...
This is a case-control study of alcoholism, in which the subjects have been drawn from the Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA), a large, ongoing family-based study that includes subjects from seven sites around the US. COGA has gathered detailed, standardized data on study participants, including diagnostic and neurophysiological assessments. This sample has already proved successful in identifying several genes that influence the risk for alcoholism and neurophysiological endophenotypes, which have been independently replicated. COGA data were included as part of two Genetic Analysis Workshops, and the phenotypes are familiar to the genetics community. Alcoholic probands were recruited from treatment facilities, assessed by personal interview, and after securing permission, other family members were also assessed. A set of comparison families was drawn from the same communities as the families recruited through an alcoholic proband. Assessment involved a detailed personal interview developed for this project, the Semi-Structured Assessment for the Genetics of Alcoholism (SSAGA), which gathers detailed information on alcoholism related symptoms along with other drugs and psychiatric symptoms. Many participants also came to the laboratories for electroencephalographic studies. Neurophysiological features that have been shown to be useful endophenotypes for which we have linkage and in some cases association results are included on a subset of the case-control sample: the beta power of the resting electroencephalogram (EEG), the P3(00) amplitude of the visual event-related potential (ERP), and the theta and delta event-related oscillations (EROs) underlying the P3 (See Porjesz et al., 2005; Porjesz and Rangaswamy, 2007 for reviews). A brief description of COGA is in Edenberg, H. J. (2002) The Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism: an update. Alcohol Res Health 26, 214-218., Bierut, LJ, NL Saccone, JP Rice, A Goate, T Foroud, HJ Edenberg, L Almasy, PM Conneally, R Crowe, V Hesselbrock, T-K Li, JI Nurnberger, Jr, B Porjesz, MA Schuckit, J Tischfield, H Begleiter, and T Reich (2002) Defining alcohol-related phenotypes in humans: The Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism. Alcohol Res Health 26, 208-213. Edenberg HJ and Foroud T (2006) The genetics of alcoholism: identifying specific genes through family studies. Addiction Biology 11, 386-396. This case-control sample of biologically unrelated individuals was drawn from COGA subjects. All cases meet DSM-IV criteria for alcohol dependence. Controls are individuals who have consumed alcohol, but did not meet any definition of alcohol dependence or alcohol abuse, nor did they meet any DSM-IIIR or DSM-IV definition of abuse or dependence for other drugs (except nicotine). All cases and controls have undergone identical clinical assessments. Many individuals in this case-control sample have not previously been genotyped. The Collaborative Study on the Genetics of Alcoholism (COGA) has four Co-Principal Investigators: B. Porjesz, V. Hesselbrock, H. Edenberg, L. Bierut. COGA includes nine different centers where data collection, analysis, and storage take place. The nine sites and Principal Investigators and Co-Investigators are: University of Connecticut (V. Hesselbrock); Indiana University (H.J. Edenberg, J. Nurnberger Jr., T. Foroud); University of Iowa (S. Kuperman); SUNY Downstate (B. Porjesz); Washington University in St. Louis (L. Bierut, A. Goate, J. Rice); University of California at San Diego (M. Schuckit); Howard University (R. Taylor); Rutgers University (J. Tischfield); Southwest Foundation (L. Almasy). Q. Max Guo serves as the NIAAA Staff Collaborator. This national collaborative study is supported by the NIH Grant U10AA008401 from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) and the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). Funding support for genotyping, which was performed at the Johns Hopkins University Center for Inherited Disease Research, was provided by the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, the NIH GEI (U01HG004438),and the NIH contract "High throughput genotyping for studying the genetic contributions to human disease" (HHSN268200782096C). COGA has over 250 publications listed at www.niaaagenetics.org
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.ObjectivesShock: To determine if prehospital administration of 7.5% hypertonic saline with 6% Dextran-70 (HSD) or 7.5% hypertonic saline alone (HS), compared to current standard therapy with normal saline (NS), as an initial resuscitation fluid, affects survival following traumatic injury with hypovolemic shock.TBI: To determine whether out-of-hospital administration of hypertonic fluids improves neurologic outcome following severe traumatic brain injury (TBI).Background Trauma is the leading cause of death among North Americans between the ages of 1 and 44 years. The majority of these deaths result from hypovolemic shock or severe brain injury. Participants in hypovolemic shock develop a state of systemic tissue ischemia then a subsequent reperfusion injury at the time of fluid resuscitation. Conventional resuscitation involves the IV administration of a large volume of isotonic or slightly hypotonic (lactated ringers, LR) solutions beginning in the prehospital setting. Although not conclusive, prior studies have suggested that alternative resuscitation with hypertonic saline (7.5%) solutions may reduce morbidity or mortality in these participants. Furthermore, hypertonic fluids may have specific advantages in the brain-injured participant, as they may aid in the rapid restoration of cerebral perfusion and prevent extravascular fluid sequestration, thereby limiting secondary brain injury. In addition, recent studies have demonstrated that hypertonicity significantly alters the activation of inflammatory cells, an effect that may reduce subsequent organ injury from ischemia-reperfusion and decrease nosocomial infection. The majority of previous clinical trials have focused on the use of HSD. The potential for 7.5% saline alone (HS) to have similar effects has not been well studied. Removal of the dextran component may enhance the anti-inflammatory effects of this solution, which could improve secondary outcomes such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), multiple organ failure syndrome (MOFS) and rates of nosocomial infections. Participants Shock: There were 893 participants that were randomized (853 enrolled).TBI: There were 1282 participants enrolled and 6-month outcomes data were available for 1087 (85%).Design Shock: Multicenter, randomized, blinded clinical trials involving 114 emergency medical services agencies in North America within the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium were conducted from May 2006 to August 2008. Initial resuscitation fluid, 250 mL of either 7.5% saline per 6% dextran 70 (hypertonic saline/dextran, HSD), 7.5% saline (hypertonic saline, HS), or 0.9% saline (normal saline, NS) administered by out-of-hospital providers. Primary outcome was 28-day survival. On the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring board, the study was stopped early (23% of proposed sample size) for futility and potential safety concern.TBI: Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials involving 114 North American emergency medical services agencies within the Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium were conducted between May 2006 and May 2009. A single 250-mL bolus of 7.5% saline/6% dextran 70 (HSD), 7.5% saline (HS), or 0.9% saline (NS) initiated in the out-of-hospital setting. The main outcome measure was a six-month neurologic outcome based on the Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) (dichotomized as >4 or ≤4). The study was terminated by the data and safety monitoring board after randomization of 1331 participants, having met prespecified futility criteria.Conclusions Shock: Among injured participants with hypovolemic shock, initial resuscitation fluid treatment with either HS or HSD, compared with NS, did not result in superior 28-day survival. However, interpretation of these findings is limited by the early stopping of the trial (PMID: 21178763).TBI: Among participants with severe TBI not in hypovolemic shock, initial resuscitation with either HS or HSD, compared with normal saline, did not result in superior 6-month neurologic outcome or survival (PMID: 20924011).
