1072 results for "vender mis monedas FC 26 Visité Buyfc26coins.com. Calidad y rapidez. No hay otro sitio como este..fCAW"

in 21.67 milliseconds.

• Incentives and Case Management to Improve Cardiac Care: Healthy Lifestyle Program (HeLP)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the “Authorized Access” section below for information about how access to the data from this study.Objectives: The HeLP study assessed how early case management, financial incentives contingent on cardiac-rehabilitation attendance, or both impacted adherence to cardiac rehabilitation among patients with lower socioeconomic status (SES) who had a cardiac-rehabilitation-qualifying diagnosis. Background:Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. Regular attendance at cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is the number one recommendation for patients who have experienced a recent cardiac event. CR is a secondary prevention outpatient program involving an individually tailored structured exercise program along with counseling and encouragement regarding lifestyle changes to reduce the recurrence of major cardiac events.Despite the benefits of CR attendance, enrollment and adherence to the program are low. This is particularly true of individuals of lower socioeconomic status (SES), who also generally suffer a higher burden from CVD on account of higher-risk cardiac profiles. As these profiles are the result of modifiable behavior targeted by CR (i.e., smoking, obesity, lack of physical activity), methods of increasing CR attendance among this population are necessary.Case management and financial incentives contingent on CR attendance are two potential strategies for addressing this issue. Previous studies have shown how trained case managers can support and assist patients with attending CR and improving their cardiac health, and how financial incentives can promote various types of health-related behavior. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate how these two interventions, individually and in tandem, fared at improving CR adherence among individuals of lower SES specifically. Participants:A total of 314 participants were screened, and 209 were randomized. All consented to have their data shared for research purposes. Design:Eligible patients were approached either while still in the hospital or during initial visits to CR. After obtaining informed consent, clinical and demographic characteristics (i.e., age, sex, education, race and ethnicity, smoking status, and CR-qualifying diagnosis) and depressive symptoms were collected. Participants then were randomized 2:3:3:3 to usual care (UC), case management starting in hospital (CM), financial incentives for attending CR (FI), or financial incentives plus case management (FICM). For all participants regardless of condition, an appropriate referral for CR was confirmed after randomization. Over the course of the study participants completed three assessments – one at intake, one after four months, and one after one year. Clinical (i.e., cardiorespiratory fitness, body composition, and cardiac-related quality of life) and sociocognitive (i.e., Beck Depression Inventory, Achenbach System of Empirically Based Assessment, and Behavior Rating Inventory of Executive Function) measures were obtained at each assessment. Participants randomized to the UC condition were contacted weekly by study staff for adverse event checks, but received no additional intervention. Participants randomized to the CM condition were immediately assigned a case manager. Case managers met with their participants, usually within 24 hours of consent while they were still in the hospital, to introduce themselves during an initial check-in. Within the first week of consent they completed a longer, more thorough initial needs assessment with their participant and established behavioral goals. For the next 16 weeks, case managers met with their participants at least once a week, typically over the phone, to discuss progress on these goals and address any problems or barriers that had arisen. Case managers also were available via phone outside of these regular meetings during normal working hours and Saturday mornings. Participants randomized to the FI condition could earn money for completing an initial CR orientation and attending CR sessions. Twenty dollars could be earned for completing the CR orientation session. CR attendance was reinforced on an escalating schedule starting at $10. Payments increased by $2 for each successive session attended, and capped out at a maximum of $40 per session. Unexcused absences resulted in the incentives for that session not being earned, and the potential earnings for the next scheduled session being reset to $10. Successful participation of two consecutive sessions following the reset resulted in the incentives being returned to the amount prior to the reset. In total, participants could earn $1220 for attending the initial orientation and all 36 sessions of CR. The primary outcome of interest was the percentage of participants who completed at least 30 sessions of CR. Secondary outcomes included the number of sessions completed, cardiorespiratory fitness (peak VO2 and estimated metabolic equivalents (METs)), body composition (waist circumference and BMI), depression scores, and both general and cardiac-related qualify of life. Conclusions:The two interventions involving financial incentives (i.e., financial incentives alone and financial incentives plus case management) significantly improved CR adherence compared to usual care. Subsequent analyses revealed that the combination of financial incentives and case management led to greater improvements in CR attendance than financial incentives alone.

