises from a hyperplastic endometrium, presents at an early stage and has an excellent 5 year survival rate.4 By contrast, type II includes non-endometrioid tumours, specifically serous, carcinosarcoma and clear cell subtypes, which are biologically aggressive tumours with a poor prognosis that are often diagnosed at an advanced stage.5 Recent efforts have focused on a molecular classification system for more accurate categorisation of endometrial tumours into four groups with distinct prognostic profiles.6 7The majority of endometrial cancers arise through the interplay of familial, genetic and lifestyle factors. Two inherited cancer predisposition syndromes, Lynch syndrome and the much rarer Cowden syndrome, substantially increase the lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, but these only account for around 3–5% of cases.8–10 Having first or second degree relative(s) with endometrial or colorectal cancer increases endometrial cancer risk, although a large European twin study failed to demonstrate a strong heritable link.11 The authors failed to show that there was greater concordance in monozygotic than dizygotic twins, but the study was based on relatively small numbers of endometrial cancers.

Lu and colleagues reported an association between common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and endometrial cancer risk, revealing the potential role of SNPs in explaining part of the risk in both the familial and general populations.12 Thus far, many SNPs have been reported to modify susceptibility to endometrial cancer. However, much of this work predated genome wide association studies and is of variable quality. Understanding genetic predisposition to endometrial cancer could facilitate personalised risk assessment with a view to targeted prevention and screening interventions.13 This emerged as the most important unanswered research question in endometrial cancer according to patients, carers and healthcare professionals in our recently completed James Lind Womb Cancer Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.14 It would be particularly useful for non-endometrioid endometrial cancers, for which advancing age is so far the only predictor.15We therefore conducted a comprehensive systematic review of the literature to provide an overview of the relationship between SNPs and endometrial cancer risk. We compiled a list of the most robust endometrial cancer-associated SNPs. We assessed the applicability of this panel of SNPs with a theoretical polygenic risk score (PRS) calculation.

We also critically appraised the meta-analyses investigating the most frequently reported SNPs in MDM2. Finally, we described all SNPs reported within genes and pathways that are likely involved in endometrial carcinogenesis and metastasis.MethodsOur systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) collaboration 2009 recommendations. The registered protocol is available through PROSPERO (CRD42018091907).16Search strategyWe searched Embase, MEDLINE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases via the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search (HDAS) platform, from 2007 to 2018, to identify studies reporting associations between polymorphisms and endometrial cancer risk. Key words including MeSH (Medical Subject Heading) terms and free-text words were searched in both titles and abstracts. The following terms were used.

€œendomet*”,“uter*”, “womb”, “cancer(s)”, “neoplasm(s)”, “endometrium tumour”, “carcinoma”, “adenosarcoma”, “clear cell carcinoma”, “carcinosarcoma”, “SNP”, “single nucleotide polymorphism”, “GWAS”, and “genome-wide association study/ies”. No other restrictions were applied. The search was repeated with time restrictions between 2018 and June 2019 to capture any recent publications.Eligibility criteriaStudies were selected for full-text evaluation if they were primary articles investigating a relationship between endometrial cancer and SNPs. Study outcome was either the increased or decreased risk of endometrial cancer relative to controls reported as an odds ratio (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).Study selectionThree independent reviewers screened all articles uploaded to a screening spreadsheet developed by Helena VonVille.17 Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Chronbach’s α score was calculated between reviewers and indicated high consistency at 0.92.

Case–control, prospective and retrospective studies, genome-wide association studies (GWAS), and both discovery and validation studies were selected for full-text evaluation. Non-English articles, editorials, conference abstracts and proceedings, letters and correspondence, case reports and review articles were excluded.Candidate-gene studies with at least 100 women and GWAS with at least 1000 women in the case arm were selected to ensure reliability of the results, as explained by Spencer et al.18 To construct a panel of up to 30 SNPs with the strongest evidence of association, those with the strongest p values were selected. For the purpose of an SNP panel, articles utilising broad European or multi-ethnic cohorts were selected. Where overlapping populations were identified, the most comprehensive study was included.Data extraction and synthesisFor each study, the following data were extracted. SNP ID, nearby gene(s)/chromosome location, OR (95% CI), p value, minor or effect allele frequency (MAF/EAF), EA (effect allele) and OA (other allele), adjustment, ethnicity and ancestry, number of cases and controls, endometrial cancer type, and study type including discovery or validation study and meta-analysis.

For risk estimates, a preference towards most adjusted results was applied. For candidate-gene studies, a standard p value of<0.05 was applied and for GWAS a p value of <5×10-8, indicating genome-wide significance, was accepted as statistically significant. However, due to the limited number of SNPs with p values reaching genome-wide significance, this threshold was then lowered to <1×10-5, allowing for marginally significant SNPs to be included. As shown by Mavaddat et al, for breast cancer, SNPs that fall below genome-wide significance may still be useful for generating a PRS and improving the models.19We estimated the potential value of a PRS based on the most significant SNPs by comparing the predicted risk for a woman with a risk score in the top 1% of the distribution to the mean predicted risk. Per-allele ORs and MAFs were taken from the publications and standard errors (SEs) for the lnORs were derived from published 95% CIs.

The PRS was assumed to have a Normal distribution, with mean 2∑βipI and SE, σ, equal to √2∑βi2pI(1−pi), according to the binomial distribution, where the summation is over all SNPs in the risk score. Hence the relative risk (RR) comparing the top 1% of the distribution to the mean is given by exp(Z0.01σ), where Z is the inverse of the standard normal cumulative distribution.ResultsThe flow chart of study selection is illustrated in figure 1. In total, 453 text articles were evaluated and, of those, 149 articles met our inclusion criteria. One study was excluded from table 1, for having an Asian-only population, as this would make it harder to compare with the rest of the results which were all either multi-ethnic or Caucasian cohorts, as stated in our inclusion criteria for the SNP panel.20 Any SNPs without 95% CIs were also excluded from any downstream analysis. Additionally, SNPs in linkage disequilibrium (r2 >0.2) with each other were examined, and of those in linkage disequilibrium, the SNP with strongest association was reported.

Per allele ORs were used unless stated otherwise.View this table:Table 1 List of top SNPs most likely to contribute to endometrial cancer risk identified through systematic review of recent literature21–25Study selection flow diagram. *Reasons. Irrelevant articles, articles focusing on other conditions, non-GWAS/candidate-gene study related articles, technical and duplicate articles. GWAS, genome-wide association study. Adapted from.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6). E1000097.

Doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097." data-icon-position data-hide-link-title="0">Figure 1 Study selection flow diagram. *Reasons. Irrelevant articles, articles focusing on other conditions, non-GWAS/candidate-gene study related articles, technical and duplicate articles. GWAS, genome-wide association study. Adapted from.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6). E1000097.

Doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.Top SNPs associated with endometrial cancer riskFollowing careful interpretation of the data, 24 independent SNPs with the lowest p values that showed the strongest association with endometrial cancer were obtained (table 1).21–25 These SNPs are located in or around genes coding for transcription factors, cell growth and apoptosis regulators, and enzymes involved in the steroidogenesis pathway. All the SNPs presented here were reported on the basis of a GWAS or in one case, an exome-wide association study, and hence no SNPs from candidate-gene studies made it to the list. This is partly due to the nature of larger GWAS providing more comprehensive and powered results as opposed to candidate gene studies. Additionally, a vast majority of SNPs reported by candidate-gene studies were later refuted by large-scale GWAS such as in the case of TERT and MDM2 variants.26 27 The exception to this is the CYP19 gene, where candidate-gene studies reported an association between variants in this gene with endometrial cancer in both Asian and broad European populations, and this association was more recently confirmed by large-scale GWAS.21 28–30 Moreover, a recent article authored by O’Mara and colleagues reviewed the GWAS that identified most of the currently known SNPs associated with endometrial cancer.31Most of the studies represented in table 1 are GWAS and the majority of these involved broad European populations. Those having a multi-ethnic cohort also consisted primarily of broad European populations.

Only four of the variants in table 1 are located in coding regions of a gene, or in regulatory flanking regions around the gene. Thus, most of these variants would not be expected to cause any functional effects on the gene or the resulting protein. An eQTL search using GTEx Portal showed that some of the SNPs are significantly associated (p<0.05) with modified transcription levels of the respective genes in various tissues such as prostate (rs11263761), thyroid (rs9668337), pituitary (rs2747716), breast mammary (rs882380) and testicular (rs2498794) tissue, as summarised in table 2.View this table:Table 2 List of eQTL hits for the selected panel of SNPsThe only variant for which there was an indication of a specific association with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer was rs148261157 near the BCL11A gene. The A allele of this SNP had a moderately higher association in the non-endometrioid arm (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.04. P=9.6×10-6) compared with the endometrioid arm (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.38.

