12289 results for "best fc coin sites reddit Visit Buyfc26coins.com for latest FC 26 coins news..KX6d"

in 16.40 milliseconds.

• Parallel Genomic Alterations of Antigen and Payload Targets Mediate Polyclonal Acquired Clinical Resistance to the Antibody Drug Conjugate Sacituzumab Govitecan

  Sacituzumab Govitecan (SG), a novel antibody drug conjugate (ADC) incorporating the anti-TROP2 antibody hRS7 conjugated to a topoisomerase-1 inhibitor (SN-38) payload, is the first ADC to be approved for advanced triple negative breast cancer (TNBC). However, mechanisms governing therapeutic resistance to SG are not known. We sought to identify mechanisms of de novo and acquired resistance to SG through unbiased whole-exome sequencing (WES) and RNA sequencing analysis of pre-treatment and multi-site post-progression (autopsy) tumor specimens. We examined three metastatic TNBC cases exhibiting (1) de novo progression, (2) stable disease, and (3) a deep response followed by progression, then mapped the temporal and spatial genomic evolution of acquired resistance in the responding patient. We then conducted additional pre-clinical experiments to validate the observed resistance mechanisms. TROP2 RNA and gene copy number were associated with de novo resistance, as case (1) was found to have absent TROP2 expression in all specimens, case (2) expressed TROP2, while case (3) exhibited both expression and focal genomic amplification of the TACSTD2/TROP2 locus. The genomic phylogeny tree inferred from case (3) post-progression specimens revealed one branch harboring an acquired canonical E418K resistance mutation in TOP1 (encoding topoisomerase 1) and a subsequent sub-clonal TOP1 inactivating frameshift mutation, while a distinct branch exhibited acquisition of a novel T256R missense mutation in TACSTD2 (encoding TROP2). Both the TOP1- and TACSTD2-mutant clones seeded multiple distinct metastatic sites. Through reconstitution experiments in TROP2 negative cells we found that TROP2 T256R is a stable protein with defective cell membrane localization and reduced cell surface binding by RS7 compared to wild-type TROP2. Collectively, these findings underscore TROP2 as a determinant of initial response to SG, and they reveal parallel and mutually exclusive polyclonal molecular mechanisms of acquired resistance involving the direct antibody target and drug payload target in distinct metastatic subclones of a single patient. While further research is needed to extend these novel findings, this study highlights the specificity of SG and illustrates how identifying such mechanisms will inform rational therapeutic strategies to overcome ADC resistance.  

  Study phs002555

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium Pragmatic Trial of Airway Management in out-of-Hospital Cardiac Arrest (ROC PART-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions.Objectives: To determine the effect of an initial airway management strategy using laryngeal tube (LT) insertion, compared with endotracheal intubation (ETI), on survival among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).Background: Out-of-hospital cardiopulmonary arrest (OHCA) affects more than 350,000 adults in the United States each year, with only a low percentage of patients surviving to hospital discharge. Emergency medical services (EMS) paramedics commonly perform ETI or insertion of supraglottic airways (SGAs), such as the LT, on patients with OHCA to facilitate oxygenation and protect the lungs from aspiration of vomitus. Because SGA insertion is rapid, simple, and requires less training compared to ETI, many EMS agencies have incorporated this as the primary method of ventilation during OHCA resuscitation. However, the optimal method for OHCA advanced airway management is unknown.Participants: A total of 3004 patients were included; 1505 assigned to initial LT and 1499 assigned to initial ETI.Design: PART was a multicenter cluster-crossover randomized trial. The trial included 27 EMS agencies associated with US sites of the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC). The EMS agencies were grouped into 13 randomization clusters. Each cluster selected a crossover interval of 3 or 5 months. Within each cluster, treatment assignments for consecutive intervals were computer-randomized in blocks of 2 to ensure balanced exposure to both airway groups. Crossovers between study groups could occur more than once. Treatment assignments were initial LT insertion or initial ETI. Neuromuscular blocking agents or video laryngoscopy was permitted for initial intubation efforts. The trial did not limit the number of initial LT insertion or ETI attempts. If the initial insertion efforts were unsuccessful, EMS personnel performed rescue airway management using any available airway technique. EMS personnel followed local protocols for confirmation of airway placement and management of OHCA, including field termination of resuscitation efforts. Patients receiving bag-valve mask (BVM) ventilation only were retained in their assigned treatment group per intention-to-treat principles. The trial did not prescribe clinical care at the receiving hospitals, including use of EMS airway, targeted temperature management, percutaneous coronary intervention, or the timing of withdrawal of life-sustaining therapy.The primary outcome was 72-hour survival. Secondary outcomes included return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, and favorable neurological status at hospital discharge (Modified Rankin Scale score ≤3). Conclusions: Among adults with OHCA, a strategy of initial LT insertion was associated with significantly greater 72-hour survival compared with a strategy of initial ETI. These findings suggest that LT insertion may be considered as an initial airway management strategy in patients with OHCA, but limitations of the pragmatic design, practice setting, and ETI performance characteristics suggest that further research is warranted.