  Study phs003737

• Programmatic submission based on XML

  Programmatic submissions (XML based) For further information please check our Submission FAQs, submission quickguide as well as submission terms! Introduction Besides the Submitter Portal tool, EGA supports programmatic sequence and clinical data metadata submissions. If you are not sure what this means, you may want to explore our brief metadata introduction. Programmatic submissions are recommended for array-based submission. Moreove, it may be of help if your submission is recurrent or it is difficult to manage manually due to its sheer size. Otherwise, we highly recommend using the Submitter Portal to perform submissions. In this page we will guide you through the required steps to programmatically submit data to the EGA. Programmatic submissions require your metadata to be structured for an easy and straightforward validation and archival. It basically consists in formatting your metadata as Extensible markup language (XML) files and submitting them to the EGA using the WEBIN Before submitting metadata to the EGA, it is important to ensure that the information in your XML files is compliant with our standards. You can see further details on how these standards are maintained at EGA at our EGA Schemas documentation page. Using WEBIN, you can validate your XML files against EGA's schemas to ensure that your metadata is compliant before submission. WEBIN services WEBIN production service WEBIN test service We advise you to submit your metadata to the test service when submitting to the production service for the first time. The test service is identical to the production service except that all submissions will be discarded in the following 24 hours. This allows you to learn about the submission process without having to worry about data being submitted. Authentication Authentication is required each time a submission is made. The submission service uses HTTPS protocol for metadata encryption and identification to provide a secure submission environment. Data file upload Both Runs and Analyses reference files (e.g. FASTQ need to be uploaded to the EGA before these metadata objects are submitted. In other words, if you submit a Run that references a file that we cannot find associated with your account, the metadata submission will fail. See further details on how to upload your files in our File Upload documentation. Metadata model of the EGA Our metadata model is formed by multiple metadata objects. Check further details in our documentation at our EGA Schema documentation page. Working with EGA XMLs files Now that the basic concepts of the EGA metadata have been described, you can start preparing your programmatic submission through XML. Here you will find the guidance on how to prepare the XML files. Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video Take a look at the Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video, which explains the workflow of a programmatic submission and goes over an example metadata submission. Programmatic Submission Tutorial Video. When building your XML files, we recommend using text editors (e.g.Sublime Text or VisualStudio) that allow you to visualise the structure of the XML with ease. Furthermore, these editors constantly check the consistency of the XML structure. Alternatively, and if the submission consists of a big number of objects (specially analyses), you may find the tool star2xml handy. This tool allows for a direct conversion between metadata in a tabular format (e.g. a spreadsheet) into XMLs. Identifying objects: Aliases and center names Every EGA object must be uniquely identified within the submission account using their alias attribute. The aliases can be used in submissions to make references between EGA objects. Let us dig into EGA's use of aliases and center names: alias: every object should have a name that is unique within your submission account. Once submitted successfully, every alias will be assigned a unique and permanent accession (EGA ID). refname: when an object references another by its alias, the alias of the referenced object goes into the "refname" attribute of the referencing object. For example, if a sample has the alias "sample1", and an experiment uses this sample, then the experiment's "EXPERIMENT/SAMPLE/refname" attribute should be "sample1". center_name: The "center_name" attribute is required within the submission XML and, if not provided when the object is submitted, it will be automatically filled using your default EGA account center_name. This element is the "controlled vocabulary acronym or abbreviation that is provided to the account holder when the account is first generated". If the submitter is brokering a submission for another institute, the submitter should use their special broker account name in broker_name while the data centre acronym remains in center_name. Log-in details should have been provided when you requested a submission account. Please contact our Helpdesk team if you have any questions. run_center: Many submitting centers contract out the actual sample sequencing to another center. In these cases, the sequencing center should be acknowledged in the run_center attribute. Again, this is controlled vocabulary and the acronym should be sought from EGA helpdesk before submitting. Please contact our Helpdesk team if you have any questions. Prepare your XMLs The goal of this section is to provide sufficient information to be able to create the metadata XML documents required for programmatic submissions. Please note, the EGA utilises the XML schemas maintained at the European Nucleotide Archive (ENA). It is important due to the fact that by using a similar system, some pieces of documentation from the ENA's programmatic submission can also help you with your programmatic submission to the EGA. For example, you can submit programmatically without using a Submission XML by following the steps at Submission actions without submission XML. A submission does not have to contain all different types of XMLs. For example, it is possible to submit only a few samples; or a study that is later to be referenced. You can submit each object one by one, or submit all in a batch: you choose what method of submission works best for you. We do recommend, nevertheless, that you submit the objects to be referenced (e.g. samples or studies) first, and the objects that reference these (e.g. experiments or datasets) afterwards. You can see a graphical view of these objects and their relationships at our EGA Schemas page. Independently of the submission scenario, you will always require a Dataset XML. The entity of a dataset is what is used to control access to the given data, in the form of runs or analyses. In other words, when a requester is granted access, it is through the dataset and the objects (e.g. runs or analyses) that the dataset contains, granting access to them in one go. Given the nature of the EGA, a dataset XML will always be required for the data access. First, we will differentiate between submissions of "raw" and "processed" data: Runs and Analyses, respectively. Run data submissions Raw data derives from instruments "as is". For example, a plain sequence file (e.g. FASTQ or unaligned BAM files) would be considered raw data. A typical raw (unaligned) sequence read submission consists of 8 XMLs: Submission Study Sample Experiment Run DAC Policy Dataset When technical reads (e.g. barcodes, adaptors or linkers) are included in the submitted raw sequences, a spot descriptor must be submitted to describe the position of the technical reads so that they can be removed. The following data files can be submitted without providing spot descriptor information in the experiment/run XML: BAM files (single reads) SFF files (single reads without barcodes) FastQ files (single reads without any technical reads) Complete Genomics files Analysis data submissions Processed data is, in some way, refined raw data. This includes raw data that has been processed by some form of analysis method (e.g. alignment, noise reduction, etc.). For example, an aligned sequence (e.g. BAM file), that was created using raw FASTQ files, would be a processed file. This category includes most types of data: sequence alignment files (e.g. BAM or CRAM), clinical data (e.g. phenopackets), sequence variation files (e.g. VCF), sequence annotation, etc. A typical EGA analysis data submission consists of 7 EGA XML: Submission Study Sample Analysis DAC Policy Dataset We accept three different types of analysis data submissions: BAM files (for multiple read alignments) VCF files (for sequence variations) Phenotype files (in any format) In anycase, keep in mind that samples must be created in order to be referenced in the analyses. In other words, the provenance of the information within the BAM, VCF and phenotype files Example XMLs Below you can find a non-extensive list of example XMLs with descriptive fields (i.e. explaining what to provide in each field). Furthermore, you can also find real examples (i.e. the true value of the provided fields) in our GitHub repository. Submission XML The submission XML is used to validate, submit or update any number of other objects. The submission XML refers to other XMLs. New submissions use the ADD action to submit new objects. Object updates are done using the MODIFY action and objects can be validated using the VERIFY action. Descriptive submission XML example True values submission XML example Study XML The study XML is used to describe the study containing a title, a study type and abstract as it would appear in a publication. Descriptive study XML example True values study XML example Please use the following notation within the property "STUDY_LINKS" when including PubMed citations in the Study XML: <STUDY_LINKS> <STUDY_LINK> <XREF_LINK> <DB>PUBMED</DB> <ID>18987735</ID> </XREF_LINK> </STUDY_LINK> </STUDY_LINKS> Sample XML The sample XML is used to describe the samples used to obtain the data, whether they were sequenced, measured in any other way, or have an associated phenotype. The mandatory fields include information about the taxonomy of the sample, sex, subject ID and phenotype. For example, the mandatory attribute fields for each sample would look like these, within the array of "SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES": <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>subject_id</TAG> <VALUE>free text!