P=4.7×10-6).21Oestrogen receptors α and β encoded by ESR1 and ESR2, respectively, have been extensively studied due to the assumed role of oestrogens in the development of endometrial cancer. O’Mara et al reported a lead SNP (rs79575945) in the ESR1 region that was associated with endometrial cancer (p=1.86×10-5).24 However, this SNP did not reach genome-wide significance in a more recent larger GWAS.21 No statistically significant associations have been reported between endometrial cancer and SNPs in the ESR2 gene region.AKT is an oncogene linked to endometrial carcinogenesis. It is involved in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pro-proliferative signalling pathway to inactivate apoptosis and allow cell survival. The A allele of rs2494737 and G allele of rs2498796 were reported to be associated with increased and decreased risk of endometrial cancer in 2016, respectively.22 30 However, this association was not replicated in a larger GWAS in 2018.21 Nevertheless, given the previous strong indications, and biological basis that could explain endometrial carcinogenesis, we decided to include an AKT1 variant (rs2498794) in our results.PTEN is a multi-functional tumour suppressor gene that regulates the AKT/PKB signalling pathway and is commonly mutated in many cancers including endometrial cancer.32 Loss-of-function germline mutations in PTEN are responsible for Cowden syndrome, which exerts a lifetime risk of endometrial cancer of up to 28%.9 Lacey and colleagues studied SNPs in the PTEN gene region. However, none showed significant differences in frequency between 447 endometrial cancer cases and 439 controls of European ancestry.33KRAS mutations are known to be present in endometrial cancer.

These can be activated by high levels of KLF5 (transcriptional activator). Three SNPs have been identified in or around KLF5 that are associated with endometrial cancer. The G allele of rs11841589 (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.21. P=4.83×10-11), the A allele of rs9600103 (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.30. P=3.76×10-12) and C allele of rs7981863 (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.20.

P=2.70×10-17) have all been found to be associated with an increased likelihood of endometrial cancer in large European cohorts.21 30 34 It is worth noting that these SNPs are not independent, and hence they quite possibly tag the same causal variant.The MYC family of proto-oncogenes encode transcription factors that regulate cell proliferation, which can contribute to cancer development if dysregulated. The recent GWAS by O’Mara et al reported three SNPs within the MYC region that reached genome-wide significance with conditional p values reaching at least 5×10–8.35To test the utility of these SNPs as predictive markers, we devised a theoretical PRS calculation using the log ORs and EAFs per SNP from the published data. The results were very encouraging with an RR of 3.16 for the top 1% versus the mean, using all the top SNPs presented in table 1 and 2.09 when using only the SNPs that reached genome-wide significance (including AKT1).Controversy surrounding MDM2 variant SNP309MDM2 negatively regulates tumour suppressor gene TP53, and as such, has been extensively studied in relation to its potential role in predisposition to endometrial cancer. Our search identified six original studies of the association between MDM2 SNP rs2279744 (also referred to as SNP309) and endometrial cancer, all of which found a statistically significant increased risk per copy of the G allele. Two more original studies were identified through our full-text evaluation.

However, these were not included here as they did not meet our inclusion criteria—one due to small sample size, the other due to studying rs2279744 status dependent on another SNP.36 37 Even so, the two studies were described in multiple meta-analyses that are listed in table 3. Different permutations of these eight original studies appear in at least eight published meta-analyses. However, even the largest meta-analysis contained <2000 cases (table 3)38View this table:Table 3 Characteristics of studies that examined MDM2 SNP rs2279744In comparison, a GWAS including nearly 13 000 cases found no evidence of an association with OR and corresponding 95% CI of 1.00 (0.97 to 1.03) and a p value of 0.93 (personal communication).21 Nevertheless, we cannot completely rule out a role for MDM2 variants in endometrial cancer predisposition as the candidate-gene studies reported larger effects in Asians, whereas the GWAS primarily contained participants of European ancestry. There is also some suggestion that the SNP309 variant is in linkage disequilibrium with another variant, SNP285, which confers an opposite effect.It is worth noting that the SNP285C/SNP309G haplotype frequency was observed in up to 8% of Europeans, thus requiring correction for the confounding effect of SNP285C in European studies.39 However, aside from one study conducted by Knappskog et al, no other study including the meta-analyses corrected for the confounding effect of SNP285.40 Among the studies presented in table 3, Knappskog et al (2012) reported that after correcting for SNP285, the OR for association of this haplotype with endometrial cancer was much lower, though still significant. Unfortunately, the meta-analyses which synthesised Knappskog et al (2012), as part of their analysis, did not correct for SNP285C in the European-based studies they included.38 41 42 It is also concerning that two meta-analyses using the same primary articles failed to report the same result, in two instances.38 42–44DiscussionThis article represents the most comprehensive systematic review to date, regarding critical appraisal of the available evidence of common low-penetrance variants implicated in predisposition to endometrial cancer.

We have identified the most robust SNPs in the context of endometrial cancer risk. Of those, only 19 were significant at genome-wide level and a further five were considered marginally significant. The largest GWAS conducted in this field was the discovery- and meta-GWAS by O’Mara et al, which utilised 12 096 cases and 108 979 controls.21 Despite the inclusion of all published GWAS and around 5000 newly genotyped cases, the total number did not reach anywhere near what is currently available for other common cancers such as breast cancer. For instance, BCAC (Breast Cancer Association Consortium) stands at well over 200 000 individuals with more than half being cases, and resulted in identification of ~170 SNPs in relation to breast cancer.19 45 A total of 313 SNPs including imputations were then used to derive a PRS for breast cancer.19 Therefore, further efforts should be directed to recruit more patients, with deep phenotypic clinical data to allow for relevant adjustments and subgroup analyses to be conducted for better precision.A recent pre-print study by Zhang and colleagues examined the polygenicity and potential for SNP-based risk prediction for 14 common cancers, including endometrial cancer, using available summary-level data from European-ancestry datasets.46 They estimated that there are just over 1000 independent endometrial cancer susceptibility SNPs, and that a PRS comprising all such SNPs would have an area under the receiver-operator curve of 0.64, similar to that predicted for ovarian cancer, but lower than that for the other cancers in the study. The modelling in the paper suggests that an endometrial cancer GWAS double the size of the current largest study would be able to identify susceptibility SNPs together explaining 40% of the genetic variance, but that in order to explain 75% of the genetic variance it would be necessary to have a GWAS comprising close to 150 000 cases and controls, far in excess of what is currently feasible.We found that the literature consists mainly of candidate-gene studies with small sample sizes, meta-analyses reporting conflicting results despite using the same set of primary articles, and multiple reports of significant SNPs that have not been validated by any larger GWAS.

The candidate-gene studies were indeed the most useful and cheaper technique available until the mid to late 2000s. However, a lack of reproducibility (particularly due to population stratification and reporting bias), uncertainty of reported associations, and considerably high false discovery rates make these studies much less appropriate in the post-GWAS era. Unlike the candidate-gene approach, GWAS do not require prior knowledge, selection of genes or SNPs, and provide vast amounts of data. Furthermore, both the genotyping process and data analysis phases have become cheaper, the latter particularly due to faster and open-access pre-phasing and imputation tools being made available.It is clear from table 1 that some SNPs were reported with wide 95% CI, which can be directly attributed to small sample sizes particularly when restricting the cases to non-endometrioid histology only, low EAF or poor imputation quality. Thus, these should be interpreted with caution.

Additionally, most of the SNPs reported by candidate-gene studies were not detected by the largest GWAS to date conducted by O’Mara et al.21 However, this does not necessarily mean that the possibility of those SNPs being relevant should be completely dismissed. Moreover, meta-analyses were attempted for other variants. However, these showed no statistically significant association and many presented with high heterogeneity between the respective studies (data not shown). Furthermore, as many studies utilised the same set of cases and/or controls, conducting a meta-analysis was not possible for a good number of SNPs. It is therefore unequivocal that the literature is crowded with numerous small candidate-gene studies and conflicting data.