  Study phs003902

• Immunophenotyping in a COVID-19 Cohort (IMPACC) Transcriptomics and Genotyping Assays

  IMPACC (IMmunoPhenotyping Assessment in a COVID-19 Cohort) is a prospective longitudinal cohort study (NCT04378777) launched in May 2020 in response to the worldwide pandemic caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). It was funded by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) of the National Institute of Health (NIH). Patient enrollment and sample analysis involved 20 hospitals associated with 15 U.S. biomedical research centers and 11 centralized Core immunoassay laboratories.The study aimed to enable the identification of potential biomarkers and inform future therapeutic interventions using a longitudinal approach encompassing the whole disease course for a comprehensive understanding of the contributions of the pathogen and host immune response in modulating the manifestations, severity, and post-acute sequelae of the infection. IMPACC enrolled close to 1200 adult symptomatic, molecularly confirmed hospitalized COVID-19 patients in the study within 48 hours of their hospital admission. Clinical data and biological samples (blood, mid-turbinate nasal swabs, and esophageal aspirant) were collected according to minimal risk guidelines at enrollment and on days 4, 7, 14, 21, and 28. Biological samples were collected at 3-month intervals up to 12 months after hospital discharge to assess functional and immunologic recovery measures. Sample collection, processing, and storage procedures were standardized across sites, and samples were transported to centralized assay-specific core laboratories (Core Labs) in batches for testing and analysis. The description of outcome severity was not limited to survival versus death but encompassed a clinical trajectory approach using 5 groups leveraging longitudinal data based on time in the hospital, disease severity by ordinal scale based on the degree of respiratory illness, and presence or absence of limitations at discharge. Disease severity was assessed based on the degree of respiratory illness using a 7-point ordinal scale adapted from the World Health Organization COVID-19 and NIAID disease ordinal severity scales. DNA for genetic analyses was collected from whole blood at a single time point. To identify any genomic determinants of severe COVID-19 disease, single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotyping and exome sequencing were conducted to assess genetic variants associated with individual susceptibility to severe disease. In addition, IMPACC included bulk transcriptomic analysis of upper airway (nasal swaps) samples, lower airway (esophageal aspirant) samples, and peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs) to evaluate dynamic changes in cellular composition and cellular response during the course of the disease. Reads were aligned to the GRCh38 human reference genome. Additional information for the IMPACC study has been submitted to The Immunology Database and Analysis Portal (ImmPort) under study accession SDY1760. Further information and requests for resources and reagents should be directed to and will be fulfilled by the Lead Contact, Dr. Steven Kleinstein (steven.kleinstein@yale.edu).

  Study phs002686

• MINCR is a MYC-induced lncRNA able to modulate MYC’s transcriptional network in Burkitt lymphoma cells

  Despite the established role of the transcription factor MYC in cancer, little is known about the impact of a new class of transcriptional regulators, the long non-coding RNAs (lncRNAs), on the way MYC is able to influence cellular transcriptome. To this aim we have intersected RNA-sequencing data from two MYC-inducible cell lines and from a cohort of 91 mature B-cell lymphomas carrying, or not carrying, genetic variants resulting in MYC over-expression. By this approach, we identified 13 lncRNAs differentially expressed in IG-MYC-positive Burkitt lymphoma and regulated in the same direction by MYC in the model cell lines. Among them we focused on a lncRNA that we named MINCR, for MYC-Induced long Non-Coding RNA, showing a strong correlation with MYC expression in MYC-positive lymphomas and also in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinomas. To understand its cellular role we performed RNA interference (RNAi) experiments and found that MINCR knock-down is associated with a reduction in cellular viability, due to an impairment in cell cycle progression. Differential gene expression analysis following RNAi showed a strongly significant enrichment of cell cycle genes among the genes down-regulate following MINCR knock-down. Interestingly these genes are enriched in MYC binding sites in their promoters, suggesting that MINCR acts as a modulator of MYC transcriptional program. Accordingly, following MINCR knock-down, we observed a reduction in the binding of MYC to the promoters of selected cell cycle genes. Finally we provide evidences that down-regulation of AURKA, AURKB and CTD1 may explain the reduction in cellular proliferation observed upon MINCR knock-down. We therefore suggest that MINCR is a newly identified player in the MYC transcriptional network able to control the expression of cell cycle genes.

