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

in 49.08 milliseconds.

• Epidemiological study comparing rates and risk factors for dementia in African Americans in Indianapolis and Yoruba living in Ibadan, Nigeria

  In 1991 collaboration between researchers at Indiana University School of Medicine and the University of Ibadan, Ibadan, Nigeria established the Indianapolis-Ibadan Dementia Project. It is a longitudinal, prospective population-based comparative epidemiological study of the prevalence and incidence rates and risk factors of Alzheimer's disease and other age associated dementias. The project compares samples of community-dwelling elderly (age > 70 years) African Americans living in Indianapolis to Yoruba living in Ibadan, Nigeria, employing the same research design, methods, and investigators. It initially reported significantly lower prevalence rates of disorders in the Yoruba compared to the African Americans. In subsequent waves of the study (1994-1995, 1997-1998) incidence rates, rates of newly diagnosed cases, were also found to be significantly lower in the Yoruba. In genetic studies, the frequency of the APOE 4 allele was about the same in the two groups. APOE 4 was a significant risk factor for Alzheimer's disease and dementia in the Americans, while no association was found for the Yoruba. The APOE 2 allele appears to be protective in the Americans, but not the Yoruba. A constellation of factors often associated with vascular risk including a history of hypertension, diabetes, and high cholesterol levels is less common in the Yoruba than in the American group. An interaction was observed between cholesterol, APOE genotype and Alzheimer's disease in both study groups. In 2001-2002 survivors of the original cohort were once again evaluated (N~800 in each site) and 2,000 additional individuals age 70 years and older were enrolled in each site. Blood samples were collected from approximately 1,500 study participants in each site for genetic studies and analysis of biochemical risk factors for vascular disease. Subsequent waves of field work were conducted in 2004, 2007, 2009, and 2011. This fieldwork followed the classic two-stage study design. The study design involves an in-home screening interview with the study participant, which includes a cognitive assessment, medical history and current medications, brief neurological examination, height and weight, blood pressure measurement and assessment of social involvement. There is also a screening interview with a close relative of the study participant to assess activities of daily living, personality change, and medical history of the study participant. On the basis of the screening interview a sample of study participants (N~500 in each site) is selected for a full clinical diagnostic dementia work up which includes a neurological test battery, extensive interview with a family member and examination by a clinician. Diagnoses are made in a consensus diagnosis conference using the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Revised Third Edition (DSM-III R) and International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision (ICD-10) for dementia. The criteria of the National Institute for Neurological and Communicative Disease and Stroke-Alzheimer's Disease and Related Disorders Association were used to diagnose possible and probable Alzheimer's disease. The focus of the study is risk factors for dementia and Alzheimer's disease, but also of particular importance is the question of mild cognitive impairment. This refers to the condition of having some decline in cognition but the decline is not sufficient to meet the criteria for dementia. We have studied this over the course of this project. In follow up studies of individuals who have this diagnosis about one third of them are better at follow up, about a third are about the same, and about a third decline more to meet the criteria for dementia. This is a very important issue for researchers because the ultimate goal of the research is to figure out how to identify the individuals who will definitely progress to dementia. If there are clear identifiers, it would be possible to make interventions, while individuals still function well, and possibly prevent the development of dementia altogether or delay the onset significantly. This is crucial because at the moment individuals usually do not enter into the medical care system until the dementia symptoms are quite severe, and the pathological damage to the brain cannot be undone.

  Study phs000378

• High-Risk Breast Cancer GWAS

  The GWAS includes High Risk Women from the following epidemiological studies of breast cancer, comprising a total of 3,719 cases and 3,642 controls (cases/controls: MEC, 0/200; ABCFR, 326/418; FCCC, 56/3; BCFR-UT, 66/32; CNIO-BC, 87/92; GESBC, 65/0; LIFE, 164/0; MARIE, 41/105; MAYO, 208/210; MNYR, 293/409; MSKCC, 310/0; NC-BCFR, 234/233; OFBCR, 553/560; POSH, 377/0; HBOC, 47/47; BBCS, 612/1333; UPENN, 280/0 This study was funded by a grant CA165038 to Christopher Haiman (University of Southern California) and John Hopper (University of Melbourne) from the National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Health. The contributing studies: Multiethnic Cohort (MEC). This study was supported by grant UM1 CA164973 from the National Cancer Institute, National Institute of Health. Ontario Familial Breast Cancer Registry, the Ontario site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry Cohort (OFBCR). This study was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. Utah Breast Cancer Family Registry (BCFR-UT). This study was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. New York site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry (MNYR). This study was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. Northern California site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry (NC-BCFR). This study was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. Australian Breast Cancer Family Registry (ABCFR). This study was supported by grant UM1 CA164920 from the National Cancer Institute. Breast Cancer Study (CNIO-BC). This study has been partially funded by The Spanish Network on Rare Diseases (CIBERER) and the Spanish National Genotyping Center (CEGEN). Genetic Epidemiologic Study of Breast Cancer (GESBC). The GESBC was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e. V. [70492] and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ). Mammary Carcinoma Risk Factor Study (MARIE). This study was supported by the Deutsche Krebshilfe e.V. [70-2892-BR I, 106332, 108253, 108419], the Hamburg Cancer Society, the German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) Germany [01KH0402]. Prospective study of Outcomes in Sporadic versus Hereditary breast cancer (POSH). Funding for the POSH study was provided by Cancer Research UK (grant refs A7572, A11699, C22524), the Breast Cancer Campaign (grant number: 2013MayPR044) and from 2003-2006 by a grant from The Wessex Cancer Trust. Prospective study of Outcomes in Sporadic versus Hereditary breast cancer (POSH). Funding for the POSH study was provided by Cancer Research UK (grant refs A7572, A11699, C22524), the Breast Cancer Campaign (grant number: 2013MayPR044) and from 2003-2006 by a grant from The Wessex Cancer Trust. Hereditary Breast and ovarian Cancer: Genetic and Molecular Studies (HBOC). This study was supported by National Cancer Institute grant CA58860 and The Lon V Smith Foundation: LVSF-44528. Mayo Clinic inherited breast and ovarian cancer study (MAYO). This study was supported by the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, NIH grants CA192393, CA176785, and an NIH CA116201 Specialized Program of Research Excellence (SPORE) in Breast Cancer. British Breast Cancer Study (BBCS); Mammographic oestrogens and growth factor study (MOG). The BBCS and the MOG study are funded by Cancer Research UK and Breakthrough Breast Cancer and acknowledge NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre, and the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN). Genotyping of non-BRCA1/2 mutation carriers (UPENN). The study is supported by the Basser Research Center at the University of Pennsylvania, Rooney Family Foundation, NIH grants CA176785 and CA192393, the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, the Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure and Macdonald Family Foundation. Clinical Significance of Germline BRCA Mutations (MSKCC). The study is supported by the Robert and Kate Niehaus Clinical Cancer Genetics Research Initiative, The Breast Cancer Research Foundation, and the Cancer Center Support Grant from the National Institute of Health, National Cancer Institute 5P30 CA08748-40. Women's Learning the Influence of Family and Environment (LIFE). This study was supported by grants CA17054 and CA74847 from the National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, No. 4PB-0092 from the California Breast Cancer Research Program of the University of California. Philadelphia site of the Breast Cancer Family Registry at Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC). This study is supported by NIH grant CA164920.