This makes it particularly hard to detect novel SNPs and conduct meaningful meta-analyses.We found convincing evidence for 19 variants that indicated the strongest association with endometrial cancer, as shown in table 1. The associations between endometrial cancer and variants in or around HNF1B, CYP19A1, SOX4, MYC, KLF and EIF2AK found in earlier GWAS were then replicated in the latest and largest GWAS. These SNPs showed promising potential in a theoretical PRS we devised based on published data. Using all 24 or genome-wide significant SNPs only, women with a PRS in the top 1% of the distribution would be predicted to have a risk of endometrial cancer 3.16 and 2.09 times higher than the mean risk, respectively.However, the importance of these variants and relevance of the proximate genes in a functional or biological context is challenging to evaluate. Long distance promoter regulation by enhancers may disguise the genuine target gene.

In addition, enhancers often do not loop to the nearest gene, further complicating the relevance of nearby gene(s) to a GWAS hit. In order to elucidate biologically relevant candidate target genes in endometrial cancer, O’Mara et al looked into promoter-associated chromatin looping using a modern HiChIP approach.47 The authors utilised normal and tumoural endometrial cell lines for this analysis which showed significant enrichment for endometrial cancer heritability, with 103 candidate target genes identified across the 13 risk loci identified by the largest ECAC GWAS. Notable genes identified here were CDKN2A and WT1, and their antisense counterparts. The former was reported to be nearby of rs1679014 and the latter of rs10835920, as shown in table 1. Moreover, of the 36 candidate target genes, 17 were found to be downregulated while 19 were upregulated in endometrial tumours.The authors also investigated overlap between the 13 endometrial cancer risk loci and top eQTL variants for each target gene.47 In whole blood, of the two particular lead SNPs, rs8822380 at 17q21.32 was a top eQTL for SNX11 and HOXB2, whereas rs937213 at 15q15.1 was a top eQTL for SRP14.

In endometrial tumour, rs7579014 at 2p16.1 was found to be a top eQTL for BCL11A. This is particularly interesting because BCL11A was the only nearby/candidate gene that had a GWAS association reported in both endometrioid and non-endometrioid subtypes. The study looked at protein–protein interactions between endometrial cancer drivers and candidate target gene products. Significant interactions were observed with TP53 (most significant), AKT, PTEN, ESR1 and KRAS, among others. Finally, when 103 target candidate genes and 387 proteins were combined together, 462 pathways were found to be significantly enriched.

Many of these are related to gene regulation, cancer, obesity, insulinaemia and oestrogen exposure. This study clearly showed a potential biological relevance for some of the SNPs reported by ECAC GWAS in 2018.Most of the larger included studies used cohorts primarily composed of women of broad European descent. Hence, there are negligible data available for other ethnicities, particularly African women. This is compounded by the lack of reference genotype data available for comparative analysis, making it harder for research to be conducted in ethnicities other than Europeans. This poses a problem for developing risk prediction models that are equally valuable and predictive across populations.

Thus, our results also are of limited applicability to non-European populations.Furthermore, considering that non-endometrioid cases comprise a small proportion (~20%) of all endometrial cancer cases, much larger cohort sizes are needed to detect any genuine signals for non-endometrioid tumours. Most of the evaluated studies looked at either overall/mixed endometrial cancer subtypes or endometrioid histology, and those that looked at variant associations with non-endometrioid histology were unlikely to have enough power to detect any signal with statistical significance. This is particularly concerning because non-endometrioid subtypes are biologically aggressive tumours with a much poorer prognosis that contribute disproportionately to mortality from endometrial cancer. It is particularly important that attempts to improve early detection and prevention of endometrial cancer focus primarily on improving outcomes from these subtypes. It is also worth noting that, despite the current shift towards a molecular classification of endometrial cancer, most studies used the overarching classical Bokhman’s classification system, type I versus type II, or no histological classification system at all.

Therefore, it is important to create and follow a standardised and comprehensive classification system for reporting tumour subtypes for future studies.This study compiled and presented available information for an extensively studied, yet unproven in large datasets, SNP309 variant in MDM2. Currently, there is no convincing evidence for an association between this variant and endometrial cancer risk. Additionally, of all the studies, only one accounted for the opposing effect of a nearby variant SNP285 in their analyses. Thus, we conclude that until confirmed by a sufficiently large GWAS, this variant should not be considered significant in influencing the risk of endometrial cancer and therefore not included in a PRS. This is also true for the majority of the SNPs reported in candidate-gene studies, as the numbers fall far short of being able to detect genuine signals.This systematic review presents the most up-to-date evidence for endometrial cancer susceptibility variants, emphasising the need for further large-scale studies to identify more variants of importance, and validation of these associations.

Until data from larger and more diverse cohorts are available, the top 24 SNPs presented here are the most robust common genetic variants that affect endometrial cancer risk. The multiplicative effects of these SNPs could be used in a PRS to allow personalised risk prediction models to be developed for targeted screening and prevention interventions for women at greatest risk of endometrial cancer..

IntroductionIn recent years, many studies have been published on new diagnostic possibilities and management approaches in cohorts of patients suspected to have a disorder/difference of sex development (DSD).1–13 Based on these studies, it has become clear that services and institutions still differ in the composition of the buy cialis bitcoin multidisciplinary teams that provide care for patients who have a DSD.11 14 Several http://sw.keimfarben.de/get-cialis-prescription-online/ projects have now worked to resolve this variability in care. The European Cooperation in Science and Technology (EU COST) action BM1303 ‘A systematic elucidation of differences of sex development’ has been a platform to achieve European agreement on harmonisation of clinical management and laboratory practices.15–17 Another such initiative involved an update of the 2006 DSD consensus document by buy cialis bitcoin an international group of professionals and patient representatives.18 These initiatives have highlighted how cultural and financial aspects and the availability of resources differ significantly between countries and societies, a situation that hampers supranational agreement on common diagnostic protocols. As only a few national guidelines have been published in international journals, comparison of these guidelines is difficult even though such a comparison is necessary to capture the differences and initiate actions to overcome them. Nonetheless, four buy cialis bitcoin DSD (expert) centres located in the Netherlands and Flanders (the Dutch-speaking Northern part of Belgium) have collaborated to produce a detailed guideline on diagnostics in DSD.19 This shows that a supranational guideline can be a reasonable approach for countries with similarly structured healthcare systems and similar resources.

Within the guideline there is agreement that optimisation of expertise and care can be achieved through centralisation, for example, by limiting analysis of next-generation sequencing (NGS)-based diagnostic panels to only a few centres and by centralising pathological review of gonadal tissues. International networks such as the European Reference Network for rare endocrine conditions (EndoERN), in which DSD is embedded, may facilitate the expansion of this kind of collaboration across Europe.This paper highlights key discussion points in the Dutch-Flemish guideline that have been insufficiently addressed in the literature thus far because they reflect evolving buy cialis bitcoin technologies or less visible stakeholders. For example, prenatal observation of an atypical aspect of the genitalia indicating a possible DSD is becoming increasingly common, and we discuss appropriate counselling and a diagnostic approach for these cases, including the option of using NGS-based genetic testing. So far, little attention has been paid to this process.20 21 Furthermore, informing patients and/or their parents about atypical sex development and why this may warrant referral to a specialised buy cialis bitcoin team may be challenging, especially for professionals with limited experience in DSD.22 23 Therefore, a section of the Dutch-Flemish guideline was written for these healthcare providers.

Moreover, this enables DSD specialists to refer to the guideline when advising a referral. Transition from the prenatal to the postnatal team and from the paediatric to the adult buy cialis bitcoin team requires optimal communication between the specialists involved. Application of NGS-based techniques may lead to a higher diagnostic yield, providing a molecular genetic diagnosis in previously unsolved cases.16 We address the timing of this testing and the problems associated with this technique such as the interpretation of variants of unknown clinical significance (VUS). Similarly, histopathological interpretation buy cialis bitcoin and classification of removed gonadal tissue is challenging and would benefit from international collaboration and centralisation of expertise.MethodsFor the guideline revision, an interdisciplinary multicentre group was formed with all members responsible for updating the literature for a specific part of the guideline.

Literature search in PubMed was not systematic, but rather intended to be broad in order to cover all areas and follow expert opinions. This approach is more in line with the Clinical Practice Advisory Document method described by Burke et al24 for guidelines involving genetic practice because it is often troublesome buy cialis bitcoin to substantiate such guidelines with sufficient evidence due to the rapid changes in testing methods, for example, gene panels. All input provided by the group was synthesised by the chairperson (YvB), who also reviewed abstracts of papers on DSD published between 2010 and September 2017 for the guideline and up to October 2019 for this paper. Abstracts had to be written in English and were identified using a broad range of Medical Subject Headings terms (eg, DSD, genetic, review, diagnosis, diagnostics, 46,XX DSD, 46,XY DSD, buy cialis bitcoin guideline, multidisciplinary care).