  Dataset EGAD00001001441

• DERMATLAS: Hidradenoma papilliferum_RNAseq

  Virtually no other tumour type is associated with so many different forms as skin cancer. Histologically, tumours of the skin may arise from epithelium, including epidermis, hair follicle, sebaceous or sweat gland, melanocytes, dermal-associated mesenchymal structures or tissue resident immune cells, making for a diversity of clinical presentations. Importantly, many skin tumour types have an extremely poor prognosis. Many skin tumour subtypes have never undergone molecular profiling, or if they have, targeted sequencing has been used and the number of cases analyzed has been so limited that deriving firm conclusions about the profile of driver genes, DNA mutational signatures and germline alleles has not been possible.For 70 key skin tumour subtypes defined by the World Health Organization, that have not undergone extensive genetic analysis previously, we propose to perform whole exome and transcriptome sequencing, from a range of body sites, to build a genomic atlas of dermatological tumours, including detailed maps of SNVs, copy number alterations, genome-wide methylation and expression profiles.

  Dataset EGAD00001015480

• DERMATLAS: Hidradenoma papilliferum_WES

  Virtually no other tumour type is associated with so many different forms as skin cancer. Histologically, tumours of the skin may arise from epithelium, including epidermis, hair follicle, sebaceous or sweat gland, melanocytes, dermal-associated mesenchymal structures or tissue resident immune cells, making for a diversity of clinical presentations. Importantly, many skin tumour types have an extremely poor prognosis. Many skin tumour subtypes have never undergone molecular profiling, or if they have, targeted sequencing has been used and the number of cases analyzed has been so limited that deriving firm conclusions about the profile of driver genes, DNA mutational signatures and germline alleles has not been possible.For 70 key skin tumour subtypes defined by the World Health Organization, that have not undergone extensive genetic analysis previously, we propose to perform whole exome and transcriptome sequencing, from a range of body sites, to build a genomic atlas of dermatological tumours, including detailed maps of SNVs, copy number alterations, genome-wide methylation and expression profiles.

  Dataset EGAD00001015481

• What is a DAC?