  Study phs000929

• Cardiovascular Cell Therapy Research Network (CCTRN): A Phase II, RCT of Mesenchymal Stem Cells & Cardiac Stem Cells in Subjects With Ischemic HF (CONCERT HF-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. ObjectivesTo assess the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of autologous mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) and c-kit positive cardiac cells (CPCs), alone or in combination, in participants with ischemic heart failure.Background The prognosis of heart failure (HF) caused by chronic ischemic cardiomyopathy (coronary artery disease and prior myocardial infarction), hereby referred to as “ischemic HF”, remains poor. Many studies have explored the use of various types of stem or progenitor cells in participants with chronic ischemic HF, with encouraging results. Several clinical trials have suggested that MSCs and CPCs are both safe and beneficial in participants with ischemic HF. At the time of this study, no information was available on the efficacy of MSCs and CPCs in humans, however, both cell types have been shown to attenuate left ventricle (LV) dysfunction in animal models. Preclinical models indicate that combining MSCs and CPCs increases the therapeutic effects, but this had not yet been tested in humans. The CONCERT-HF study was initiated to assess whether autologous MSCs and CPCs, alone or in combination, can be manufactured and delivered to participants with ischemic HF; are well-tolerated; and improve LV function, quality of life, and functional capacity, and/or reduce scar size. Participants A total of 125 participants were randomized with 33 participants randomized to the MSCs and CPCs group, 29 participants to the MSCs alone group, 31 participants to the CPCs alone group, and 32 participants to the placebo group. Design The CONCERT-HF study was a multi-center Phase II, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial designed to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of MSCs alone, CPCs alone, and their combination compared with placebo as well as each other in patients with ischemic HF. In Stage 1 (open label, lead-in study) participants were randomized 1:1 to either a standard-of-care control group (i.e., they did not undergo harvest, mapping, or injection procedures) or combination therapy (MSCs + CPCs, as described for Stage 2) to complete safety assessments. Once approval was granted for Stage 2, participants were randomized (1:1:1:1) to one of four treatments: placebo, autologous MSCs (target dose, 150 × 106 cells), autologous CPCs (target dose, 5 × 106 cells), or a combination of autologous MSCs and CPCs. At the harvest visit, right ventricular endocardial biopsy (EMB) was performed in participants randomized to receive CPCs alone or a combination of MSCs and CPCs. Participants randomized to receive MSCs alone or placebo had a sham procedure (right heart catheterization without EMB). All participants underwent a bone marrow aspiration and approximately 14 weeks later had transendocardial, electromechanically-guided injections of study product. Visits occurred at 1 day, 1 week, and 1, 3, 6, and 12 months after study product injection. A telephone contact took place at 24 months to assess the participant's current medications, as well as morbidity and mortality. Study endpoints included measures of safety, feasibility, and efficacy. Safety outcomes included all adverse events grade 2 and higher, including major adverse cardiac events (MACE) related to HF (death, hospitalization for worsening HF, and HF exacerbation not requiring hospitalization). Efficacy endpoints included quality of life, MRI measures of LV function and structure, functional capacity, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. Conclusions In patients with ischemic HF, autologous MSCs and CPCs, alone or in combination, are safe and feasible; CPCs were associated with a reduction in the incidence of MACE related to HF compared to placebo; MSCs, either alone or in combination with CPCs, were associated with improved quality of life; these seemingly beneficial effects of CPCs and MSCs on clinical outcome were not associated with changes in LV function or structure; and combination therapy with MSCs and CPCs was associated with the best clinical outcomes with respect to both MACE related to HF and quality of life.