Next, potentially relevant papers on diagnostic procedures in DSD were selected. Case reports were excluded, as were articles buy cialis bitcoin that were not open access or retrievable through institutional access. Based on this, a draft guideline was produced that was in line with the international principles of good diagnostic care in DSD. This draft was discussed by buy cialis bitcoin the writing committee and, after having obtained agreement on remaining points of discussion, revised into a final draft.

This version was sent to a broad group of professionals from academic centres and DSD teams whose members had volunteered to review the draft guideline. After receiving and incorporating their input, the final version was presented to the buy cialis bitcoin paediatric and genetic associations for approval. After approval by the members of the paediatric (NVK), clinical genetic (VKGN) and genetic laboratory (VKGL) associations, the guideline was published on their respective websites.19 Although Turner syndrome and Klinefelter syndrome are considered to be part of the DSD spectrum, they are not extensively discussed in this diagnostic guideline as guidelines dedicated to these syndromes already exist.25 26 However, some individuals with Turner syndrome or Klinefelter syndrome may present with ambiguous or atypical genitalia and may therefore initially follow the DSD diagnostic process.Guideline highlightsPrenatal settingPresentationThe most frequent prenatal presentation of a DSD condition is atypical genitalia found on prenatal ultrasound as an isolated finding or in combination with other structural anomalies. This usually occurs after the 20-week routine medical ultrasound for screening of congenital anomalies, but may also occur earlier, for example, when a commercial ultrasound is performed at the request of the parents.Another way DSD can be diagnosed before birth is when invasive prenatal genetic testing carried out for a different reason, for example, due to suspicion of other structural anomalies, reveals a discrepancy buy cialis bitcoin between the genotypic sex and the phenotypic sex seen by ultrasound.

In certified laboratories, the possibility of a sample switch is extremely low but should be ruled out immediately. More often, the discrepancy will be due to sex-chromosome mosaicism or a true form of DSD.A situation now occurring with increasing frequency is a discrepancy between the genotypic sex revealed by non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), which is now buy cialis bitcoin available to high-risk pregnant women in the Netherlands and to all pregnant women in Belgium, and later ultrasound findings. NIPT screens for CNVs in the fetus. However, depending on legal restrictions buy cialis bitcoin and/or ethical considerations, the X and Y chromosomes are not always included in NIPT analysis and reports.

If the X and Y chromosomes are included, it is important to realise that the presence of a Y-chromosome does not necessarily imply male fetal development. At the time that NIPT is performed (usually 11–13 weeks), genital development cannot be reliably appreciated by ultrasound, so any discrepancy or atypical aspect of the genitalia will only be buy cialis bitcoin noticed later in pregnancy and should prompt further evaluation.Counselling and diagnosticsIf a DSD is suspected, first-line sonographers and obstetricians should refer the couple to their colleague prenatal specialists working with or in a DSD team. After confirming an atypical genital on ultrasound, the specialist team should offer the couple a referral for genetic counselling to discuss the possibility of performing invasive prenatal testing (usually an amniocentesis) to identify an underlying cause that fits the ultrasound findings.22 23 To enable the parents to make a well-informed decision, prenatal counselling should, in our opinion, include. Information on buy cialis bitcoin the ultrasound findings and the limitations of this technique.

The procedure(s) that can be followed, including the risks associated with an amniocentesis. And the type of information genetic testing can and cannot buy cialis bitcoin provide. Knowing which information has been provided and what words have been used by the prenatal specialist is very helpful for those involved in postnatal care.It is important that parents understand that the biological sex of a baby is determined by a complex interplay of chromosomes, genes and hormones, and thus that assessment of the presence or absence of a Y-chromosome alone is insufficient to assign the sex of their unborn child or, as in any unborn child, say anything about the child’s future gender identity.Expecting parents can be counselled by the clinical geneticist and the psychologist from the DSD team, although other DSD specialists can also be involved. The clinical geneticist should be experienced in prenatal counselling and well informed about the buy cialis bitcoin diagnostic possibilities given the limited time span in which test results need to be available to allow parents to make a well-informed decision about whether or not to continue the pregnancy.

Termination of pregnancy buy cialis bitcoin can be considered, for instance, in a syndromic form of DSD with multiple malformations, but when the DSD occurs as an apparently isolated condition, expecting parents may also consider termination of pregnancy, which, although considered controversial by some, is legal in Belgium and the Netherlands. The psychologist of the DSD team can support parents during and after pregnancy and help them cope with feelings of uncertainty and eventual considerations of a termination of pregnancy, as well as with practical issues, for example, how to inform others. The stress of not knowing exactly what the child’s genitalia will look like buy cialis bitcoin and uncertainty about the diagnosis, treatment and prognosis cannot be avoided completely. Parents are informed that if the postnatal phenotype is different from what was prenatally expected, the advice given about diagnostic testing can be adjusted accordingly, for example, if a hypospadias is milder than was expected based on prenatal ultrasound images.

In our experience, parents appreciate having already spoken to some members of the DSD buy cialis bitcoin team during pregnancy and having a contact person before birth.After expert prenatal counselling, a significant number of pregnant couples decline prenatal testing (personal experience IALG, MK, ABD, YvB, MC and HC-vdG). At birth, umbilical cord blood is a good source for (molecular) karyotyping and storage of DNA and can be obtained by the obstetrician, midwife or neonatologist. The terminology used buy cialis bitcoin in communication with parents should be carefully chosen,22 23 and midwives and staff of neonatal and delivery units should be clearly instructed to use gender-neutral and non-stigmatising vocabulary (eg, ‘your baby’) as long as sex assignment is pending.An algorithm for diagnostic evaluation of a suspected DSD in the prenatal situation is proposed in figure 1. When couples opt for invasive prenatal diagnosis, the genetic analysis usually involves an (SNP)-array.

It was recently estimated that >30% of individuals who have a DSD have additional structural anomalies, with cardiac and neurological anomalies and fetal growth restriction being particularly common.27 28 If additional anomalies are seen, the buy cialis bitcoin geneticist can consider specific gene defects that may underlie a known genetic syndrome or carry out NGS. NGS-based techniques have also now made their appearance in prenatal diagnosis of congenital anomalies.29 30 Panels using these techniques can be specific for genes involved in DSD, or be larger panels covering multiple congenital anomalies, and are usually employed with trio-analysis to compare variants identified in the child with the parents’ genetics.29–31 Finding a genetic cause before delivery can help reduce parental stress in the neonatal period and speed up decisions regarding gender assignment. In such cases there is no tight time limit, buy cialis bitcoin and we propose completing the analysis well before the expected delivery.Disorders/differences of sex development (DSD) in the prenatal setting. A diagnostic algorithm.

*SOX9. Upstream anomalies and balanced translocations at promotor sites!. Conventional karyotyping can be useful. NGS, next-generation sequencing." data-icon-position data-hide-link-title="0">Figure 1 Disorders/differences of sex development (DSD) in the prenatal setting.

A diagnostic algorithm. *SOX9. Upstream anomalies and balanced translocations at promotor sites!. Conventional karyotyping can be useful.

NGS, next-generation sequencing.First contact by a professional less experienced in DSDWhereas most current guidelines start from the point when an individual has been referred to the DSD team,1 15 the Dutch-Flemish guideline dedicates a chapter to healthcare professionals less experienced in DSD as they are often the first to suspect or identify such a condition. Apart from the paper of Indyk,7 little guidance is available for these professionals about how to act in such a situation. The chapter in the Dutch-Flemish guideline summarises the various clinical presentations that a DSD can have and provides information on how to communicate with parents and/or patients about the findings of the physical examination, the first-line investigations and the need for prompt referral to a specialised centre for further evaluation. Clinical examples are offered to illustrate some of these recurring situations.

The medical issues in DSD can be very challenging, and the social and psychological impact is high. For neonates with ambiguous genitalia, sex assignment is an urgent and crucial issue, and it is mandatory that parents are informed that it is possible to postpone registration of their child’s sex. In cases where sex assignment has already taken place, the message that the development of the gonads or genitalia is still atypical is complicated and distressing for patients and parents or carers. A list of contact details for DSD centres and patient organisations in the Netherlands and Flanders is attached to the Dutch-Flemish guideline.