  What is a DAC? Given the complexity, scale, and diversity of global submitters and studies, the EGA operates a distributed data access model in which requests are made to the data controller, not to the EGA. The European Commission defines a data controller, in the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), as the person that determines the purposes for which and the means by which personal data is processed. A Data Access Committees, commonly referred to as DACs, comprise on or more individuals (or data controllers) that review data access requests and make decisions on who can access personally identifiable genetic, phenotypic, and clinical data deposited at the EGA. Therefore, the members of a DAC should be individuals who have the authority to approve data access requests. The animation describes how you can authorise access to your sensitive data with the help of Data Access Committee and Authorisation tool. Acknowledgement to CSC - IT Center for Finland, Elixir Finland, Elixir Europe. Frequently Asked Questions How can I create a Data Access Committee? How can I create a Data Access Committee? The members of a DAC can come from different areas of expertise, such as data management, data analysis, information technology, legal and compliance, subject matter experts, privacy and security, and representatives from the organisations or individuals that provide data to the DAC. The specific members of a DAC can vary depending on the needs of the organisation and the type of data being managed. The EGA strongly suggests checking with your organisation to align with its regulations How should a DAC be named? The chosen name must be informative to the applicant.  For example, internal identifiers, such as grant numbers, should not be used. Individual PI names should also not be used. DAC's are often named after the organisation or department of the data source.  Browse the full list of DAC names currently in the EGA. How can I become an EGA DAC contact? To register a DAC at the EGA you must create first as an EGA user. Once your EGA user has been approved by the Helpdesk team, you will be able to log in to the DAC Portal. How can I register a DAC? To register a DAC, follow the DAC Portal instructions.  You will be required to provide a DAC name, name of the individual(s) that make up your DAC and contact details for your DAC including your Institutional email(s). Wherever possible, the DAC should make sure that all points of contact are readily available and able to answer any initial data requests/queries in < 2 weeks.  Once your DAC is registered, you will have to wait upon the validation from our Helpdesk team. As soon as all the validations have been completed, your DAC will be activated. Alternatively, you can also establish a DAC at the EGA during a programmatic submission through Webin API. Which are the possible roles of a DAC contact? There are two possible roles for DAC contacts: member and admin. An admin has additional privileges compared to a member: An “admin” can manage data requests, create and edit policies, edit the content of the DAC, add or remove contacts, and decide the role of each contact. A “member” can manage data requests and create policies. However, a member does not have permission to modify DAC details, edit information from policies where they are not admins, or add/remove contacts. There is no limit to the number of admins in a DAC, and each admin is responsible for deciding who should have editing privileges. This allows for a more decentralised and democratic approach to managing the DAC. How can I modify the information of a DAC? To modify a DAC, follow the instructions here. Keep in mind that only DAC contact with an admin role can modify the information of a DAC. If your DAC was registered before the lauch of the DAC Portal, and its ID is EGAC0 (not EGAC5), you must use the programmatic submission to modify it. Please, do not hesitate to contact our Helpdesk team if you need help with this! To prevent potential data breaches and ensure adherence to GDPR regulations, it is essential that the European Genome-Phenome Archive (EGA) is informed via the Helpdesk team of any changes to the Data Access Committee (DAC). This should be done in addition to any changes being made on the DAC portal. Data Controllers (as per the definition in the DPA) are also responsible for notifying the previous DAC of any modifications. Without proper notification, changes might not be automatically updated in our system, leading to the risk of incorrect permissions being applied and potential data access issues. Therefore, it is imperative that all Data Controllers follow this protocol to maintain data integrity and security. What’s the link between DAC, policy and dataset? A dataset is linked to one single policy. At the same time, one policy has a one to one relationship with a DAC. In this example, you can see that in this dataset page, we are only showing the information of one DAC (1 dataset - 1 DAC). However, the ratio of objects does not work the same in the other direction. One DAC can own multiple policy objects. And each policy object can be reused in several datasets. Thus, one DAC can manage one or more datasets. In this example, you can see that in this DAC page, we are showing all the datasets that are managed by one DAC (1 DAC - >400 datasets). EGA Data Access Committee Best Practices Which are the EGA DAC best practices? Refer to DAC Best Practices What happens if a DAC member changes institutions? EGA is committed to the protection and ownership of the data stored in our systems. We respect the institution's ownership of the data, and as such, if a DAC member changes institutions, the ownership of the data will not be transferred to the new institution. Therefore, before changing institutions, we request that the DAC contact add a new member who will replace them once they no longer work at the institution. This ensures that the data remains protected and is accessible to authorised personnel at the institution. To prevent potential data breaches and ensure adherence to GDPR regulations, it is essential that the European Genome-Phenome Archive (EGA) is informed via the Helpdesk team of any changes to the Data Access Committee (DAC). This should be