</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>sex</TAG> <VALUE>female/male/unknown</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>phenotype</TAG> <VALUE>Free text, EFO terms (e.g. EFO:0000574) are recommended</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES> Sample is one of the most important objects to be described biologically, it is highly recommended that “TAG-VALUE” pairs are generated as SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES to describe the sample in as much detail as possible. For example, were we to give the population ancestry of the sample, we could add a new attribute to the array, in which, for example, we would indicate that the sample derives from an individual of "Mende in Sierra Leone" (MSL), with an african ancestry: <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> <TAG>Population</TAG> <VALUE>MSL</VALUE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> Given that VALUE and TAG are free text, the combinations are limitless in order to give you full flexibility on the information you want to provide. We recommend you use the Experimental Factor Ontology (EFO) to describe the phenotypes of your samples. You can provide more than one phenotype by adding more items to the array of SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTES. Phenotypes considered essential for understanding the data submission should be provided. Each phenotype described should be listed as a separate sample attribute <SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE> </SAMPLE_ATTRIBUTE>. There is no limit to the number of phenotypes that can be submitted. If a suitable EFO accession cannot be found for your phenotype attribute, please consider using another controlled ontology database (e.g. HPO, MONDO, etc.) before using free text. Descriptive sample XML example True values sample XML example Experiment XML The experiment XML is used to describe the experimental setup, including instrument platform and model details, library preparation details, and any additional information required to correctly interpret the submitted data. Where any of these values differ between runs, a new experiment object must exist, since runs are grouped by experiments. Each experiment references a study and a sample by alias, or if previously-submitted, by accession. Pooled data must be demultiplexed by barcode for submission. Descriptive experiment ( Illumina paired read ) XML example True values experiment ( Illumina paired read ) XML example Run XML The run XML is used to associate data files with experiments and typically comprises a single data file (e.g. a FASTQ file). Please note that pooled samples should be de-multiplexed prior submission and submitted as different runs. Descriptive run XML example True values run XML example Analysis XML Given that an analysis can be used to submit any type of processed data to the EGA, we will list below an example of each of the three most common types of analysis XMLs submitted to the EGA: sequence alignments (e.g. BAM files); sequence variation (e.g. VCF files); and clinical metadata or phenotypes (e.g. phenopackets). Regardless of the type of processed data submitted in the analysis, the analysis must be associated with a Study and can reference multiple types of other objects, from samples to experiments, if they are available at the EGA. Just like with Runs, whenever a file is submitted to the EGA through an analysis object, the file MD5 checksums must be present, in order for the EGA to validate file integrity upon transfer. This also includes index files when applicable (e.g. .bai.md5 files). Ideally, any analysis that uses a reference sequence for some kind of alignment (e.g. BAM, CRAM or VCF files), would contain metadata about the alignment, such as INSDC reference assemblies and sequences, by either using accessions (e.g. CM000663.1) or common labels (e.g. GRCh37). Read alignment (BAM) Analysis XML The Analysis can be used to submit BAM alignments to EGA. Only one BAM file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the BAM read groups must be associated with Samples. Descriptive bam alignments XML example True values bam alignments XML example Sequence variation (VCF) Analysis XML The Analysis can be used to submit VCF files to EGA. Only one VCF file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the VCF files must be associated with Samples. Download analysis XML (VCF) Phenotype files The Analysis XML can be used to submit phenotype files to the EGA. Only one phenotype file can be submitted in each analysis and the samples used within the phenotype files must be associated with EGA Samples. Download analysis XML (Phenotype) DAC XML The DAC XML describes the Data Access Committee (DAC) affiliated to the data submission. The DAC may consist of a group or a single individual and is responsible for the data access decisions based on the application procedure described in the POLICY.XML. As with any other object, if it was already submitted to the EGA, there is no need to submit it again: you can reference an existing object within the EGA. Hence, A DAC XML does not need to be provided if your submission is affiliated to an existing EGA DAC.. Further information on DACs can be found here, and you can always contact our Helpdesk team if you have further inquiries. Descriptive dac XML example True values dac XML example Policy XML The Policy XML describes the Data Access Agreement (DAA) to be affiliated to the named Data Access Committee. Descriptive policy XML example True values study XML example Dataset XML The dataset XML describes the data files, defined by the Run.XML and Analysis.XML, that make up the dataset and links the collection of data files to a specified Policy. The dataset xml is commonly the last metadata object to be submitted, since it references multiple other entities. Please consider the number of datasets that your submission consists of. For example, a case-control study is likely to consist of at least two datasets. In addition, we suggest that multiple datasets should be described for studies using the same samples but different sequence technologies. Descriptive dataset XML example True values dataset XML example Validating and submitting your EGA Validating EGA's XMLs through Webin After you have ensured that the XMLs are properly formatted and contain all the required information. You can proceed to validate and submit your data. Use the curl command to validate your XML file: Once you have prepared your XML file and asserted you have access to Webin, you can validate your XML file programmatically against EGA's schemas using the curl command. There are multiple ways in which you can validate your XMLs. This variety has to do with the fact that: (1) there are 2 instances of Webin (test and production); and (2) that validation is a default step during submission. In other words, any time that you submit your data through Webin, it will be validated automatically before being accepted. This allows for 4 possible routes of validation, all having the same validation result: validating or submitting to either the production service or the test service of Webin. For example, directly validating a "study" object XML in the testing service (wwwdev…) would look like the following: curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" In this command, you would need to replace <USERNAME> and <PASSWORD> with your EGA account username and password, respectively. You would also replace <INPUT_FILE> with the path to your XML file. A mock example would look like the following: curl -u ega-test-data@ebi.ac.uk:egarocks -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" The validation attempt can have different results depending on the given arguments: If your XML file is valid according to EGA's schemas, you will see a message indicating that your XML file is compliant. For example, see below for our mock example, where the "success" was "true" (i.e. no validation errors found). Nevertheless, notice how the "<STUDY accession=" is empty: it is because we were simply validating, so the study did not get an accession or ID. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="receipt.xsl"?> <RECEIPT receiptDate="2023-04-11T15:19:28.850+01:00" submissionFile="submission-EBI-TEST_1681222768850.xml" success="true"> <STUDY accession="" alias="Mock example" status="PRIVATE"/> <SUBMISSION accession="" alias="SUBMISSION-11-04-2023-15:19:28:840"/> <MESSAGES> <INFO>VALIDATE action has been specified.</INFO> <INFO>Submission has been rolled back.</INFO> <INFO>This submission is a TEST submission and will be discarded within 24 hours</INFO> </MESSAGES> <ACTIONS>VALIDATE</ACTIONS> <ACTIONS>PROTECT</ACTIONS> If there are any errors or warnings, the tool will display them, allowing you to correct them before submitting your data to EGA. For example, in the following response, it is said that the object we were trying to submit was already existing, and therefore the "success" was "false". <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="receipt.xsl"?> <RECEIPT receiptDate="2023-04-11T15:12:35.609+01:00" submissionFile="submission-EBI-TEST_1681222355609.xml" success="false"> <STUDY alias="Example!_Human Microbiome Project SP56J" status="PRIVATE" holdUntilDate="2023-03-11Z"/> <SUBMISSION alias="SUBMISSION-11-04-2023-15:12:35:576"/> <MESSAGES> <ERROR>In study, alias: "Example!_Human Microbiome Project SP56J". The object being added already exists in the submission account with accession: "ERP127584".</ERROR> <INFO>VALIDATE action has been specified.</INFO> <INFO>Submission has been rolled back.</INFO> <INFO>This submission is a TEST submission and will be discarded within 24 hours</INFO> </MESSAGES> <ACTIONS>VALIDATE</ACTIONS> <ACTIONS>PROTECT</ACTIONS> If the curl command retrieves no response at all, please double check if your username and password are correctly provided. Also notice the "ACTION=..." argument passed to the Curl command. This specifies the action to take during the call to Webin, so we do not need a "Submission" XML just for a validation attempt. See more at submission actions without submission XML. Furthermore, validation of multiple files or objects (e.g. sample, experiment, study…) can be done in a single command by adding more arguments (i.e. '-F'). For example: curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" -F "SAMPLE=@sample.xml" -F "DATASET=@dataset.xml" As mentioned above, beside "validate" action in the test environment, you can also validate your metadata by three other methods: "Validate" in the production server. From our example above, you simply need to take the "dev" away from the URL. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=VALIDATE" "https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" "Add" in the development server. From our example above, you would simply need to replace the action: from "validate" to "add". Whatever is submitted to this service will be discarded in 24h, so whether something gets submitted or not would not matter in the long run. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=ADD" "https://wwwdev.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" "Add" in the productionserver. A combination of the previous two methods, which would render this attempt into a submission. This path is just to be taken when you are sure your metadata is compliant and what you want to submit. curl -u <USERNAME>:<PASSWORD> -F "ACTION=ADD" "https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/submit/drop-box/submit/" -F "STUDY=@study.xml" What happens after the submission of a dataset XML? Once you have completed the registration of your dataset/s please contact our Helpdesk Team to provide a release date for your study. Please note that all datasets affiliated to unreleased studies are automatically placed on hold until the authorised submitter or DAC contact contact the EGA Helpdesk for the study to be released. We strongly advise you not to delete your data until EGA Helpdesk confirms that your data has been successfully archived.