Publishing such a list, either in guidelines or online, can help healthcare professionals find the nearest centres for consultations and provide patients and patient organisations with an overview of the centres where expertise is available.Timing and place of genetic testing using NGS-based gene panelsThe diagnostic workup that is proposed for 46,XX and 46,XY DSD is shown in figures 2 and 3, respectively. Even with the rapidly expanding molecular possibilities, a (family) history and a physical examination remain the essential first steps in the diagnostic process. Biochemical and hormonal screening aim at investigating serum electrolytes, renal function and the hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal and hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axes. Ultrasound screening of kidneys and internal genitalia, as well as establishing genotypic sex, should be accomplished within 48 hours and complete the baseline diagnostic work-up of a child born with ambiguous genitalia.1 16 32 3346,XX disorders/differences of sex development (DSD) in the postnatal setting.

A diagnostic algorithm. NGS, next-generation sequencing. CAH, Congenital adrenal hyperplasia. AMH, Anti-Müllerian Hormone." data-icon-position data-hide-link-title="0">Figure 2 46,XX disorders/differences of sex development (DSD) in the postnatal setting.

A diagnostic algorithm. NGS, next-generation sequencing. CAH, Congenital adrenal hyperplasia. AMH, Anti-Müllerian Hormone.46,XY disorders/differences of sex development (DSD) in the postnatal setting.

A diagnostic algorithm. * SOX9. Upstream anomalies and balanced translocations at promotor sites!. Conventional karyotyping can be useful.

NGS, next-generation sequencing." data-icon-position data-hide-link-title="0">Figure 3 46,XY disorders/differences of sex development (DSD) in the postnatal setting. A diagnostic algorithm. *SOX9. Upstream anomalies and balanced translocations at promotor sites!.

Conventional karyotyping can be useful. NGS, next-generation sequencing.Very recently, a European position paper has been published focusing on the genetic workup of DSD.16 It highlights the limitations and drawbacks of NGS-based tests, which include the chance of missing subtle structural variants such as CNVs and mosaicism and the fact that NGS cannot detect methylation defects or other epigenetic changes.16 28 31 Targeted DNA analysis is preferred in cases where hormonal investigations suggest a block in steroidogenesis (eg, 11-β-hydroxylase deficiency, 21-hydroxylase deficiency), or in the context of a specific clinical constellation such as the often coincidental finding of Müllerian structures in a boy with normal external genitalia or cryptorchidism, that is, persistent Müllerian duct syndrome.33 34 Alternative tests should also be considered depending on the available information. Sometimes, a simple mouth swab for FISH analysis can detect mosaic XY/X in a male with hypospadias or asymmetric gonadal development or in a female with little or no Turner syndrome stigmata and a normal male molecular karyotyping profile or peripheral blood karyotype. Such targeted testing avoids incidental findings and is cheaper and faster than analysis of a large NGS-based panel, although the cost difference is rapidly declining.However, due to the genetic and phenotypic heterogeneity of DSD conditions, the most cost-effective next steps in the majority of cases are whole exome sequencing followed by panel analysis of genes involved in genital development and function or trio-analysis of a large gene panel (such as a Mendeliome).16 35–38 Pretest genetic counselling involves discussing what kind of information will be reported to patients or parents and the chance of detecting VUS, and the small risk of incidental findings when analysing a DSD panel should be mentioned.

Laboratories also differ in what class of variants they report.39 In our experience, the fear of incidental findings is a major reason why some parents refrain from genetic testing.Timing of the DSD gene panel analysis is also important. While some patients or parents prefer that all diagnostic procedures be performed as soon as possible, others need time to reflect on the complex information related to more extensive genetic testing and on its possible consequences. If parents or patients do not consent to panel-based genetic testing, analysis of specific genes, such as WT1, should be considered when appropriate in view of the clinical consequences if a mutation is present (eg, clinical surveillance of renal function and screening for Wilms’ tumour in the case of WT1 mutations). Genes that are more frequently involved in DSD (eg, SRY, NR5A1) and that match the specific clinical and hormonal features in a given patient could also be considered for sequencing.

Targeted gene analysis may also be preferred in centres located in countries that do not have the resources or technical requirements to perform NGS panel-based genetic testing. Alternatively, participation by these centres in international collaborative networks may allow them to outsource the molecular genetic workup abroad.Gene panels differ between centres and are regularly updated based on scientific progress. A comparison of DSD gene panels used in recent studies can be found at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-018-0010-8%23Sec46.15 The panels currently used at the coauthors’ institutions can be found on their respective websites. Given the pace of change, it is important to regularly consider repeating analysis in patients with an unexplained DSD, for example, when they transition into adult care or when they move from one centre to another.

This also applies to patients in whom a clinical diagnosis has never been genetically confirmed. Confusion may arise when the diagnosis cannot be confirmed or when a mutation is identified in a different gene, for example, NR5A1 in someone with a clinical diagnosis of CAIS that has other consequences for relatives. Hence, new genetic counselling should always accompany new diagnostic endeavours.Class 3 variants and histopathological examinationsThe rapidly evolving diagnostic possibilities raise new questions. What do laboratories report?.

How should we deal with the frequent findings of mainly unique VUS or class 3 variants (ACMG recommendation) in the many different DSD-related genes in the diagnostic setting?. Reporting VUS can be a source of uncertainty for parents, but not reporting these variants precludes further investigations to determine their possible pathogenicity. It can also be difficult to prove variant pathogenicity, both on gene-level and variant-level.39 Moreover, given the gonad-specific expression of some genes and the variable phenotypic spectrum and reduced penetrance, segregation analysis is not always informative. A class 3 variant that does not fit the clinical presentation may be unrelated to the observed phenotype, but it could also represent a newly emerging phenotype.

This was recently demonstrated by the identification of the NR5A1 mutation, R92W, in individuals with 46,XX testicular and ovotesticular DSD.40 This gene had previously been associated with 46,XY DSD. In diagnostic laboratories, there is usually no capacity or expertise to conduct large-scale functional studies to determine pathogenicity of these unique class 3 VUS in the different genes involved in DSD. Functional validation of variants identified in novel genes may be more attractive in a research context. However, for individual families with VUS in well-established DSD genes such as AR or HSD17B3, functional analysis may provide a confirmed diagnosis that implies for relatives the option of undergoing their own DNA analysis and estimating the genetic risk of their own future offspring.

This makes genetic follow-up important in these cases and demonstrates the usefulness of international databases and networks and the centralisation of functional studies of genetic variants in order to reduce costs and maximise expertise.The same is true for histopathological description, germ-cell tumour risk assessment in specific forms of DSD and classification of gonadal samples. Germ-cell tumour risk is related to the type of DSD (among other factors), but it is impossible to make risk estimates in individual cases.41–44 Gonadectomy may be indicated in cases with high-risk dysgenetic abdominal gonads that cannot be brought into a stable superficial (ie, inguinal, labioscrotal) position that allows clinical or radiological surveillance, or to avoid virilisation due to 5-alpha reductase deficiency in a 46,XY girl with a stable female gender identity.45 Pathological examination of DSD gonads requires specific expertise. For example, the differentiation between benign germ cell abnormalities, such as delayed maturation and (pre)malignant development of germ cells, is crucial for clinical management but can be very troublesome.46 Centralised pathological examination of gonadal biopsy and gonadectomy samples in one centre, or a restricted number of centres, on a national scale can help to overcome the problem of non-uniform classification and has proven feasible in the Netherlands and Belgium. We therefore believe that uniform assessment and classification of gonadal differentiation patterns should also be addressed in guidelines on DSD management.International databases of gonadal tissues are crucial for learning more about the risk of malignancy in different forms of DSD, but they are only reliable if uniform criteria for histological classification are strictly applied.46 These criteria could be incorporated in many existing networks such as the I-DSD consortium, the Disorders of Sex Development Translational Research Network, the European Reference Network on Urogenital Diseases (eUROGEN), the EndoERN and COST actions.15–17 47Communication at the transition from paediatric to adult carePaediatric and adult teams need to collaborate closely to facilitate a well-organised transition from paediatric to adult specialist care.15 48–50 Both teams need to exchange information optimally and should consider transition as a longitudinal process rather than a fixed moment in time.