  Study phs004055

• Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis Network AntiCoagulant Effectiveness in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis (IPFNet-ACE-IPF-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: The ACE-IPF trial tested the hypothesis that treatment with warfarin at recognized therapeutic doses would reduce rates of mortality, hospitalization, and declines in Forced Vital Capacity (FVC) in subjects with Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF).Background: IPF is a chronic, progressive lung disease of unknown cause characterized by the histopathologic pattern of usual interstitial pneumonia. The median survival of patients with IPF after the onset of symptoms is 2 to 5 years. Prior animal and human studies in pulmonary fibrosis provide a compelling rationale to examine anticoagulation as a therapeutic approach in IPF. Large epidemiologic studies link IPF with thrombosis-related clinical events, such as an increased risk of acute coronary syndrome and deep vein thrombosis. The suspected causal relationship may extend beyond simple coagulation cascade-induced thrombus formation, as procoagulant enzymes may directly stimulate fibrosis via cell surface receptor - mediated responses.Participants: Patients aged 35 to 80 years with progressive IPF were potentially eligible. Progressive IPF was defined as a history of (1) worsening of dyspnea, or (2) physiologic deterioration defined as an absolute decline of either FVC greater than or equal to 10% or DlCO greater than or equal to 15%, a reduction in arterial oxygen saturation of greater than or equal to 5%, or progression of radiographic findings. Between December 14, 2009 and April 1, 2011, 145 subjects were enrolled: 72 in the warfarin group and 73 in the placebo group. The mean age for the population was 67 years. 27% of the subjects were women and 92% were white.Participants were excluded if they met any of the following criteria: current indication for, or treatment with, warfarin, prasugrel, or clopidogrel combined with aspirin; the presence of an increased risk of bleeding; a recent cerebral vascular accident or gastrointestinal bleeding; any current signs or symptoms of severe, progressive, or uncontrolled comorbid illness; and their presence on the active list for lung transplantation. Design: ACE-IPF was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of warfarin targeting an international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.0 to 3.0 in patients with IPF. Subjects were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to warfarin or matching placebo for a planned treatment period of 48 weeks. Study subjects were provided two strengths of warfarin tablets (1 mg and 2.5 mg) or matching placebos. Subjects measured their INR with encrypted meters at least weekly. Participants were seen at screening, baseline, and at 16, 32, and 48 weeks after enrollment. Home monitoring was validated by plasma INR measurement at the week 1 and 16 visits.The primary outcome was a composite endpoint based on the time to all-cause mortality; nonelective, nonbleeding hospitalization; or a decrease in the absolute FVC greater than or equal to 10% from baseline value. Secondary outcome measures included rates of mortality, hospitalization, respiratory-related hospitalization, acute exacerbation, bleeding, cardiovascular events, and changes over time in FVC, 6-minute walk test distance, DlCO, plasma fibrin D-dimer levels, and quality of life (QOL).Conclusions: The study did not show a benefit for warfarin in the treatment of patients with progressive IPF and was terminated due to excess mortality in the warfarin treatment group. Treatment with warfarin was associated with an increased risk of mortality in an IPF population who lacked other indications for anticoagulation.Reported causes of death indicated 11 of the 14 were respiratory-related in the warfarin group versus three of the three in the placebo group. There were also three cardiovascular deaths in the warfarin group versus none in the placebo group. No deaths were attributed to bleeding. The warfarin group also demonstrated an increased rate of combined all-cause hospitalization and all-cause mortality. (Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2012 Jul 1;186(1):88-95.)

  Study phs004070

• Prematurity and Respiratory Outcomes Program (PROP) Core Database Protocol (PROP-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: The Prematurity and Respiratory Outcomes Program (PROP) was performed to identify suitable predictors of respiratory outcomes that may serve as surrogate endpoints in future trials of prevention and therapy of respiratory diseases in preterm infants.Background: Acute and chronic respiratory morbidities are common in premature births, and can pose significant risk to the infant's health, particularly during the first two years of life. One such condition is bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) where infants require oxygen therapy due to abnormal repair and impaired lung development after acute lung injury. BPD poses a high mortality risk, even in infants that survive the initial hospitalization. Regardless of BPD diagnosis, preterm infants frequently return for medical care due to symptoms of post-prematurity respiratory disease (PRD), which includes intermittent or chronic wheezing, cough without cold, poor growth, apnea and cyanosis, and lower respiratory tract infections. Impaired lung function can persist into adulthood, contributing to chronic respiratory diseases including asthma and emphysema.However, at the time of the PROP study, there were no objective measures to predict which preterm infants would have persistent respiratory problems after discharge from the hospital. Furthermore, improved survival rates of premature infants and the high prevalence of lasting respiratory morbidities highlight the need for more comprehensive strategies to address both short-term and long-term respiratory complications. Thus, the Prematurity and Respiratory Outcomes Program (PROP) was formed to investigate multiple research hypotheses on the molecular mechanisms that contribute to respiratory disease risk of premature neonates over the first year of life. Specifically, PROP investigators hypothesized that in survivors of extreme prematurity to 36 weeks postmenstrual age (PMA), specific biologic, physiologic and clinical data obtained during the initial hospitalization will predict respiratory morbidity between discharge and 1 year corrected age. Participants: A total of 835 infants were enrolled.Design: PROP was a collaboratively developed multicenter prospective cohort study of very preterm infants from birth through the time of discharge from the NICU and up to one year corrected age.Clinical data included maternal and infant demographics, co-morbidities, and daily infant respiratory, nutritional, and medication data until discharge. These were prospectively collected from birth using medical record review and family interviews. After discharge, phone interviews were conducted with the infant's main caregiver at 3, 6, 9 and 12 months corrected age to assess domains of respiratory morbidity. At 6 and 12 months corrected age, a survey of environmental respiratory irritant exposures and an assessment for gastroesophageal reflux disease were also completed. A standardized physical exam was performed at 36-40 weeks PMA and again at one year corrected age. The exam focused on anthropometrics, vital signs, and respiratory system signs. At 34-41 weeks PMA and within one week of anticipated discharge based on physiologic stability, a set of non-invasive respiratory assessments were performed to assess physiologic biomarkers in infants that were not mechanically ventilated or receiving non-invasive positive pressure ventilation. Respiratory inductance plethysmography (RIP) was performed before and after inhaled albuterol to assess potential airway reactivity. During the RIP study, continuous pulse oximetry was performed during quiet sleep in order to analyze oxygen desaturations and apneas. Standardized oxygen requirement challenge tests were performed at about 36 weeks PMA, and at about 40 weeks PMA if the infant was still hospitalized and was not eligible for, or failed, the previous challenge. Failure was defined as SpO2 20 seconds at any point in the testing. Infants breathing ambient air or that passed the 36 week challenge test underwent a hypoxia challenge consisting of a 15-minute trial of FiO2 of 0.15. Failure was defined as SpO2 The primary outcome was respiratory morbidity, as measured by the presence or absence of substantial post-prematurity respiratory disease (PRD) up to one year corrected age. PRD was classified as a positive response in at least one of four morbidity domains during at least two separate parental interviews. The domains were respiratory medications, hospitalizations for cardiopulmonary cause, respiratory symptoms, and home technology dependence (oxygen, ventilator, or CPAP/BiPAP). Mortality from a respiratory cause was also incorporated.