  Documentation submission/metadata/submission/programmatic-submission-xml

• Osteoporotic Fractures in Men (MrOS)

  The Osteoporotic Fractures in Men Study (MrOS) is a multi-center prospective, longitudinal, observational study of risk factors for vertebral and all non-vertebral fractures in older men, and of the sequelae of fractures in men. The original specific aims of the study include: (1) to define the skeletal determinants of fracture risk in older men, (2) to define lifestyle and medical factors related to fracture risk, (3) to establish the contribution of fall frequency to fracture risk in older men, (4) to determine to what extent androgen and estrogen concentrations influence fracture risk, (5) to examine the effects of fractures on quality of life, (6) to identify sex differences in the predictors and outcomes of fracture, (7) to collect and store serum, urine and DNA for future analyses as directed by emerging evidence in the fields of aging and skeletal health, and (8) define the extent to which bone mass/fracture risk and prostate diseases are linked. The MrOS study population consists of 5,994 community dwelling, ambulatory men aged 65 years or older from six communities in the United States (Birmingham, AL; Minneapolis, MN; Palo Alto, CA; Monongahela Valley near Pittsburgh, PA; Portland, OR; and San Diego, CA). Inclusion criteria were designed to provide a study cohort that is representative of the broad population of older men. The inclusion criteria were: (1) ability to walk without the assistance of another, (2) absence of bilateral hip replacements, (3) ability to provide self-reported data, (4) residence near a clinical site for the duration of the study, (5) absence of a medical condition that (in the judgment of the investigator) would result in imminent death, and (6) ability to understand and sign an informed consent. To qualify as an enrollee, the participant had to provide written informed consent, complete the self-administered questionnaire (SAQ), attend the clinic visit, and complete at least the anthropometric, DEXA, and vertebral X-ray procedures. There were no other exclusion criteria. The baseline examination was completed over a 25-month period from March 2000 to April 2002. Participants completed questionnaires regarding medical history, medications, physical activity, diet, alcohol intake, and cigarette smoking. Objective measures of anthropometric, neuromuscular, vision, strength, and cognitive variables were obtained at a clinic visit. Skeletal assessments included DEXA, calcaneal ultrasound, and vertebral radiographs. Vertebral and proximal femoral QCT was performed on a subset (65%) of participants. Serum, urine, and whole blood specimens were collected. During the study period, participants complete a tri-annual questionnaire every four months that obtains information concerning the occurrence of incident falls and fractures. Follow-up is over 99% complete. All reported fractures are confirmed using physician review of radiology reports or study radiologist review of x-rays. All deaths are also centrally adjudicated using death certificates and recent hospitalization records. In additional to the baseline study visit and tri-annual questionnaires, all surviving active participants were invited to follow-up visits and questionnaires. A second comprehensive clinic visit was completed between March 2005 and May 2006 or about 4.5 years after baseline. Most baseline measures, including vertebral radiographs, were repeated at the second visit. A third comprehensive clinic visit was completed between March 2007 and March 2009 or about 7.0 years after baseline. Many baseline measures were repeated at the third visit. A measure of energy expenditure was also obtained utilizing an accelerometer based armband device. Surviving participants have also completed two extensive mailed questionnaires designed to updated information obtained at clinic visits. The first questionnaire was mailed between baseline and visit 2 between July 2002 and March 2004. The second questionnaire was mailed after the third questionnaire between March 2009 and February 2011. The MrOS Sleep Study, an ancillary study of the parent MrOS cohort, was conducted between December 2003 and March 2005 and recruited 3,135 MrOS participants for a comprehensive sleep assessment. Men were screened for nightly use of mechanical devices during sleep including pressure mask for sleep apnea (CPAP or BiPAP), mouthpiece for snoring or sleep apnea, or oxygen therapy and were generally excluded. The sleep visit included objective measures of sleep using actigraphy and polysomnography. Other measures at the sleep visit include neuropsychiatric measures, performance measures, health related questionnaires, routine exam measures previously completed at MrOS clinic visits and a urine and serum specimen collection. During the sleep study period, participants complete a tri-annual questionnaire every four months that contains information about incident cardiovascular events. All reported events are centrally adjudicated utilizing hospital records, study ECGs and other supporting documentation. The Hip Osteoarthritis study, another ancillary study of the parent MrOS cohort, was completed at the second clinic visit between March 2005 and May 2006. Participants were asked for consent for a hip x-ray and osteoarthritis measurements were obtained from these x-rays. DNA was extracted from baseline whole blood samples for use in genetic research. Consent for use of DNA was obtained through written consent. Raw GWAS data is housed at the study&#39;s coordinating center and not released as part of the dbGAP release. The raw data can be requested from the study&#39;s coordinating center. Only QC cleaned Plink files are available on dbGAP.

  Study phs000373

• Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH-BioLINCC)

  Data Access NOTE: Please refer to the &#8220;Authorized Access&#8221; section below for information about how access to the data from this accession differs from many other dbGaP accessions. ObjectiveTo compare medical therapy with coronary bypass surgery and/or surgical ventricular reconstruction for patients with congestive heart failure and coronary artery disease.BackgroundCoronary artery disease (CAD) is the most common cause of heart failure, which in turn is a major cause of death and disability globally. Evidence from previous clinical trials supports the use of coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) to relieve disabling symptoms of angina, particularly among high-risk subgroups with extensive CAD. However, the studies did not include patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction, and developments in medical therapy have since led to updated guidelines. In addition, the benefits of CABG in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy had still not been clearly established at the time of this study. STICH sought to evaluate the role of CABG in the treatment of patients with CAD and left ventricular systolic dysfunction.Reduced left ventricular function may occur after myocardial infarction, often in conjunction with left ventricular remodeling, including left ventricular enlargement and changes in chamber geometry. Left ventricular remodeling is correlated with progression of heart failure and a poor prognosis. Therefore, a surgical approach to remodeling through left ventricular volume reduction could improve outcomes for patients with CAD and heart failure. Surgical ventricular reconstruction (SVR) has been shown to reduce the left ventricular volume, increase the ejection fraction, and improve ventricular function. There is also evidence that SVR performed with CABG may reduce the rate of hospitalization and improve ventricular function, as compared to CABG alone. As part of a second hypothesis, STICH additionally investigated whether SVR when added to CABG would improve outcomes in patients with heart failure and CAD.ParticipantsA total of 2,136 participants were enrolled in STICH. 1,212 were enrolled in the hypothesis 1 component of the trial, with 602 participants assigned to receive medical therapy alone, and 610 participants assigned to receive medical therapy plus CABG. 1,000 were enrolled in the hypothesis 2 component, with 499 participants assigned to receive medical therapy plus CABG, and 501 participants assigned to receive medical therapy plus CABG and SVR. 76 participants that were assigned to the CABG with medical therapy treatment were enrolled in both hypothesis components.DesignAfter initial determination of overall eligibility, participants were evaluated to determine which component of the STICH program was appropriate for them on the basis of suitable therapeutic options. All participants underwent cardiac imaging for assessment of left ventricular function and wall motion. Participants in the hypothesis 1 component were randomly assigned to receive either medical therapy alone or medical therapy plus CABG. Participants in the hypothesis 2 component were randomly assigned to receive either medical therapy plus CABG or medical therapy plus CABG and SVR.At baseline, demographic factors and clinical characteristics were assessed, including current medications and prior diagnostic and other cardiovascular procedures, and a physical examination was performed. Guideline-based recommendations for drug and device use were emphasized for all participants. All participants underwent follow-up evaluations at the time of discharge or at 30 days for participants still hospitalized, every 4 months for the first year, and every 6 months thereafter. The median length of follow-up was 56 months for hypothesis 1 and 48 months for hypothesis 2.For participants receiving CABG, arterial grafting for stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery was required for all participants without specific contraindications. The use of additional arterial conduits supplemented by vein grafts was recommended for revascularization of all major vessels with clinically significant stenoses. Concurrent mitral-valve surgery for regurgitation was performed at the discretion of the surgeon. For participants receiving SVR, the operation was most commonly performed during a single period of cardioplegic arrest after construction of bypass grafts. However, the procedure could also be performed with the heart beating in order to facilitate identification of the noncontractile zone of scarring. After an anterior left ventriculotomy was centered in the zone of anterior asynergy, a suture was placed in the interior of the ventricle to encircle the scar at the boundary between the akinetic and viable tissue. Visual inspection and palpation facilitated the judgment of whether a patch was needed to optimize the chamber size without deforming the left ventricle during closure of the ventriculotomy.The primary outcome for hypothesis 1 was the rate of death from any cause. The primary outcome for hypothesis two was a composite of death from any cause and hospitalization for cardiac causes.ConclusionsThere was no significant difference between medical therapy alone and medical therapy plus CABG for death from any cause, though participants that underwent CABG had lower rates of death from cardiovascular causes, death from any cause, or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. Adding SVR to CABG reduced the left ventricular volume, as compared with CABG alone. However, this anatomical change was not associated with a greater improvement in symptoms or exercise tolerance, or with a reduction in the rate of death or hospitalization for cardiac causes.