Age-appropriate information is key at all ages, and an overview of topics to be discussed at each stage is described by Cools et al.15 Table 1 shows an example of how transition can be organised.View this table:Table 1 Example of transition table as used in the DSD clinic of the Erasmus Medical CenterPsychological support and the continued provision of information remains important for individuals with a DSD at all ages.15 22 In addition to the information given by the DSD team members, families and patients can benefit from resources such as support groups and information available on the internet.47 Information available online should be checked for accuracy and completeness when referring patients and parents to internet sites.Recommendations for future actionsMost guidelines and articles on the diagnosis and management of DSD are aimed at specialists and are only published in specialist journals or on websites for endocrinologists, urologists or geneticists. Yet there is a need for guidelines directed towards first-line and second-line healthcare workers that summarise the recommendations about the first crucial steps in the management of DSD. These should be published in widely available general medical journals and online, along with a national list of DSD centres. Furthermore, DSD (expert) centres should provide continuous education to all those who may be involved in the identification of individuals with a DSD in order to enable these healthcare professionals to recognise atypical genitalia, to promptly refer individuals who have a DSD and to inform the patient and parents about this and subsequent diagnostic procedures.As DSD continues to be a rare condition, it will take time to evaluate the effects of having such a guideline on the preparedness of first-line and second-line healthcare workers to recognise DSD conditions.

One way to evaluate this might be the development and use of questionnaires asking patients, carers and families and referring physicians how satisfied they were with the initial medical consultation and referral and what could be improved. A helpful addition to existing international databases that collect information on genetic variations would be a list of centres that offer suitable functional studies for certain genes, ideally covering the most frequently mutated genes (at minimum).Patient organisations can also play an important role in informing patients about newly available diagnostic or therapeutic strategies and options, and their influence and specific role has now been recognised and discussed in several publications.17 47 However, it should be kept in mind that these organisations do not represent all patients, as a substantial number of patients and parents are not member of such an organisation.Professionals have to provide optimal medical care based on well-established evidence, or at least on broad consensus. Yet not everything can be regulated by recommendations and guidelines. Options, ideas and wishes should be openly discussed between professionals, patients and families within their confidential relationship.

This will enable highly individualised holistic care tailored to the patient’s needs and expectations. Once they are well-informed of all available options, parents and/or patients can choose what they consider the optimal care for their children or themselves.15 16ConclusionThe Dutch-Flemish guideline uniquely addresses some topics that are under-represented in the literature, thus adding some key aspects to those addressed in recent consensus papers and guidelines.15–17 33 47As more children with a DSD are now being identified prenatally, and the literature on prenatal diagnosis of DSD remains scarce,20 21 we propose a prenatal diagnostic algorithm and emphasise the importance of having a prenatal specialist involved in or collaborating with DSD (expert) centres.We also stress that good communication between all involved parties is essential. Professionals should be well informed about protocols and communication. Collaboration between centres is necessary to optimise aspects of care such as uniform interpretation of gonadal pathology and functional testing of class 3 variants found by genetic testing.

Guidelines can provide a framework within which individualised patient care should be discussed with all stakeholders.AcknowledgmentsThe authors would like to thank the colleagues of the DSD teams for their input in and critical reading of the Dutch-Flemish guideline. Amsterdam University Center (AMC and VU), Maastricht University Medical Center, Erasmus Medical Center Rotterdam, Radboud University Medical Center Nijmegen, University Medical Center Groningen, University Medical Center Utrecht, Ghent University Hospital. The authors would like to thank Kate McIntyre for editing the revised manuscript and Tom de Vries Lentsch for providing the figures as a PDF. Three of the authors of this publication are members of the European Reference Network for rare endocrine diseases—Project ID 739543.IntroductionEndometrial cancer is the most common gynaecological malignancy in the developed world.1 Its incidence has risen over the last two decades as a consequence of the ageing population, fewer hysterectomies for benign disease and the obesity epidemic.

In the USA, it is estimated that women have a 1 in 35 lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, and in contrast to cancers of most other sites, cancer-specific mortality has risen by approximately 2% every year since 2008 related to the rapidly rising incidence.2Endometrial cancer has traditionally been classified into type I and type II based on morphology.3 The more common subtype, type I, is mostly comprised of endometrioid tumours and is oestrogen-driven, arises from a hyperplastic endometrium, presents at an early stage and has an excellent 5 year survival rate.4 By contrast, type II includes non-endometrioid tumours, specifically serous, carcinosarcoma and clear cell subtypes, which are biologically aggressive tumours with a poor prognosis that are often diagnosed at an advanced stage.5 Recent efforts have focused on http://sw.keimfarben.de/buy-cialis-in-montreal/ a molecular classification system for more accurate categorisation of endometrial tumours into four groups with distinct prognostic profiles.6 7The majority of endometrial cancers arise through the interplay of familial, genetic and lifestyle factors. Two inherited cancer predisposition syndromes, Lynch syndrome and the much rarer Cowden syndrome, substantially increase the lifetime risk of endometrial cancer, but these only account for around 3–5% of cases.8–10 Having first or second degree relative(s) with endometrial or colorectal cancer increases endometrial cancer risk, although a large European twin study failed to demonstrate a strong heritable link.11 The authors failed to show that there was greater concordance in monozygotic than dizygotic twins, but the study was based on relatively small numbers of endometrial cancers. Lu and colleagues reported an association between common single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and endometrial cancer risk, revealing the potential role of SNPs in explaining part of the risk in both the familial and general populations.12 Thus far, many SNPs have been reported to modify susceptibility to endometrial cancer. However, much of this work predated genome wide association studies and is of variable quality.

Understanding genetic predisposition to endometrial cancer could facilitate personalised risk assessment with a view to targeted prevention and screening interventions.13 This emerged as the most important unanswered research question in endometrial cancer according to patients, carers and healthcare professionals in our recently completed James Lind Womb Cancer Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.14 It would be particularly useful for non-endometrioid endometrial cancers, for which advancing age is so far the only predictor.15We therefore conducted a comprehensive systematic review of the literature to provide an overview of the relationship between SNPs and endometrial cancer risk. We compiled a list of the most robust endometrial cancer-associated SNPs. We assessed the applicability of this panel of SNPs with a theoretical polygenic risk score (PRS) calculation. We also critically appraised the meta-analyses investigating the most frequently reported SNPs in MDM2.

Finally, we described all SNPs reported within genes and pathways that are likely involved in endometrial carcinogenesis and metastasis.MethodsOur systematic review follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) collaboration 2009 recommendations. The registered protocol is available through PROSPERO (CRD42018091907).16Search strategyWe searched Embase, MEDLINE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases via the Healthcare Databases Advanced Search (HDAS) platform, from 2007 to 2018, to identify studies reporting associations between polymorphisms and endometrial cancer risk. Key words including MeSH (Medical Subject Heading) terms and free-text words were searched in both titles and abstracts. The following terms were used.

€œendomet*”,“uter*”, “womb”, “cancer(s)”, “neoplasm(s)”, “endometrium tumour”, “carcinoma”, “adenosarcoma”, “clear cell carcinoma”, “carcinosarcoma”, “SNP”, “single nucleotide polymorphism”, “GWAS”, and “genome-wide association study/ies”. No other restrictions were applied. The search was repeated with time restrictions between 2018 and June 2019 to capture any recent publications.Eligibility criteriaStudies were selected for full-text evaluation if they were primary articles investigating a relationship between endometrial cancer and SNPs. Study outcome was either the increased or decreased risk of endometrial cancer relative to controls reported as an odds ratio (OR) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).Study selectionThree independent reviewers screened all articles uploaded to a screening spreadsheet developed by Helena VonVille.17 Disagreements were resolved by discussion.

Chronbach’s α score was calculated between reviewers and indicated high consistency at 0.92. Case–control, prospective and retrospective studies, genome-wide association studies (GWAS), and both discovery and validation studies were selected for full-text evaluation. Non-English articles, editorials, conference abstracts and proceedings, letters and correspondence, case reports and review articles were excluded.Candidate-gene studies with at least 100 women and GWAS with at least 1000 women in the case arm were selected to ensure reliability of the results, as explained by Spencer et al.18 To construct a panel of up to 30 SNPs with the strongest evidence of association, those with the strongest p values were selected. For the purpose of an SNP panel, articles utilising broad European or multi-ethnic cohorts were selected.

Where overlapping populations were identified, the most comprehensive study was included.Data extraction and synthesisFor each study, the following data were extracted. SNP ID, nearby gene(s)/chromosome location, OR (95% CI), p value, minor or effect allele frequency (MAF/EAF), EA (effect allele) and OA (other allele), adjustment, ethnicity and ancestry, number of cases and controls, endometrial cancer type, and study type including discovery or validation study and meta-analysis. For risk estimates, a preference towards most adjusted results was applied. For candidate-gene studies, a standard p value of<0.05 was applied and for GWAS a p value of <5×10-8, indicating genome-wide significance, was accepted as statistically significant.