  Study phs004117

• HBCC Postmortem Psychiatric Molecular Studies

  This postmortem study examines molecular, genetic and epigenetic signatures in the brains of hundreds of subjects with or without mental disorders conducted by the DIRP NIMH Human Brain Collection Core (HBCC). The brain tissues are obtained under protocols approved by the CNS IRB (NCT00001260), with the permission of the next-of-kin (NOK) through the Offices of the Chief Medical Examiners (MEOs) in the District of Columbia, Northern Virginia and Central Virginia. Additional samples were obtained from the University of Maryland Brain and Tissue Bank (contracts NO1-HD-4-3368 and NO1-HD-4-3383) (http://www.medschool.umaryland.edu/btbank/ and the Stanley Medical Research Institute: http://www.stanleyresearch.org/brain-research/). Clinical characterization, neuropathological screening, toxicological analyses, and dissections of various brain regions were performed as previously described (Lipska et al. 2006; PMID: 16997002). All patients met DSM-IV criteria for a lifetime Axis I diagnosis of psychiatric disorders including schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder and major depression. Controls had no history of psychiatric diagnoses or addictions. SNP array: Array-based genotyping was performed on most samples published in this collection. The number of SNPs assayed via Illumina chips varied between 650,000 and 5 Million. Cerebellar tissue was generally used for genotyping studies. # Diagnosis SNP Array 1 Anxiety Disorder 1 2 Autism Spectrum Disorder 13 3 Bipolar Disorder 114 4 Control 387 5 Eating Disorder (ED) 2 6 Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) 186 7 Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) 5 8 Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) 0 9 Schizophrenia 220 10 Other 7 11 Tic Disorder 3 12 Undetermined 1 13 Williams Syndrome 2 Table: Numbers of samples in each diagnostic category. DNA extraction: 45-80 mg of cerebellar tissue was pulverized for DNA extractions. The QIAamp DNA mini Kit (Qiagen) method was employed for tissue DNA extraction. The tissue was initially lysed using Tissue Lyser (Qiagen) and extractions were accomplished according to manufacturer's protocol. The DNA was captured in 500uL elution buffer. The concentrations were measured using Thermo Scientific's NanoDrop 1000/NanoDrop ONE. The mean yield was 128.85 uG (+/- 79.48), the mean ratio of 260/280 was 1.87 (+/- 0.105), and the mean ratio of 260/230 was 2.48 (+/-1.75). Genotyping methods: Three types of Illumina Beadarray chips were used: HumanHap650Y, Human1M-Duo, and HumanOmni5M-Quad (San Diego, California). The genotyping was done according to the manufacturer's protocol (Illumina Proprietary, Catalog # WG-901-5003, Part # 15025910 Rev.A, June 2011). Approximately, 400ng DNA was used and each DNA sample was QC tested for 260/280 ratio by nanodrop and DNA band intactness on 2% agarose gel. Briefly, the samples were whole-genome amplified, fragmented, precipitated and resuspended in appropriate hybridization buffer. Denatured samples were hybridized on prepared Bead Array Chips. After hybridization, the Bead Chip oligonucleotides were extended by a single fluorescent labeled base, which was detected by fluorescence imaging with an Illumina Bead Array Reader, iScan. Normalized bead intensity data obtained for each sample were loaded into the Illumina Genome Studio (Illumina, v.2.0.3) with cluster position files provided by Illumina, and fluorescence intensities were converted into SNP genotypes. Microarray: We generated RNA expression data using array technology for psychiatric subjects compared to non-psychiatric subjects as controls. We used tissues from three different brain regions i.e. hippocampus, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), and dura mater for a large cohort of individuals (total number 552 subjects for hippocampus, 800 for DLPFC and 146 for dura). Total RNA was extracted from ~100 mg of tissue using the RNeasy kit (Qiagen) according to the manufacturer's protocol. RNA quality and quantity were examined using the Bioanalyzer (Agilent, Inc) and NanoDrop (Thermo Scientific, Inc), respectively. Samples with RNA integrity number (RIN) # Diagnosis DLPFC Hippo Dura 1 Anxiety Disorder 1 0 0 2 Autism Spectrum Disorder 14 6 0 3 Bipolar Disorder 90 49 0 4 Control 336 270 75 5 Eating Disorder (ED) 2 1 0 6 Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) 144 87 0 7 Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) 5 3 0 8 Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) 6 0 0 9 Schizophrenia 192 125 71 10 Other 5 6 0 11 Tic Disorder 3 3 0 12 Undetermined 1 1 0 13 Williams Syndrome 2 1 0 Table: Numbers of samples in each diagnostic category. RNA-Seq of Dorso-lateral prefrontal cortex: All brains were collected and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortical (DLPFC) samples dissected at the HBCC, DIRP, NIMH. Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) specimens were dissected from right or left hemisphere of frozen coronal slabs. The study was funded by the DIRP, NIMH under contract (#HHSN 271201400099C) with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai,1106402 One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 3500, New York NY 10029-6574. RNA extraction, library preparation and sequencing were performed under contract at Icahn School of Medicine. The Common Mind Consortium (CMC) provided project management support. RNA isolation: Total RNA from 468 HBCC samples was isolated from approximately 100 mg homogenized tissue from each sample by TRIzol/chloroform extraction and purification with the Qiagen RNeasy kit (Cat#74106) according to manufacturer's protocol. Samples were processed in randomized batches of 12. The order of extraction for schizophrenia, bipolar, and MDD disorders and control samples was assigned randomly with respect to diagnosis and all other sample characteristics. The mean total RNA yield was 24.2 ug (+/- 9.0). The RNA Integrity Number (RIN) was determined by 4200 Agilent TapeStation System. Samples with RIN DLPFC RNA-Seq quantified expression data are provided for 364 samples. Data were generated, QC'd, processed and quantified as follows: RNA library preparation and sequencing: All samples submitted to the New York Genome Center for RNAseq were prepared for sequencing in randomized batches of 94. The sequencing libraries were prepared using the KAPA Stranded RNAseq Kit with RiboErase (KAPA Biosystems). rRNA was depleted from 1ug of RNA using the KAPA RiboErase protocol that is integrated into the KAPA Stranded RNAseq Kit. The insert size and DNA concentration of the sequencing library was determined on Fragment Analyzer Automated CE System (Advanced Analytical) and Quant-iT PicoGreen (ThermoFisher) respectively. Schizophrenia Bipolar Control 89 65 210 Table: Numbers of samples in each diagnostic category. RNA-Seq of subgenual anterior cingulate cortex (sgACC): All the 200 post-mortem brain samples (61 controls; 39 bipolar disorder; 46 schizophrenia; 54 major depressive disorder) were collected by the HBCC, DIRP, NIMH. RNA Extraction and Quality Assessment: Tissue from sgACC was pulverized and stored at -80°C. Total RNA was extracted from 50-80 mg of the tissue using QIAGEN RNeasy Lipid Tissue Mini Kit (QIAGEN, Cat. # 74804) with DNase treatment (QIAGEN, Cat. # 79254). The RNA Integrity Number (RIN) for each sample was assessed with high-resolution capillary electrophoresis on the Agilent Bioanalyzer 2100 (Agilent Technologies, Palo Alto, California). The concentration of RNA and their 260/280 ratio (2.1+/- 0.032 SD) were determined with NanoDrop (Thermo Scientific). RNA sequencing: Stranded RNA-Seq libraries were constructed after rRNA depletion using Ribo-Zero GOLD (Illumina). RNA sequencing was performed at National Institute of Health Intramural Sequencing Center (NISC). Schizophrenia Bipolar Control MDD 46 39 61 54 Table: Numbers of samples in each diagnostic category. Whole Genome Sequencing: All brains were collected and dissected at the HBCC, DIRP, NIMH. This study generates whole genome sequencing data using sequencing of DNA in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) or cerebellum of 443 individuals with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder and non-psychiatric controls. The study was funded by the DIRP, NIMH under contract (#HHSN 271201400099C) with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai,1106402 One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 3500, New York NY 10029-6574. DNA extraction, library preparation and sequencing were performed under contract at Icahn School of Medicine. The Common Mind Consortium (CMC) provided project management support. All specimens were dissected from right or left hemisphere of frozen coronal slabs. DNA Library Preparation and Sequencing: All samples submitted to the New York Genome Center for WGS were prepared for sequencing in randomized batches of 95. The sequencing libraries were prepared using the Illumina PCR-free DNA sample preparation Kit. The insert size and DNA concentration of the sequencing library was determined on Fragment Analyzer Automated CE System (Advanced Analytical) and Quant-iT PicoGreen (ThermoFisher) respectively. A quantitative PCR assay (KAPA), with primers specific to the adapter sequence, was used to determine the yield and efficiency of the adaptor ligation process. Performed on the Illumina HiSeqX with 30X coverage. Schizophrenia Bipolar Control 115 78 230 Table: Numbers of samples in each diagnostic category. ChIP-Seq: All brains were collected and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortical (DLPFC) samples dissected at the HBCC, DIRP, NIMH. This study generates epigenetic data using sequencing of DNA after chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP-Seq) for marks H3K4me3 and H3K27ac in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC) specimens were dissected from right or left hemisphere of frozen coronal slabs. The study was funded by the DIRP, NIMH under contract (#HHSN 271201400099C) with Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai,1106402 One Gustave L. Levy Place, Box 3500, New York NY 10029,6574. Chromatin precipitation, library preparation and sequencing were performed under contract at Icahn School of Medicine. The Common Mind Consortium (CMC) provided project management support. Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) assays for histone marks H3K4me3 and H3K27ac were carried out using Native ChIP. Micrococcal Nuclease (MNase) (Sigma, N3755) treatment was used to digest chromatin into mononucleosomes. The following antibodies were used for chromatin pull-down: anti-H3K4me3 (Cell Signaling, Cat# 9751BC, lot 7) and anti-H3K27ac (Active Motif, Cat# 39133, Lot # 31814008). Histone modification-enriched genomic DNA fragments were recovered using Protein A/G magnetic beads (Thermo Scientific, 88803-88938 or Millipore 16-663), and then washed, eluted, and treated with RNAse A and proteinase K. Final ChIP DNA products were isolated using phenol-chloroform extraction followed by ethanol precipitation. The efficiency of each ChIP assay was validated using Qubit concentration measurement and qPCR for positive (GRIN2B, DARPP32) and negative (HBB) control genomic regions. Only ChIP assays that passed quality control were further processed for library preparation and sequencing; this included ChIP DNA that was not detectable on Qubit but showed a good signal and expected enrichment patterns in qPCR. HISTONE_MARK H3K27ac H3K4me3 Input Bipolar 56 4 7 Control 158 11 24 Schizophrenia 79 11 12 Table: Numbers of individuals in each assay grouped by histone mark or input.Long-Read Whole-Genome Sequencing (WGS) Cohort Description: Brain specimens were obtained from the Human Brain Collection Core (HBCC), part of the NIH NeuroBioBank. Samples were collected under protocols approved by the NIH CNS Institutional Review Board (IRB) (NCT03092687), with informed consent from next-of-kin (NOK). Collection was coordinated through the Offices of the Chief Medical Examiners (MEOs) in Washington, D.C., Northern Virginia, and Central Virginia. Clinical metadata and documentation are publicly available via the NIMH Data Archive (NDA) (Collection #3151) https://nda.nih.gov/edit_collection.html?id=3151 Eligibility Criteria No clinical diagnosis of major neuropsychiatric or neurodegenerative diseaseNo diagnosis of cognitive impairment during life All individuals were confirmed to be neurologically normal at time of deathDemographics Initial cohort size: 155 individuals Ancestry: All individuals self-identified as African or African-admixed Mean age at death: 44.2 years (range: 18–85 years) Sex distribution: 36.4% femaleSample Processing: Frozen frontal cortex tissue was dissected and processed according to the public protocol: https://www.protocols.io/view/processing-human-frontal-cortex-brain-tissue-for-p-kxygxzmmov8j/v2. High-molecular-weight DNA was extracted and libraries were prepared using the Oxford Nanopore Technologies (ONT) LSK-114 kit. Sequencing was performed using ONT PromethION flow cells (R10.4.1 chemistry) Data Processing and Quality Control: Basecalling: Conducted using Guppy v6.38 Read Alignment: Reads were aligned to the GRCh38 reference genome using minimap2 Sample Identity Verification: Sample identity was validated by comparing ONT-derived SNP calls with matched short-read WGS genotypes to ensure concordance and prevent sample swaps Variant Calling and Phasing: Reads were base-called with Guppy v6.38. Reads were aligned to GRCh38 using minimap2. We verified sample identity by cross-checking ONT SNV calls with the existing short-read WGS genotypes, confirming no sample switches. The napu pipeline (https://github.com/nanoporegenomics/napu_wf) produced; haplotype-resolved assemblies, joint small-variant (SNV/indel) calls, and multi-caller structural-variant sets, all reported on GRCh38 and phased where possible. Raw signal data were basecalled to obtain 5-methyl-cytosine (5mC) status; methylation tags were added to the phased BAM files. Genome-wide methylation summaries are provided in BED format.Dataset Filtering and Exclusions: All 155 samples underwent sequencing and SNP-based ancestry inference 8 samples were excluded due to ancestry inconsistent with African or African-admixed background 1 sample was excluded due to insufficient sequencing quality Final Sample Set: 146 high-quality samples from individuals of African or African-admixed ancestry were retained for downstream analyses See PMID: 39764002 for further analysis detailsDiagnosis#SamplesControl155Table: Diagnostic Summary.Note: The data derived from HBCC resources were removed from dbGAP and are now available in the NIMH Data Archive (NDA). They include genotypes, short read whole genome sequencing (WGS), epigenetics (DNA methylation, ChIP-seq for histones), RNA expression (qPCR, microarray, RNA-seq, single nucleus RNA-seq) of various brain regions in cases with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, substance use disorders and normative controls. Please access our NDA collection (https://nda.nih.gov/edit_collection.html?id=3151) for further detail.