  Study phs003493

• eMERGE Network Imputed GWAS for 41 Phenotypes

  The electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) Network is a consortium of ten participating sites (Cincinnati Children&#39;s Hospital Medical Center/Boston Children&#39;s Hospital, Children&#39;s Hospital of Philadelphia, Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation and Pennsylvania State University, Geisinger Clinic, Group Health Cooperative/University of Washington, Mayo Clinic, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Northwestern University, Vanderbilt University Medical Center) funded by the NHGRI to investigate the use of electronic medical record (EMR) systems for genomic research. The goal of eMERGE is to conduct genome-wide association studies in approximately 55,000 individuals using EMR-derived phenotypes and DNA from linked Biorepositories. Using electronic phenotyping methods, the consortium used DNA samples from all participating sites to explore the genetic determinants of over forty phenotypes, including Abdominal aortic aneurysm; Ace-Inhibitor/Cough; Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder; Age-related macular disease; Appendicitis; Asthma; Atopic Dermatitis; Autism; Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia; Carotid artery disease as a Quantitative Measure; caMRSA; Cataract; Clostridium difficile colitis; Extreme Obesity; Chronic Kidney Disease; Chronic Kidney Disease and Type 2 Diabetes; Chronic Kidney Disease, Type 2 Diabetes and Hypertension; Colon Polyps; Cardiorespiratory Fitness; Dementia; Diverticulosis; Diabetic retinopathy; Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease; Glaucoma; Height; Heart failure; Hypothyroidism; Lipids; Ocular hypertension; Peripheral Arterial Disease; QRS duration; Red blood cell indices; Remission of Diabetes after ROUX-EN-Y gastric bypass surgery; Resistant hypertension; MACE while on Statins; Type 2 Diabetes; Venous Thromboembolism; White blood cell indices; and Zoster virus infection, as well as using the phenome-wide association study (PheWAS) paradigm to replicate and discover relationships between targeted genotypes with multiple phenotypes. Sites and participants include: Children&#39;s Hospital of Pennsylvania (CHOP): The Center for Applied Genomics (CAG) at the Children&#39;s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) is a high-throughput, highly automated genotyping and sequencing facility equipped with state-of-the-art genotyping and sequencing platforms. Children who are treated at the Children&#39;s Hospital Healthcare Network and their parents may be eligible to take part in a major initiative to collect more than 100,000 blood samples, covering a wide range of pediatric diseases. A large majority of participants consenting to prospective genomic analyses also consent to analysis of their de-identified electronic medical records (EMRs). EMRs are longitudinal, with a mean duration of 6.5 years. Cincinnati Children&#39;s Hospital Medical Center/Boston&#39;s Children&#39;s Hospital (CCHMC/BCH): Cincinnati Children&#39;s Hospital Medical Center (CCHMC) and Boston Children&#39;s Hospital (BCH) are pediatric institutions dedicated to improving health and welfare of children and to the shared purpose of discovery and practical application of new genomic information to the ordinary care of children. The CCHMC/BCH site has been built on a five-year history of collaboration, particularly in patient electronic record (ERM)-related informatics, the basis of much of eMERGE II. CCHMC and BCH together bring an extraordinary faculty to eMERGE II who are committed to diseases that afflict children, specifically phenotypes that focus upon diseases of children in ways that will leverage the available eMERGE adult GWAS and EMRs to discover meaningful use results. CCHMC/BCH plans to demonstrate real-time execution of phenotypic selection across their two distinct pediatric institutions as a model for ensuring phenotypic standardization and for national scalability. They will also look carefully at parents&#39; responses to results and use of their children&#39;s research results and better understand the factors that influence their decisions about learning incidental findings. In addition to patient and parent perceptions CCHMC/BCH will also explore clinician perceptions of pharmacogenetic research results after EMR integration. Geisinger Health System: A research cohort of adult Geisinger Clinic patients was enrolled from community-based primary care clinics of the Geisinger Health System. Patients were eligible for enrollment if they were a primary care patient of a Geisinger Clinic physician and were scheduled for a non-emergent clinic visit. All participants provided written informed consent and HIPAA authorization. Consenting patients agreed to provide blood samples for broad biomedical research use, and permission to access data in their Geisinger electronic medical record for research. The enrollment rate was 90% of patients approached. The demographics of the cohort approximate those of the Geisinger Clinic outpatient population. Research blood samples were collected during an outpatient clinical phlebotomy encounter. Research blood samples are coded and stored in a central biorepository. Samples are linkable to clinical data in a de-identified manner for research via an IRB-approved data broker process. For genomic analysis, DNA is extracted from EDTA-anticoagulated whole blood. Group Health(GH)/University of Washington (UW): GH participants for the PGx project were enrolled in the eMERGE Network through the Northwest Institute of Genetic Medicine (NWIGM) biorepository, and provided the appropriate consent to receive clinically relevant genetic results (N~6300.) Participants were eligible if aged 50 - 65 years old at the time of their enrollment into the NWIGM repository, living, enrolled in GH&#39;s integrated group practice, and had completed an online Health Risk Appraisal. The selection algorithm was based on several data sources from the EHR at Group Health: 1. Demographics - participants with self-reported race as Asian or African ancestry were prioritized and selected to enrich for non-European ancestry; 2. Diagnosis and procedure codes - participants were selected if found to have a history of hypertension, atrial fibrillation (AF), or congestive heart failure (CHF). Participants with a history of arrhythmia were added if the entire selection algorithm did not generate 900 individuals. We also enriched for participants with EHR evidence of actionable indications related to PGRNSeq genes. Participants were selected if found to have an ICD9 code for malignant hyperthermia, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure or long QT syndrome (LQTS); 3. Laboratory values - if participants had any laboratory event of creatine kinase (CK) &#62;1000, and were dispensed statins within 6 months of the event, then they were selected; and 4. Medications - participants were excluded if ever on carbamazepine or had a current regimen of warfarin. Essentia Institute of Rural Health, Marshfield Clinic, Pennsylvania State University (Marshfield): The Marshfield Clinic Personalized Medicine Research Project is a population-based biobank in central Wisconsin with more than 20,000 adult subjects who provided written, informed consent to access their medical records and provided a blood sample from which DNA was extracted and plasma and serum stored. In addition to an average of 30 years of medical history data, a questionnaire about environmental exposures, including a detailed food frequency questionnaire, is available to facilitate gene/environment studies. Mayo Clinic: The Mayo biobank is a disease-specific biobank for vascular diseases including peripheral arterial disease (PAD). PAD patients were identified from individuals referred to the non-invasive vascular laboratory for lower extremity arterial evaluation. Since 1997, laboratory findings have been recorded into an electronic database employing an in-house software package for data archiving and retrieval; this data becomes part of the Mayo EMR. Patients referred to the center with suspected PAD undergo a comprehensive non-invasive evaluation including the ankle-brachial index (ABI) - the ratio of blood pressure measured in the upper arms divided by blood pressure measured at the ankles. Controls subjects are identified from patients referred to the Cardiovascular Health Clinic for stress ECG. The prevalence of PAD in patients with normal exercise capacity who do not have inducible ischemia on the stress ECG , was &#60;1%. Data regarding risk factors for atherosclerosis such as diabetes, dyslipidemia, hypertension, and smoking are ascertained from the EMR. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai School (Mt. Sinai): The Institute for Personalized Medicine (IPM) Biobank Project is a consented, EMR-linked medical care setting biorepository of the Mount Sinai Medical Center (MSMC) drawing from a population of over 70,000 inpatients and 800,000 outpatient visits annually. MSMC serves diverse local communities of upper Manhattan, including Central Harlem (86% African American), East Harlem (88% Hispanic Latino), and Upper East Side (88% Caucasian/white) with broad health disparities. IPM Biobank populations include 28% African American (AA), 38% Hispanic Latino (HL) predominantly of Caribbean origin, 23% Caucasian/White (CW). IPM Biobank disease burden is reflective of health disparities with broad public health impact: average body mass index of 28.9 and frequencies of hypertension (55%), hypercholesterolemia (32%), diabetes (30%), coronary artery disease (25%), chronic kidney disease (23%), among others. Biobank operations are fully integrated in clinical care processes, including direct recruitment from clinical sites, waiting areas and phlebotomy stations by dedicated Biobank recruiters independent of clinical care providers, prior to or following a clinician standard of care visit. Recruitment currently occurs at a broad spectrum of over 30 clinical care sites. Northwestern University: The NUgene Project is a repository with longitudinal medical information from participating patients at affiliated hospitals and outpatient clinics from the Northwestern University Medical Center. Participants&#39; DNA samples are coupled with data from a self-reported questionnaire and continuously updated data from our Electronic Medical Record (EMR) representing actual clinical care events. Northwestern has a state-of-the art, comprehensive inpatient and outpatient EMR system of over 2 million patients. NUgene has broad access to participant data for all outpatient visits as well as inpatient data via a consolidated data warehouse. NUgene participants consent to distribution and use of their coded DNA samples and data for a broad range of genetic research by third-party investigators. Vanderbilt University: BioVU, Vanderbilt&#39;s DNA databank, is an enabling resource for exploration of the relationships among genetic variation, disease susceptibility, and variable drug responses, and represents a key first step in moving the emerging sciences of genomics and pharmacogenomics from research tools to clinical practice. BioVU acquires DNA from discarded blood samples collected from routine patient care. The biobank is linked to de-identified clinical data extracted from Vanderbilt&#39;s EMR, which forms the basis for phenotype definitions used in genotype-phenotype correlations.