done in addition to any changes being made on the DAC portal. Data Controllers (as per the definition in the DPA) are also responsible for notifying the previous DAC of any modifications. Without proper notification, changes might not be automatically updated in our system, leading to the risk of incorrect permissions being applied and potential data access issues. Therefore, it is imperative that all Data Controllers follow this protocol to maintain data integrity and security. What happens if EGA detects an unresponsive DAC? EGA defines an unresponsive DAC as a DAC with one or more contacts who do not respond to data access requests. EGA has procedures in place to identify these types of DACs, escalate the issue, and attempt to reassign the DAC to a responsive contact. This is a crucial step in ensuring that data can be accessed and utilised by researchers. If EGA identifies an unresponsive DAC, the organisation will first try to resolve the issue by escalating it to the appropriate parties. This may involve attempting to reassign the DAC to a more responsive contact. Unfortunately, in situations where we cannot reassign the DAC, the dataset will be withdrawn from the public website and the files will be removed from our system. If an EGA ID is referenced in a publication, the EGA will take extra steps to ensure that the public is made aware of the data's unavailability. I don't want to receive an email notification for pending requests. How can I do that? If you are an EGA DAC with pending requests, you will always receive emails for new data access requests. However, the EGA understands that a request resolution can take some time, for this reason, if you add a comment (make sure you save it by clicking the APPLY button!) we will filter those requests at the time of sending the notification! How can I manage data access requests? What documentation does the DAC need to provide? Each dataset that is submitted to the EGA must be linked to a policy object. The policy is a Data Access Agreement (DAA), which defines the terms and conditions of using the dataset, such as how the data files should be stored once downloaded or details of publication embargoes that should be observed by the approved user. As part of the Data Access Agreement, information regarding the application can be captured to help inform the DAC when making its decision. For example, requestors could be asked to provide a proposed title for their research and a proposal of how the data will be used. By asking for provision of such information the DAC can be assured that the requestor fully understands any consents associated with the data. It is important that accounts created at the EGA, are created solely for those individuals that will be downloading the data from the EGA. As part of the data access request, we strongly encourage you to identify individuals that will need an account at the EGA in order to prevent sharing of login details, which is strictly prohibited under EGA user account policy. Such information can easily be captured in the DAA. NOTICE The data access agreement template below is provided for guidance only and should be adapted as you see fit to suit your own purpose. In the interest of promoting data sharing, we suggest that if an agreement cannot be met around clause 19 in this example that both parties should agree to remain silent, and that the clause should be removed from the agreement. Example DAA How can the DAC provide the DAA? The DAC should provide their own DAA when registering a policy. Data requestors will download this document and should fill it in and send it back to the DAC. Data access decisions should be based on such documentation. The DAA can be downloaded through the request data webpage. Once it has been filled in, the signed copy of the DAA can be uploaded back to the request data webpage and sent to the DAC for review. How can I grant access to the data? Once you receive a data access request, you can login to the DAC Portal. In this portal you will see all your pending requests and will be able to grant or decline access to the requestors. I am a member of the Data Access Committee. Could I approve somebody else to deal with the requests on my behalf? If you want to delegate data access decisions to someone else, make sure that the individual's account is officially registered as a member of the DAC. Remember that a DAC contact with an "admin" role can always add new members to an existing DAC, remove members, and modify contact details through the DAC Portal. Can I automatise the process of managing data access requests? The answer is yes! You can use a programmatic approach using our DAC API! Check out the DAC API specification! Data Breach What should a DAC do if they suspect a breach? If a DAC suspects a data breach of one or more of their datasets, they should immediately contact the EGA Helpdesk team at this link. The DAC must provide the following information when contacting the EGA Helpdesk team: A list of affected datasets An estimated date of the data breach (or interval of dates) A list of unauthorised users who accessed the data (if available). Otherwise, they can provide a list of authorised users for the affected datasets Any observations they would like to raise to the EGA team Once the DAC has contacted the EGA team, we will respond within 48 hours (please allow some leeway during peak times) and activate our data breach protocol. What can I expect from the EGA if they detect a breach? Once the EGA determines that a security incident has occurred, we will notify all DAC members that a data breach has been detected, and take steps to contain the incident. Containment approaches may include: Revoking a data provider's access to the EGA resources, such as by changing passwords. Removing affected EGA datasets from distribution, such as by withdrawing a dataset. Disabling certain functions or services, such as the EGA ingestion pipeline. Shutting down the system or disconnecting it from the network. After the incident has been contained, the EGA will determine whether it is necessary to eradicate components related to the incident. Finally, the EGA will enable recovery of the service to normal operation and confirm that all services are functioning normally.