  Study phs000979

• FEGA FAQs: a summary of the Q+A session from the FEGA workshop at ELIXIR AHM 2024

  The ELIXIR All Hands Meeting (AHM) was held in Uppsala, Sweden this June. We at EGA always look forward to this meeting as a chance to see many of our partners and colleagues face-to-face. The Federated EGA (FEGA) is one initiative that always benefits from the AHM, and this year FEGA was in the spotlight, with several questions related to the advances we've made recently. We held this year's FEGA workshop a little differently, with most time for discussions on various “hot topics”. Organised in different breakouts, over 2 rounds, participants could choose which session they wanted to attend. One breakout was a general Q+A about FEGA and the path to join. We had a diverse range of participants, including experts from Central EGA (CEGA) and FEGA inaugural nodes, people from up and coming nodes at various stages of readiness, as well as participants not directly a part of FEGA but curious to learn more. It made for a great discussion! In this blog post, we highlight some of the questions for those who didn’t have a chance to be there. What is the FEGA Collaboration Agreement? It is a legal agreement between the node and Central EGA (CEGA) where both parties agree to certain responsibilities, like what services will be provided, sharing of public metadata with CEGA, interoperable technologies and more. The agreement is for 4 years, with the expectation of long-term sustainability. If a node is made up of multiple institutes, one institute must be the signatory. This could require a legal agreement within the node. CEGA is composed of CRG and EMBL-EBI (EGA itself has its own legal agreement between these institutes) Check the FEGA Collaboration Agreement What about purely medical data? Is this accepted in FEGA? CEGA only accepts data approved for secondary research use. We do accept medical data collected in this context, as do some nodes. Nodes are able to accept any data they like, as long as it is sensitive, thus in need of controlled access. What about other data types other than genomics? Like proteomics or images? They can be accepted, although CEGA is currently not designed with those formats in mind, so they might not fit with precision in the data model. The FEGA nodes are welcome to accept any data they want. Proteomic studies generating sensitive data are increasing, and specific work will likely be developed in the near future to adress this need. Does CEGA require a certain amount or type of data to be shared by the node? No, we do not and it's up to each node to decide what specific data types they accept and in what format. Nonetheless, a FEGA node has the duty to be open to data submission from any institution of their country, and can't be limited by design to a single or limited data source. Does CEGA and FEGA require a certain amount or type of details and description on the data to be submitted to the node? Data description (technical and biological), usually called metadata in this field, is crucial for the findability of the submitted data. Thus, we highly recommend including as much information as available to maximise the discoverability of the data. Specifical minimal metadata is defined in the submission schema, and thresholds are specified by the nodes. We are currently working towards a unified FEGA metadata model. What are the geographical borders of FEGA? FEGA should make the E for Everyone, because any institute worldwide could join and we indeed do have countries and use-cases worldwide. Some of them are very close to officially joining the federation. What are the main differences between FEGA and GDI? The two networks have a lot in common and also some critical differences. You can read all about this in one of our latest blog post. If you have more questions, please consider having a look at the FEGA onboarding webpage and, of course, don't miss our workshop at the ELIXIR AHM next year!