However, due to the limited number of SNPs with p values reaching genome-wide significance, this threshold was then lowered to <1×10-5, allowing for marginally significant SNPs to be included. As shown by Mavaddat et al, for breast cancer, SNPs that fall below genome-wide significance may still be useful for generating a PRS and improving the models.19We estimated the potential value of a PRS based on the most significant SNPs by comparing the predicted risk for a woman with a risk score in the top 1% of the distribution to the mean predicted risk. Per-allele ORs and MAFs were taken from the publications and standard errors (SEs) for the lnORs were derived from published 95% CIs. The PRS was assumed to have a Normal distribution, with mean 2∑βipI and SE, σ, equal to √2∑βi2pI(1−pi), according to the binomial distribution, where the summation is over all SNPs in the risk score.

Hence the relative risk (RR) comparing the top 1% of the distribution to the mean is given by exp(Z0.01σ), where Z is the inverse of the standard normal cumulative distribution.ResultsThe flow chart of study selection is illustrated in figure 1. In total, 453 text articles were evaluated and, of those, 149 articles met our inclusion criteria. One study was excluded from table 1, for having an Asian-only population, as this would make it harder to compare with the rest of the results which were all either multi-ethnic or Caucasian cohorts, as stated in our inclusion criteria for the SNP panel.20 Any SNPs without 95% CIs were also excluded from any downstream analysis. Additionally, SNPs in linkage disequilibrium (r2 >0.2) with each other were examined, and of those in linkage disequilibrium, the SNP with strongest association was reported.

Per allele ORs were used unless stated otherwise.View this table:Table 1 List of top SNPs most likely to contribute to endometrial cancer risk identified through systematic review of recent literature21–25Study selection flow diagram. *Reasons. Irrelevant articles, articles focusing on other conditions, non-GWAS/candidate-gene study related articles, technical and duplicate articles. GWAS, genome-wide association study.

Adapted from. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The PRISMA Statement.

PLoS Med 6(6). E1000097. Doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097." data-icon-position data-hide-link-title="0">Figure 1 Study selection flow diagram. *Reasons.

Irrelevant articles, articles focusing on other conditions, non-GWAS/candidate-gene study related articles, technical and duplicate articles. GWAS, genome-wide association study. Adapted from. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009).

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6). E1000097.

Doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097.Top SNPs associated with endometrial cancer riskFollowing careful interpretation of the data, 24 independent SNPs with the lowest p values that showed the strongest association with endometrial cancer were obtained (table 1).21–25 These SNPs are located in or around genes coding for transcription factors, cell growth and apoptosis regulators, and enzymes involved in the steroidogenesis pathway. All the SNPs presented here were reported on the basis of a GWAS or in one case, an exome-wide association study, and hence no SNPs from candidate-gene studies made it to the list. This is partly due to the nature of larger GWAS providing more comprehensive and powered results as opposed to candidate gene studies. Additionally, a vast majority of SNPs reported by candidate-gene studies were later refuted by large-scale GWAS such as in the case of TERT and MDM2 variants.26 27 The exception to this is the CYP19 gene, where candidate-gene studies reported an association between variants in this gene with endometrial cancer in both Asian and broad European populations, and this association was more recently confirmed by large-scale GWAS.21 28–30 Moreover, a recent article authored by O’Mara and colleagues reviewed the GWAS that identified most of the currently known SNPs associated with endometrial cancer.31Most of the studies represented in table 1 are GWAS and the majority of these involved broad European populations.

Those having a multi-ethnic cohort also consisted primarily of broad European populations. Only four of the variants in table 1 are located in coding regions of a gene, or in regulatory flanking regions around the gene. Thus, most of these variants would not be expected to cause any functional effects on the gene or the resulting protein. An eQTL search using GTEx Portal showed that some of the SNPs are significantly associated (p<0.05) with modified transcription levels of the respective genes in various tissues such as prostate (rs11263761), thyroid (rs9668337), pituitary (rs2747716), breast mammary (rs882380) and testicular (rs2498794) tissue, as summarised in table 2.View this table:Table 2 List of eQTL hits for the selected panel of SNPsThe only variant for which there was an indication of a specific association with non-endometrioid endometrial cancer was rs148261157 near the BCL11A gene.

The A allele of this SNP had a moderately higher association in the non-endometrioid arm (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.04. P=9.6×10-6) compared with the endometrioid arm (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.38. P=4.7×10-6).21Oestrogen receptors α and β encoded by ESR1 and ESR2, respectively, have been extensively studied due to the assumed role of oestrogens in the development of endometrial cancer. O’Mara et al reported a lead SNP (rs79575945) in the ESR1 region that was associated with endometrial cancer (p=1.86×10-5).24 However, this SNP did not reach genome-wide significance in a more recent larger GWAS.21 No statistically significant associations have been reported between endometrial cancer and SNPs in the ESR2 gene region.AKT is an oncogene linked to endometrial carcinogenesis.

It is involved in the PI3K/AKT/mTOR pro-proliferative signalling pathway to inactivate apoptosis and allow cell survival. The A allele of rs2494737 and G allele of rs2498796 were reported to be associated with increased and decreased risk of endometrial cancer in 2016, respectively.22 30 However, this association was not replicated in a larger GWAS in 2018.21 Nevertheless, given the previous strong indications, and biological basis that could explain endometrial carcinogenesis, we decided to include an AKT1 variant (rs2498794) in our results.PTEN is a multi-functional tumour suppressor gene that regulates the AKT/PKB signalling pathway and is commonly mutated in many cancers including endometrial cancer.32 Loss-of-function germline mutations in PTEN are responsible for Cowden syndrome, which exerts a lifetime risk of endometrial cancer of up to 28%.9 Lacey and colleagues studied SNPs in the PTEN gene region. However, none showed significant differences in frequency between 447 endometrial cancer cases and 439 controls of European ancestry.33KRAS mutations are known to be present in endometrial cancer. These can be activated by high levels of KLF5 (transcriptional activator).

Three SNPs have been identified in or around KLF5 that are associated with endometrial cancer. The G allele of rs11841589 (OR 1.15, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.21. P=4.83×10-11), the A allele of rs9600103 (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.30. P=3.76×10-12) and C allele of rs7981863 (OR 1.16, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.20.

P=2.70×10-17) have all been found to be associated with an increased likelihood of endometrial cancer in large European cohorts.21 30 34 It is worth noting that these SNPs are not independent, and hence they quite possibly tag the same causal variant.The MYC family of proto-oncogenes encode transcription factors that regulate cell proliferation, which can contribute to cancer development if dysregulated. The recent GWAS by O’Mara et al reported three SNPs within the MYC region that reached genome-wide significance with conditional p values reaching at least 5×10–8.35To test the utility of these SNPs as predictive markers, we devised a theoretical PRS calculation using the log ORs and EAFs per SNP from the published data. The results were very encouraging with an RR of 3.16 for the top 1% versus the mean, using all the top SNPs presented in table 1 and 2.09 when using only the SNPs that reached genome-wide significance (including AKT1).Controversy surrounding MDM2 variant SNP309MDM2 negatively regulates tumour suppressor gene TP53, and as such, has been extensively studied in relation to its potential role in predisposition to endometrial cancer. Our search identified six original studies of the association between MDM2 SNP rs2279744 (also referred to as SNP309) and endometrial cancer, all of which found a statistically significant increased risk per copy of the G allele.

Two more original studies were identified through our full-text evaluation. However, these were not included here as they did not meet our inclusion criteria—one due to small sample size, the other due to studying rs2279744 status dependent on another SNP.36 37 Even so, the two studies were described in multiple meta-analyses that are listed in table 3. Different permutations of these eight original studies appear in at least eight published meta-analyses. However, even the largest meta-analysis contained <2000 cases (table 3)38View this table:Table 3 Characteristics of studies that examined MDM2 SNP rs2279744In comparison, a GWAS including nearly 13 000 cases found no evidence of an association with OR and corresponding 95% CI of 1.00 (0.97 to 1.03) and a p value of 0.93 (personal communication).21 Nevertheless, we cannot completely rule out a role for MDM2 variants in endometrial cancer predisposition as the candidate-gene studies reported larger effects in Asians, whereas the GWAS primarily contained participants of European ancestry.