  Documentation access/data-access-committee/what-is-dac

• Genetic Basis of Early Onset Bicuspid Aortic Valve Disease

  The study protocol was approved by the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston (HSC-MS-11-0185). Study recruitment began on July 1, 2017, and concluded on March 30, 2022. After written informed consent, we enrolled probands with early onset BAV disease (EBAV), which we defined as individuals with BAV who were under the age of 30 at the time of first clinical event. Clinical events were defined as aortic replacement, aortic valve surgery, aortic dissection, moderate or severe aortic stenosis or aortic regurgitation, large aneurysm (Z > 4.5), or intervention for BAV-related conditions. Those with hypoplastic left heart, known genetic mutations, genetic syndromes, or complex congenital heart disease were excluded. Samples were collected and genotyped as previously reported. For comparison, we analyzed a cohort of older individuals of European ancestry with sporadic BAV disease selected from the International BAV Consortium (BAVGWAS). Phenotypes were derived from record review with confirmation of image data whenever possible [25-26]. The computational pipeline for CNV analysis of Illumina single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) array data included three independent CNV detection algorithms.GenomeStudio was used to exclude samples with indeterminate sex or more than 5% missing genotypes, and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) with GenTrain = 0. Principal component analysis was used to remove outliers that did not cluster with European ancestry. Prior to CNV analysis, each dataset was trimmed by selecting a common set of 650,000 SNPs that were genotyped on each of the microarrays used in this study.Three independent algorithms (PennCNV, cnvPartition, and QuantiSNP) were used to generate CNV calls and sample-level quality statistics from SNP intensity data. PennCNV and QuantiSNP were run on Unix clusters and cnvPartition data were exported from GenomeStudio. The analysis was run using default configurations. PennCNV was used to generate QC data and remove CNV calls that intersect with polymorphic genomic regions. Samples that met any of the following criteria were excluded, standard deviation of the LogR ratio (obtained from PennCNV) > 0.35 or number of CNVs > 2 standard deviations above the mean for each data set. CNV calls less than 20 Kilobases in length and/or spanned by fewer than 6 probes were excluded. The overlap function for rare CNVs in PLINK was used to construct CNV regions (CNVRs) after adjacent regions were merged using PennCNV. LogR ratio (LRR) and B allele frequency (BAF) data at CNVRs and calls of interest were visualized in GenomeStudio for validation. For segregation analysis, GenomeStudio was used to determine the presence of CNVs in relatives.A total of 22,014 unselected control Illumina Genotypes obtained from the Database of Genotypes and Phenotypes were analyzed using identical methods (S1 Table). The Wisconsin Longitudinal Study (WLS) includes data on a cohort of 10,300 individuals who graduated from Wisconsin high schools in 1957. The Health and Retirement Study (HRS) includes data on 37,000 individuals aged 50 above from 23,000 households across the United States. Principal component analysis was used to select European ancestry genotypes from these datasets for analysis. Datasets were paired for case-control analysis based on the concordance of log-transformed sample-level quality control statistics (number of CNV calls and standard deviation of logR ratios). Chi-squared or Fisher exact tests were used to compare CNV frequencies in cases and controls.Rare CNV functions in PLINK (v1.7) were used to perform permutation-based burden tests or gene set-based enrichment tests. Case control burden tests were restricted to CNVs that were longer than 110 Kb and less than 0.1% in frequency. CNV overlap functions in PLINK were used to identify rare CNVs that intersect between datasets or involve specific BAV or CHD genes . The list of candidate genes included 190 CHD genes that have strong cumulative evidence to cause BAV or related congenital malformations from human or animal model data. Genome Reference Consortium Human Build 37 was used for CNV annotation [34].

  Study phs003705

• Studies of Left Ventricular Dysfunction (SOLVD-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE:Please refer to the "Authorized Access" section below for information about how access to the data from this accession. Access differs from many other dbGaP accessions. ObjectivesThis study was initiated in 1986, primarily to evaluate the effects of enalapril, an ACE inhibitor, on long-term mortality and major morbidity in a group of participants with left ventricular dysfunction. Two large separate trials were run concurrently as part of SOLVD: 1) a prevention trial of participants with low ejection fraction but no overt symptoms of CHF and, 2) a treatment trial of participants with low ejection fraction and symptoms of CHF. In addition, participants at selected sites were entered into substudies to evaluate the effect of enalapril on a number of intermediate outcomes such as right and left ventricular function and hemodynamics, LV mass and wall stress, hormones, arrhythmias, exercise capacity, and quality of life in subsets of participants. Lastly, a registry of 6,336 participants with congestive heart failure of LV dysfunction was designed to describe the clinical course of an unselected group of participants. Background Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) is a major and increasingly recognized public health problem. The recognition that participants with CHF often have elevated peripheral vascular resistance has led to the introduction of vasodilator therapy, which has emerged as an important component of its treatment. Of the vasodilators, the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors appeared to be the most promising. In 1985, little was known about the impact of any long-term drug treatment on survival. SOLVD Registry: The SOLVD Registry is a hospital-based observational study, conducted at selected SOLVD hospitals, of participants with at least moderate left-ventricular dysfunction (EF &#8804; 45%) and/or radiologically confirmed heart failure. It consists of a main study (n=6,273) and a substudy (n=898). Although there is overlap between the Registry and the SOLVD trials, the Registry sample is not a subset of SOLVD nor is it the pool of participants eligible for both trials. Participants A total of 2,569 participants were enrolled into the treatment study and 4,228 participants were enrolled in the prevention study. The dataset available through the NHLBI contains the prevention and treatment study data as well as the registry data. Conclusions In the prevention trial, a significant reduction in the incidence of heart failure and the rate of related hospitalizations was observed for participants in the enalapril arm. A statistically significant reduction in mortality was not observed in the enalapril treatment arm; however, there was a trend toward fewer total deaths and deaths due to cardiovascular causes among the enalapril participants (SOLVD Investigators, et al., 1992, PMID: 1463530).