  Study phs000888

• How to request data

  Request Data Access If you're looking to access data from the EGA for your research, you are in the right documentation page! In this page you will find a step by step guide on how to request data archived at the EGA, as well as some frequently asked questions you might find useful. When requesting data, you'll need to provide information about your research project and intended use of the data. Keep in mind that your data access request may require additional approvals or agreements depending on the datasets and data providers involved. Step by step guide Register yourself as an EGA user. Validate your account. A validation link will be sent to your email to activate your EGA user account. Log into the EGA page. Search the dataset of interest from the dataset catalogue or search bar. Click on “Request access” Add a comment requesting these files and send your request Your request is successfully registered, and the DAC will receive a notification about your request In addition to submitting your request, you should also contact the DAC directly via e-mail. You can access the DAC's contact information from the relevant dataset page. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) Which is the role of the EGA in the data access process? The European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA) facilitates the secure distribution under controlled access of personally identifiable genetic and phenotypic data. Data Access Committee (DAC) is a body of one or more individuals who are responsible for data release to external requestors, based on participant consent and/or National Research Ethics terms. How do I request access to multiple datasets? To request access for multiple datasets managed by the same Data Access Committee (DAC), please start by visiting the DAC catalogue to locate the DAC of your choice. Once you've found the relevant DAC, proceed to its dedicated page where you'll find a "Request access" button. After logging in to the EGA website, you'll be presented with a comprehensive list of datasets under the chosen DAC. Select the datasets you're interested in, and then compose a message indicating your access request. Click the "Send" button to submit your request, which will include the chosen datasets. Please be sure to review the data usage policies for the requested datasets, as policies can vary among datasets managed by the same DAC. I am a co-applicant. Will I be given a joint access account? Each applicant needs to create an EGA account themselves, with unique login details. User log-in details are for individual use only and should never be shared, under any circumstances. EGA services are only provided to EGA account holders. Therefore, the co-applicant will send a formal request to the DAC. What happens if a co-applicant leaves or a new member needs to be added to an existing DAC application? The appropriate Data Access Committee (DAC) should be contacted and informed about the required changes so that the application can be updated. I have changed my place of work since my EGA account was created. Can I still have access to data? You must contact the relevant Data Access Committee (DAC). The DAC did not reply to my data access request. How should I proceed? There is no estimated time for DAC response. Please allow up to four weeks for a response. In the meantime, please send them a weekly reminder of the status of your request by emailing them directly.If the DAC becomes unresponsive, meaning that they fail to communicate with a requestor within the specified time frame, please contact the EGA Helpdesk team. I have an account with the EGA and would like access to further datasets. How should I proceed? You need to reapply to the relevant Data Access Committee (DAC). Once the DAC has approved your application your account will be updated and an email will be sent to notify you of a change made to your account. How do I download files of the datasets I have been granted access to? The preferred method for data download and decryption is the EGA Secure Download Client. Please carefully review the provided documentation. How do I download metadata? Metadata is retrieved from the EGA webpage; you will not need to use any download client. Be informed that you will only be able to download metadata of your approved datasets. For such download, you should first log in the EGA webpage with your credentials. Then browse the metadata's dataset you have gained access and you will find a metadata download button. You may also want to have a look our metadata schema. I have forgotten or misplaced my user account password; how do I get a new one? Click on “Log in”, located in the top right corner of the EGA homepage. Then click “Forgot password”, type in your registered institutional email address, and instructions for resetting your password will be sent to you. Please check both regular and junk/spam folders. I was sent a link to set a password for my download account, but it seems like the link has expired. What should I do? The procedure is the same as the one for a forgotten password, explained in the previous question.

  Documentation access/request-data/how-to-request-data

• Unrelated Donor Reduced Intensity Bone Marrow Transplant for Children with Severe Sickle Cell Disease (BMT CTN-0601-BioLINCC)

  ObjectivesThe primary objective is to determine event-free survival (EFS) at 1 year after unrelated donor (URD) hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) using bone marrow (BM) in patients with sickle cell disease (SCD).BackgroundSickle cell disease (SCD), also known as sickle cell anemia, is an inherited blood disease that can cause organ damage, stroke, and intense pain episodes. Children with sickle cell disease experience organ damage, impaired quality of life, and premature mortality. A blood stem cell transplant is a treatment option for someone with a severe form of the disease. Prior to undergoing a transplant, people typically receive a conditioning regimen of high doses of chemotherapy and other medications to prepare the body to accept the transplant. This type of conditioning regimen is known as a myeloablative conditioning regimen, but it can result in toxicities and sterility. A conditioning regimen that uses lower doses of chemotherapy and medications may be safer for transplant recipients. This type of regimen is known as reduced intensity conditioning (RIC) regimen. RIC has a more favorable toxicity profile but is associated with higher rates of graft rejection (GR), especially with graft sources such as umbilical cord blood This study evaluated the safety and effectiveness of blood stem cell transplants, using bone marrow from unrelated donors, in children with severe SCD who receive a RIC regimen prior to the transplant.SubjectsPatients 3.0-19.75 years old with symptomatic SCD AND one or more of the following complications: (1)-(i) a clinically significant neurologic event (stroke) or any neurologic defect lasting > 24 hours and accompanied by an infarct on cerebral magnetic resonance imaging (MRI); OR, (ii) patients who have a Transcranial Doppler (TCD) velocity that exceeds 200 cm/sec by the non-imaging technique (or TCD measurement of >185 cm/sec by the imaging technique) measured at a minimum of 2 separate occasions one month or more apart; OR, (2) Minimum of two episodes of acute chest syndrome within the preceding 2-year period defined as new pulmonary alveolar consolidation involving at least one complete lung segment (associated with acute symptoms including fever, chest pain, tachypnea, wheezing, rales, or cough that is not attributed to asthma or bronchiolitis) despite adequate supportive care measures; OR, (3) History of 3 or more severe pain events (defined as new onset of pain that lasts for at least 2 hours for which there is no other explanation) per year in the 2 years prior to enrollment despite adequate supportive care measures (if patients are receiving hydroxyurea and compliant with therapy, being symptomatic is an indication for transplantation; however, if patients decline hydroxyurea or non-compliant with this therapy, they would still remain eligible for study if pain criteria as described above are met). Lansky/Karnofsky performance score must be &#8805; 40. Hemoglobin S must be &#8804; 45%. Patients must have an unrelated adult bone marrow donor who is HLA-matched at 8 of 8 HLA-A, -B, -C and -DRB1 at high resolution using DNA-based typing. Patients with bridging fibrosis or cirrhosis of the liver, with uncontrolled bacterial, viral, or fungal infection in the past month, or seropositivity for HIV are excluded. Patients with HLA-matched family donors, or who have received prior HCT, and females who are pregnant or breast feeding are excluded. Thirty patients were enrolled on this study and of these, 29 patients met the criteria and proceeded to the study transplant.DesignParticipants attended a study visit prior to the transplant to undergo a blood collection, neurocognitive testing to measure learning and brain function, magnetic resonance angiogram (MRA) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans. Questionnaires to assess quality of life were also completed. All patients received erythrocyte transfusions before transplant. Twenty-two days (-22) before the transplant, participants began receiving a reduced intensity conditioning regimen of chemotherapy and medications. On days -21, -20, and -19 participants weighing 10 kg or more received 10 mg, 15 mg, and then 20 mg of Alemtuzumab intravenously (IV) followed by 30 mg/m2/day IV on days -8 through -4 of Fludarabine. Eight days (-8) before the transplant, participants were admitted to the hospital to continue the conditioning regimen which included 140 mg/m2 IV of Melphalan on day -3. Participants received the bone marrow transplant on day 0. Prophylaxis for GVHD consisted of a calcineurin inhibitor (tacrolimus or cyclosporine) administered from day -3 through day 100 after graft infusion, with subsequent taper through day 180; methotrexate 7.5 mg/m2 on days 1, 3, and 6; and methylprednisolone 1 mg/kg per day from days 7 through 28, with subsequent taper by 20% per week. One week after the transplant continuing until the WBC is normal, participants received granulocyte-colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF). After leaving the hospital, participants attended study visits weekly during weeks 1 to 8, at day 60, weekly during weeks 9 to 14, at Day 100, at month 6, and at years 1 and 2. At all study visits, a blood collection, medical history review, and physical exam occurred. In addition, at day 100, month 6, and years 1 and 2, questionnaires to assess quality of life were completed. At select visits the following procedures were conducted: lung function testing, heart function testing, MRA and MRI scans, and neurocognitive testing.The primary outcome was 1-year EFS. Death, disease recurrence or graft rejection by 1 year were considered events for this endpoint.ConclusionsThe trial met its prespecified 1-year EFS, and significantly improved HRQL was reported posttransplant. However, although the Reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) provided successful engraftment in most patients, the regimen cannot be considered safe for widespread adoption without modification due to the regimen-related toxicity (RRT) and high rate of chronic GVHD, which was the predominant cause of mortality.