There is also some suggestion that the SNP309 variant is in linkage disequilibrium with another variant, SNP285, which confers an opposite effect.It is worth noting that the SNP285C/SNP309G haplotype frequency was observed in up to 8% of Europeans, thus requiring correction for the confounding effect of SNP285C in European studies.39 However, aside from one study conducted by Knappskog et al, no other study including the meta-analyses corrected for the confounding effect of SNP285.40 Among the studies presented in table 3, Knappskog et al (2012) reported that after correcting for SNP285, the OR for association of this haplotype with endometrial cancer was much lower, though still significant. Unfortunately, the meta-analyses which synthesised Knappskog et al (2012), as part of their analysis, did not correct for SNP285C in the European-based studies they included.38 41 42 It is also concerning that two meta-analyses using the same primary articles failed to report the same result, in two instances.38 42–44DiscussionThis article represents the most comprehensive systematic review to date, regarding critical appraisal of the available evidence of common low-penetrance variants implicated in predisposition to endometrial cancer. We have identified the most robust SNPs in the context of endometrial cancer risk. Of those, only 19 were significant at genome-wide level and a further five were considered marginally significant.

The largest GWAS conducted in this field was the discovery- and meta-GWAS by O’Mara et al, which utilised 12 096 cases and 108 979 controls.21 Despite the inclusion of all published GWAS and around 5000 newly genotyped cases, the total number did not reach anywhere near what is currently available for other common cancers such as breast cancer. For instance, BCAC (Breast Cancer Association Consortium) stands at well over 200 000 individuals with more than half being cases, and resulted in identification of ~170 SNPs in relation to breast cancer.19 45 A total of 313 SNPs including imputations were then used to derive a PRS for breast cancer.19 Therefore, further efforts should be directed to recruit more patients, with deep phenotypic clinical data to allow for relevant adjustments and subgroup analyses to be conducted for better precision.A recent pre-print study by Zhang and colleagues examined the polygenicity and potential for SNP-based risk prediction for 14 common cancers, including endometrial cancer, using available summary-level data from European-ancestry datasets.46 They estimated that there are just over 1000 independent endometrial cancer susceptibility SNPs, and that a PRS comprising all such SNPs would have an area under the receiver-operator curve of 0.64, similar to that predicted for ovarian cancer, but lower than that for the other cancers in the study. The modelling in the paper suggests that an endometrial cancer GWAS double the size of the current largest study would be able to identify susceptibility SNPs together explaining 40% of the genetic variance, but that in order to explain 75% of the genetic variance it would be necessary to have a GWAS comprising close to 150 000 cases and controls, far in excess of what is currently feasible.We found that the literature consists mainly of candidate-gene studies with small sample sizes, meta-analyses reporting conflicting results despite using the same set of primary articles, and multiple reports of significant SNPs that have not been validated by any larger GWAS. The candidate-gene studies were indeed the most useful and cheaper technique available until the mid to late 2000s.

However, a lack of reproducibility (particularly due to population stratification and reporting bias), uncertainty of reported associations, and considerably high false discovery rates make these studies much less appropriate in the post-GWAS era. Unlike the candidate-gene approach, GWAS do not require prior knowledge, selection of genes or SNPs, and provide vast amounts of data. Furthermore, both the genotyping process and data analysis phases have become cheaper, the latter particularly due to faster and open-access pre-phasing and imputation tools being made available.It is clear from table 1 that some SNPs were reported with wide 95% CI, which can be directly attributed to small sample sizes particularly when restricting the cases to non-endometrioid histology only, low EAF or poor imputation quality. Thus, these should be interpreted with caution.

Additionally, most of the SNPs reported by candidate-gene studies were not detected by the largest GWAS to date conducted by O’Mara et al.21 However, this does not necessarily mean that the possibility of those SNPs being relevant should be completely dismissed. Moreover, meta-analyses were attempted for other variants. However, these showed no statistically significant association and many presented with high heterogeneity between the respective studies (data not shown). Furthermore, as many studies utilised the same set of cases and/or controls, conducting a meta-analysis was not possible for a good number of SNPs.

It is therefore unequivocal that the literature is crowded with numerous small candidate-gene studies and conflicting data. This makes it particularly hard to detect novel SNPs and conduct meaningful meta-analyses.We found convincing evidence for 19 variants that indicated the strongest association with endometrial cancer, as shown in table 1. The associations between endometrial cancer and variants in or around HNF1B, CYP19A1, SOX4, MYC, KLF and EIF2AK found in earlier GWAS were then replicated in the latest and largest GWAS. These SNPs showed promising potential in a theoretical PRS we devised based on published data.

Using all 24 or genome-wide significant SNPs only, women with a PRS in the top 1% of the distribution would be predicted to have a risk of endometrial cancer 3.16 and 2.09 times higher than the mean risk, respectively.However, the importance of these variants and relevance of the proximate genes in a functional or biological context is challenging to evaluate. Long distance promoter regulation by enhancers may disguise the genuine target gene. In addition, enhancers often do not loop to the nearest gene, further complicating the relevance of nearby gene(s) to a GWAS hit. In order to elucidate biologically relevant candidate target genes in endometrial cancer, O’Mara et al looked into promoter-associated chromatin looping using a modern HiChIP approach.47 The authors utilised normal and tumoural endometrial cell lines for this analysis which showed significant enrichment for endometrial cancer heritability, with 103 candidate target genes identified across the 13 risk loci identified by the largest ECAC GWAS.

Notable genes identified here were CDKN2A and WT1, and their antisense counterparts. The former was reported to be nearby of rs1679014 and the latter of rs10835920, as shown in table 1. Moreover, of the 36 candidate target genes, 17 were found to be downregulated while 19 were upregulated in endometrial tumours.The authors also investigated overlap between the 13 endometrial cancer risk loci and top eQTL variants for each target gene.47 In whole blood, of the two particular lead SNPs, rs8822380 at 17q21.32 was a top eQTL for SNX11 and HOXB2, whereas rs937213 at 15q15.1 was a top eQTL for SRP14. In endometrial tumour, rs7579014 at 2p16.1 was found to be a top eQTL for BCL11A.

This is particularly interesting because BCL11A was the only nearby/candidate gene that had a GWAS association reported in both endometrioid and non-endometrioid subtypes. The study looked at protein–protein interactions between endometrial cancer drivers and candidate target gene products. Significant interactions were observed with TP53 (most significant), AKT, PTEN, ESR1 and KRAS, among others. Finally, when 103 target candidate genes and 387 proteins were combined together, 462 pathways were found to be significantly enriched.

Many of these are related to gene regulation, cancer, obesity, insulinaemia and oestrogen exposure. This study clearly showed a potential biological relevance for some of the SNPs reported by ECAC GWAS in 2018.Most of the larger included studies used cohorts primarily composed of women of broad European descent. Hence, there are negligible data available for other ethnicities, particularly African women. This is compounded by the lack of reference genotype data available for comparative analysis, making it harder for research to be conducted in ethnicities other than Europeans.

This poses a problem for developing risk prediction models that are equally valuable and predictive across populations. Thus, our results also are of limited applicability to non-European populations.Furthermore, considering that non-endometrioid cases comprise a small proportion (~20%) of all endometrial cancer cases, much larger cohort sizes are needed to detect any genuine signals for non-endometrioid tumours. Most of the evaluated studies looked at either overall/mixed endometrial cancer subtypes or endometrioid histology, and those that looked at variant associations with non-endometrioid histology were unlikely to have enough power to detect any signal with statistical significance. This is particularly concerning because non-endometrioid subtypes are biologically aggressive tumours with a much poorer prognosis that contribute disproportionately to mortality from endometrial cancer.

It is particularly important that attempts to improve early detection and prevention of endometrial cancer focus primarily on improving outcomes from these subtypes. It is also worth noting that, despite the current shift towards a molecular classification of endometrial cancer, most studies used the overarching classical Bokhman’s classification system, type I versus type II, or no histological classification system at all. Therefore, it is important to create and follow a standardised and comprehensive classification system for reporting tumour subtypes for future studies.This study compiled and presented available information for an extensively studied, yet unproven in large datasets, SNP309 variant in MDM2. Currently, there is no convincing evidence for an association between this variant and endometrial cancer risk.

Additionally, of all the studies, only one accounted for the opposing effect of a nearby variant SNP285 in their analyses. Thus, we conclude that until confirmed by a sufficiently large GWAS, this variant should not be considered significant in influencing the risk of endometrial cancer and therefore not included in a PRS. This is also true for the majority of the SNPs reported in candidate-gene studies, as the numbers fall far short of being able to detect genuine signals.This systematic review presents the most up-to-date evidence for endometrial cancer susceptibility variants, emphasising the need for further large-scale studies to identify more variants of importance, and validation of these associations. Until data from larger and more diverse cohorts are available, the top 24 SNPs presented here are the most robust common genetic variants that affect endometrial cancer risk.

The multiplicative effects of these SNPs could be used in a PRS to allow personalised risk prediction models to be developed for targeted screening and prevention interventions for women at greatest risk of endometrial cancer..