  Study phs003668

• Rapid Acceleration of Diagnostics - Underserved Populations (RADx-UP): COVID-19 Testing and Prevention in Correctional Settings

  This study will work with diverse correctional facilities across MN, RI, WA, and FL to characterize the incidence of COVID-19 disease progression and related outcomes. The goal is to identify barriers and facilitators to develop strategies to improve testing in these under-served populations by: Increasing the reach, access, uptake, and impact of COVID-19 testing among incarcerated people and staff in prison and jails. Individuals in congregate settings have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19, with correctional settings accounting for 39 of the 50 largest cluster outbreaks in the country to date. Schema of Correctional Facilities: Correctional facilities are amplifiers of infectious diseases for structural reasons: 1) Dormitory-style living and overcrowded conditions make social distancing nearly impossible 2) They have a focus primarily on security not health 3) Their medical departments are under-resourced and often disconnected from local public health agencies. Correctional facilities must be the focus of urgent intervention to understand the incidence of COVID-19, how it spreads in correctional facilities, and durable long-term strategies to reduce transmission, including testing and vaccines. However, our work from the COVID Prison Project shows that correctional systems have implemented a range of testing strategies, without coordination, such that synthesizing the information on COVID-19 incidence, outcomes and optimal testing strategies (including repeat testing and contact tracing) has been challenging. Incarcerated people decline testing due to concerns about confidentiality, implications for release, and fear of placement in solitary confinement. Through interviews we will identify ethical concerns and potential solutions for COVID-19 testing and vaccine strategies in correctional facilities using a community-engaged strategy. The project's work from the COVID Prison Project shows that correctional systems have implemented a range of testing strategies, without coordination, such that synthesizing the information on COVID-19 incidence, outcomes and optimal testing strategies (including repeat testing and contact tracing) has been challenging. Incarcerated people decline testing due to concerns about confidentiality, implications for release, and fear of placement in solitary confinement. Through interviews we will Identify ethical concerns and potential solutions for COVID-19 testing and vaccine strategies in correctional facilities using a community-engaged strategy. Goals: 1. Identify ethical concerns and potential solutions for COVID-19 testing and vaccine strategies in correctional facilities using a community-engaged strategy. 2. Characterize incidence of COVID-19, disease progression, and related-outcomes and effectiveness of testing and contact tracing in correctional facilities. Participant Selection: a. Potential subjects must be currently incarcerated at key facilities in Washington, Rhode Island, Minnesota, and Florida. These facilities are Everglades Correctional Institution and Homestead Correctional Institution in Florida, Shakopee and Stillwater correctional facilities in Minnesota, the Rhode Island Department of Corrections, and Yakima County Jail in Washington. b. Participating correctional facilities in Florida, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Washington will provide de-identified data on approximately 16,859 incarcerated adults and correctional staff. Data sources include deidentified data from medical records, administrative data, and policy documents pertaining to COVID-19. c. 3 series of focus groups (6, 12, 18 months) x 3 distinct groups (incarcerated people, medical providers, and correctional leaders) x 4 sites=36 total focus groups over the study period. d. Will utilize 74,812 COVID-19 tests to test and re-test a total of 16,859 incarcerated people and correctional staff for active infection over a six-month period in the FL, MN, and RI state prison systems and the Yakima County Jail in WA.

  Study phs003361