  Study phs003470

• dbGaP Collection: NHLBI Heart Failure Related dbGaP Data (No IRB requirement)

  The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Big Data Analysis Challenge: Creating New Paradigms for Heart Failure Research has concluded. The NHLBI will continue to make this collection of data available to the research community.Past information regarding the Data Collection for the NHLBI Big Data Analysis Challenge: Creating New Paradigms for Heart Failure Research is below.The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is inviting novel Solutions for the NHLBI Big Data Analysis Challenge: Creating New Paradigms for Heart Failure Research. The goal of the challenge is to foster innovation in computational analysis and machine learning approaches utilizing large-scale NHLBI-funded datasets to identify new paradigms in heart failure research. The challenge aims to address the need for new open source disease models that can define sub-categorizations of adult heart failure to serve as a springboard for new research hypotheses and tool development in areas of heart failure research from basic to clinical settings. NHLBI has a history of making considerable investments in the creation of deep data resources including: long-standing, deeply-phenotyped epidemiological cohorts, innovative clinical trials, and large-scale precision medicine efforts that have generated whole genome sequencing and "other omics" data for more than one-hundred thousand individuals. To provide challenge participants with streamlined access to data across NHLBI's numerous studies containing heart failure data, the NHLBI has created this dbGaP study collection. Data access for this collection is controlled by NHLBI's Data Access Committee. Challenge participants are required to follow the use restrictions and acknowledgement instructions from the original dataset(s). Please note that the data in this collection are not harmonized across studies or otherwise altered from the original study. The NHLBI Big Data Analysis Challenge: Heart Failure Data Collection contains all NHLBI studies currently in dbGaP that contain data that may be relevant to research on heart failure. The studies in this collection are approved for General Research Use (GRU), Health/Medical/Biomedical Use (HMB), or Disease-Specific Use (DS) that permits research on heart failure. These studies span a variety of study designs, inclusion and exclusion criteria, sample sizes, and provide a wide breadth and depth of phenotype data on study participants. The available genomic data in these studies also varies, including genotyping arrays, sequencing (targeted, exome, whole genome), and additional -omic data (e.g., RNA or metabolite profiles). Please refer to each study's individual accession page to learn more about how study data were collected. Challenge participants are reminded that in addition to dbGaP, NHLBI's Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC) contains other studies that have collected data relevant to heart failure and may wish to utilize BioLINCC data in the development of their Solution. Please refer to the individual accession page for each study in this collection to learn more about the history of each study.

  Study phs001991

• NHLBI Cleveland Family Study (CFS) Candidate Gene Association Resource (CARe)

  The Cleveland Family Study is the largest family-based study of sleep apnea world-wide, consisting of 2284 individuals (46% African American) from 361 families studied on up to 4 occasions over a period of 16 years. The study was begun in 1990 with the initial aims of quantifying the familial aggregation of sleep apnea. NIH renewals provided expansion of the original cohort (including increased minority recruitment) and longitudinal follow-up, with the last exam occurring in February 2006. Index probands (n=275) were recruited from 3 area hospital sleep labs if they had a confirmed diagnosis of sleep apnea and at least 2 first-degree relatives available to be studied. In the first 5 years of the study, neighborhood control probands (n=87) with at least 2 living relatives available for study were selected at random from a list provided by the index family and also studied. All available first degree relatives and spouses of the case and control probands also were recruited. Second-degree relatives, including half-sibs, aunts, uncles and grandparents, were also included if they lived near the first degree relatives (cases or controls), or if the family had been found to have two or more relatives with sleep apnea. Blood was sampled and DNA isolated for participants seen in the last two exam cycles (n=1447). The sample, which is enriched with individuals with sleep apnea, also contains a high prevalence of individuals with sleep apnea-related traits, including: obesity, impaired glucose tolerance, and HTN. Phenotyping data have been collected over 4 exam cycles, each occurring ~every 4 years. The last three exams targeted all subjects who had been studied at earlier exams, as well as new minority families and family members of previously studied probands who had been unavailable at prior exams. Data from one, two, three and four visits are available for 412, 630, 329 and 67, participants, respectively. In the first 3 exams, participants underwent overnight in-home sleep studies, allowing determination of the number and duration of hypopneas and apneas, sleep period, heart rate, and oxygen saturation levels; anthropometry (weight, height, and waist, hip, and neck circumferences); resting blood pressure; spirometry; standardized questionnaire evaluation of symptoms, medications, sleep patterns, quality of life, daytime sleepiness measures and health history; venipuncture and measurement of total and HDL cholesterol. The 4th exam (2001-2006) was designed to collect more detailed measurements of sleep, metabolic and CVD phenotypes and included measurement of state-of-the-art polysomnography, with both collection of blood and measurement of blood pressure before and after sleep, and anthropometry, upper airway assessments, spirometry, exhaled nitric oxide, and ECG performed the morning after the sleep study. Data have been collected by trained research assistants or GCRC nurses following written Manuals of Procedures who were certified following standard approaches for each study procedure. Ongoing data quality, with assessment of within or between individual drift, has been monitored on an ongoing basis, using statistical techniques as well as regular re-certification procedures. Between and within scorer reliabilities for key sleep apnea indices have been excellent, with intra-class correlation coefficients (ICCs) exceeding 0.92 for the apnea-hypopnea index (AHI). Sleep staging, assessed with epoch specific comparisons, also demonstrate excellent reliability for stage identification (kappas&gt;0.82). There has been no evidence of significant time trends-between or within scorers- for the AHI variables. We also have evaluated the night-to-night variability of the AHI and other sleep variables in 91 subjects, with each measurement made 1-3 months apart. There is high night to night consistency for the AHI (ICC: 0.80), the arousal index (0.76), and the % sleep time in slow-wave sleep (0.73). We have demonstrated the comparability of the apnea estimates (AHI) determined from limited channel studies obtained at in-home settings with in full in-laboratory polysomnography. In addition to our published validation study, we more recently compared the AHI in 169 Cleveland Family Study participants undergoing both assessments (in-home and in-laboratory) within one week apart. These showed excellent levels of agreement (ICC=0.83), demonstrating the feasibility of examining data from either in-home or in-laboratory studies for apnea phenotyping. Data collected in the GCRC were obtained, when possible, with comparable, if not identical techniques, as were the same measures collected at prior exams performed in the participants&#39; homes. To address the comparability of data collected over different exams, we calculated the crude age-adjusted correlations ~3 year within individual correlations between measures made in the most recent GCRC exam with measures made in a prior exam and demonstrated excellent levels of agreement for BMI (r=.91); waist circumference (0.91); FVC (0.88); and FEV1 (0.86). As expected due to higher biological and measurement variability, 149 somewhat lower 3-year correlations were demonstrated for SBP (0.56); Diastolic BP (0.48); AHI (0.62); and nocturnal oxygen desaturation (0.60). NHLBI Candidate-gene Association Resource. The NHLBI initiated the Candidate gene Association Resource (CARe) to create a shared genotype/phenotype resource for analyses of the association of genotypes with phenotypes relevant to the mission of the NHLBI. The resource comprises nine cohort studies funded by the NHLBI: Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities (ARIC), Cardiovascular Health Study (CHS), Cleveland Family Study (CFS), Coronary Artery Risk Development in Young Adults (CARDIA), Cooperative Study of Sickle Cell Disease (CSSCD), Framingham Heart Study (FHS), Jackson Heart Study (JHS), Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA), and the Sleep Heart Health Study (SHHS). A database of genotype and phenotype data will be created that includes records for approximately 50,000 study participants with approximately 50,000 SNPs from more than 1,200 selected candidate genes. In addition, a genome wide association study using a 1,000K SNP Chip will be conducted on approximately 9,500 African American participants drawn from the 50,000 participants in the nine cohorts. Some relevant CARe publications CARe Study: PMID 20400780 CVD Chip Design: PMID 18974833

  Study phs000284

• Pharmacogenomics Research Network Antidepressant Medication Pharmacogenomic Study (PGRN-AMPS)

  This pharmacogenomic study focused on the response of patients with MDD to an 8-week course of treatment with citalopram or escitalopram. Briefly, clinical assessments and research assessments were performed at each study visit as summarized in Table 1. Many patients continued on antidepressant medication after the 8 week study. Table 1: Study timeline and patient contacts. Week Consent/Med Hx Write Rx SI Qx SCID HRS-D17 QIDSC16 CGI-I 0 SC RC RC SC SC SC 4 RC RC SC SC RC 8 RC RC SC SC RC HRS-D17=Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression, QIDS-C16=Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology, CGI-I=Clinical Global Impression-Improvement, SCID=Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, SC=Study Coordinator, RC=Research Clinician. Enrollment and baseline assessment. Upon initial intake, the Study Coordinator (SC) obtained informed consent as well as clinical and demographic information, including history of bone marrow or liver transplant or blood transfusion within the previous 6 weeks, and prior history of treatment during the current major depressive episode. The SC completed the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID), the HRS-D17 (17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression) and the QIDS-C16 (Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology) and reviewed the inclusion/exclusion criteria. After review with the Research Clinician (RC) and when appropriate, after a negative pregnancy test, the SC invited the subject to participate in the study if entry criteria were met. If the subject agreed, he/she received treatment according to the study protocol. Treatment schedule. Participants selected for inclusion in the study were seen at weeks 0, 4, and 8. The appropriate treatment antidepressant (citalopram or escitalopram) was determined following discussion between the patient and RC concerning medical, financial, and insurance considerations. The study medication citalopram was given in tablet or liquid form, depending on the patient&#39;s need. A fixed-flexible dose schedule was employed with the possibility of a dose escalation. In particular, the initial dose of citalopram was 20 mg and escitalopram was 10 mg. This dose was increased to 40 mg and 20 mg, respectively, after 4 weeks if the subject had a score of &#62;/= 6 on the QIDS-C16 and the RC concluded that the subject could tolerate the increase. If necessary, dose was reduced at the discretion of the RC. The importance of medication compliance was discussed with the subject, and subjects were asked to bring in the medication at each visit for the purpose of counting remaining pills to assess compliance. Participants may have had an abbreviated course of therapy if they were clearly intolerant of the drug or failed to respond to a 40 mg dose of citalopram or a 20 mg dose of escitalopram. They then received standard treatment from a primary physician or psychiatrist with different medications and/or therapeutic modalities (e.g. psychotherapy). Special attention was given to subjects with suicidal ideation. Those subjects were offered additional appointments as needed to ensure their safety. Participants were also contacted by telephone at week 1 and week 2 by the Clinical Nurse Specialist (CNS) or other study personnel to ensure medication compliance and patient safety. The CNS was supervised by the study psychiatrist and principal investigator and deferred to the physician&#39;s judgment as needed. The SC was trained to notify the RC at the time of the clinical visits or the phone interviews if the subject endorsed any suicidal ideation or plans. For those subjects who were unable to attend the follow-up visits as scheduled, the patient was contacted by phone to complete the HRS-D17/QIDS-C16. The participant was also asked to return to the clinic to complete a final blood draw for the study. Adjunctive and concurrent medications. Adjunctive treatments were those used to manage transient associated symptoms (e.g., insomnia) or transient or longer-term medication side effects (e.g., sexual dysfunction). Adjunctive treatments that were not used to treat depression were allowed during the study. However, drugs in the exclusion criteria for this study were not used as adjunctive therapies. Subjects were allowed to participate in the study while receiving concurrent medications for general medical conditions as long as there was no contraindication to use while taking citalopram or escitalopram. Drug efficacy phenotype evaluation. The change in QIDS-C16 score and change in HRS-D17 score were used as the major research outcome measures to assess drug response. At each clinical research visit, the RC also completed the Clinician Global Impression of Improvement (CGI-I) scale. For the primary genome-wide association analyses, dichotomous outcome variables, remission and response, were defined based on the QIDS-C16 last visit score. Remission was defined as a QIDS-C16 score of 5 or less, while response was defined as at least a 50% reduction in the QIDS-C16 score from baseline. Specimen collection. Specimen collections were obtained by the General Clinical Research Center (GCRC) at St. Mary&#39;s Hospital (SMH). Subjects had blood drawn on an outpatient basis at GCRC-SMH on three separate occasions - baseline (0), week 4 and week 8 visits. Prior to sample collection, date and time of last dose of study medication was gathered at the 4 and 8 week visits. For those patients who were unable to complete the regularly scheduled visits, a dismissal blood draw was requested. GCRC then shipped samples to Mayo Clinic&#39;s Biospecimens Accessioning and Processing Lab. Genotyping and biomarker assays. DNA from 529 patients was genotyped by the RIKEN Center for Genomic Medicine (Yokohama, Japan) using Illumina Human610-Quad BeadChips (Illumina, San Diego, CA). The study also included the determination of plasma drug levels at weeks 4 and 8, and metabolite levels at baseline and weeks 4 and 8 for a subset of subjects. The primary genome-wide association study based on these data, which includes a summary of the protocol, subject description, selection of subjects for genetic analyses, and definitions of clinical outcomes, was published in the Pharmacogenomics Journal (Ji et al., 2012).

  Study phs000670