  Blog fega-faqs-elixir-ahm-2024

• GAW16 Framingham and Simulated Data

  Important links to apply for individual-level data Genetic Analysis Workshop Instructions to Request Authorized Access Data Use Certification Requirements (DUC) Apply here for controlled access to individual level data Research Use Statement Questions regarding GAW16 should be directed to Vanessa Olmo at vanessa@business-endeavors.com. Problem 2: Description of the Framingham Heart Study In GAW16, we use data drawn from the Framingham Heart Study. The Framingham Heart Study — under the direction of National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; NHLBI — began in 1948 with the recruitment of adults from the town of Framingham, Massachusetts. At the time, little was known about the general causes of heart disease and stroke, but the death rates for cardiovascular disease (CVD) had been increasing steadily since the beginning of the 20th century and had become an American epidemic. The Framingham Heart Study is now conducted in collaboration with Boston University. The objective of the Framingham Heart Study was to identify the common factors or characteristics that contribute to CVD by following its development over a long period of time in a large group of participants who had not yet developed overt symptoms of CVD or suffered a heart attack or stroke. Between 1948 and 1953 the researchers recruited 5,209 subjects (2,336 men and 2,873 women) between the ages of 29 and 62 from the town of Framingham, Massachusetts and began the first round of extensive physical examinations and lifestyle interviews that they would later analyze for common patterns related to CVD development. Subjects were recruited from lists of addresses recorded for the town. Two out of every three households were approached for participation in the study. While there was no intention to recruit families for family studies, the plan was to recruit all household members in the ages 30-60 within each house that was selected for study. Hence, many biologically related individuals were recruited, including 1644 spouse pairs. Since 1948, these participants have returned to the study every two years for a detailed medical history, physical examination, and laboratory tests. Now in 2008 at 60 years of follow up, there remain about 500 participants from this cohort. Between 1971 and 1975 the study enrolled a second-generation group — 5,124 of the original participants' children and the spouses of these children — to participate in similar examinations. 2,616 subjects are offspring of the original spouse pairs and 34 are stepchildren. A total of 898 offspring are children of cohort members where only one parent was a study participant and 1,576 are spouses of the offspring. The Offspring Cohort has been followed every four years through 2001 (except between Exams 1 and 2 with an intervening 8 years) using protocols similar to those used for study of the Original Cohort. Between 2002 and 2005 the study enrolled the third generation (Gen3) of the Framingham Heart Study - 4095 offspring of the second generation. None of their spouses were recruited. An additional 103 parents of this third generation, who were not recruited between 1971 and 1975, were also recruited at this time. The latter group is not included in the GAW16 data. With the recruitment of this third generation, the study has increasingly focused on genetic factors associated with the development of cardiovascular disease and its associated risk factors. To date, there is only one examination of this generation of participants. A description of the recruitment of this third generation and comparison with the earlier generations at their initial recruitment is presented in Splansky GL et al., 2007. Further information on the Study can be found at http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/about/framingham/index.html. Genome-wide Dense SNP Scan in Framingham Heart Study Genetic studies did not begin in the FHS until the 1990s. In the late 1980s and through the 1990s DNA was extracted from blood samples of surviving FHS participants. In 2007, the FHS entered a new phase with the conduct of genotyping for the FHS SHARe (SNP Health Association Resource) project, for which dense SNP genotyping was performed using approximately 550,000 SNPs (GeneChip® Human Mapping 500K Array Set and the 50K Human Gene Focused Panel) in 10,775 samples (some duplicates) from the three generations of subjects (including over 900 pedigrees). Affymetrix conducted all genotyping for the FHS SHARe project, using the 250K Sty, 250K Nsp, and the supplemental 50K platforms. Eighty-nine percent of the DNA samples were collected during the 1990s. To maximize the power of the study, we also extracted DNA from 1133 blood samples, drawn from subjects who had no DNA, to include in the SHARe project. These samples had been sitting in our refrigerators for some time, a few as far back as the 1970s. We refer to these DNA samples as the legacy samples. These samples had a higher failure rate in the genotyping process (40%) than the other eighty-nine percent (3%). Affymetrix invoked its own criteria for a sample to succeed in genotyping. All non-legacy samples must succeed on all three platforms, while legacy samples needed to pass on at least one platform. When a sample failed, additional attempts were made. Samples that repeatedly failed 2-4 times were called failures. Other samples failed due to issues of genotyped sex identification not matching our records or low SNP concordance among SNPs common across arrays or contamination. Eighty-nine percent of the legacy samples for which genotyping results are available passed all three platforms. The genotyping data from the 10,043 samples from 9354 subjects that passed the Affymetrix criteria were additionally checked for gender consistency and consistency with family structure, resulting in genotyping data for 9,274 participants in FHS SHARe. Genotype calls were made with the BRLMM algorithm. The SHARe database is housed at the National Center for Biotechnology Information database of genotypes and phenotypes (NCBI dbGaP) and contains all ~550,000 SNPs. This genome-wide dense SNP scan and a subset of phenotypes from the Framingham Heart Study are the focus of the Genetic Analysis Workshop 16. Further information on the specific variables in the Problem 2 dataset can be found by clicking on the Documents tab at the top of the page. Problem 3: Description of the Simulated Data Set The focus of this simulation is gene discovery in genome-wide association scans (GWAS). The Framingham Heart Study data set (distributed as "Problem 2") is the basis for the FHS* simulated data. The pedigree structures are derived from the data distributed for Problem 2, and we distribute an accompanying triplet file (triplet_sim) containing person ID, father ID, mother ID, to ensure the identical subjects, pedigrees, and singletons are used in the simulated data analysis. Consistent with standard practice, founders and singletons are designated as subjects with both fshare and mshare equal to zero (missing). The simulated data includes a total of 6,479 subjects with both phenotype and genotype data, in 942 pedigrees distributed among 3 generations and 188 singletons. Data inclusion is consistent with the subjects' consent for use by both for-profit and not-for-profit researchers. The genotypes for all Problem 3 replicates are fixed as measured and distributed for Problem 2 for both the genomewide scan and the additional candidate gene SNPs, for a total of approximately 550,000 SNPs (GeneChip® Human Mapping 500K Array Set and the 50K Human Gene Focused Panel). Thus, to analyze the Problem 3 simulated data you also will need to download the Problem 2 genotypes. Note that there are slight discrepancies in counts between Problems 2 and 3 due to a change in consents between the two datasets. Several phenotypes that contribute to coronary heart disease (CHD) were simulated for all individuals with genotypes across three different time points, 10 years apart. All genotyped individuals have complete data; the effects of missing values can be investigated by user-specified missing value patterns. There are 200 longitudinal datasets created, based on the generating model, and each replication is found in a separate dataset. We suggest that if only one replication is to be analyzed, that it be replication 1 to enable more precise comparisons among analytical approaches. The 'shareid' will allow you to merge the simulated phenotype data with the Problem 2 genotype data, and reconstruction of the pedigrees using the distributed 'triplet_sim' file or for larger families' relationships with the triplet distributed with the Problem 2. The simulated data problem is further described in the associated readme file, and a data dictionary is provided defining all the variables. For disclosure of the generating model for these data, please contact Jean MacCluer at jean@sfbrgenetics.org.

  Study phs000128

• National Eye Institute (NEI) Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS)

  The Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) was initially designed as a long-term multi-center, prospective study of the clinical course of age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and age-related cataract. In addition to collecting natural history data, AREDS included a clinical trial of high-dose vitamin and mineral supplements for AMD and a clinical trial of high-dose vitamin supplements for cataract. AREDS participants were 55 to 80 years of age at enrollment and had to be free of any illness or condition that would make long-term follow-up or compliance with study medications unlikely or difficult. On the basis of fundus photographs graded by a central reading center, best-corrected visual acuity and ophthalmologic evaluations, 4,757 participants were enrolled in one of several AMD categories, including persons with no AMD. The clinical trials for AMD and cataract were conducted concurrently. AREDS participants were followed on the clinical trials for a median time of 6.5 years. Subsequent to the conclusion of the clinical trials, participants were followed for an additional 5 years and natural history data were collected. The AREDS research design is detailed in AREDS Report 1. AREDS Report 8 contains the mainline results from the AMD trial; AREDS Report 9 contains the results of the cataract trial. Blood samples were also collected from 3,700+ AREDS participants for genetic research. Genetic samples from 600 AREDS participants (200 controls, 200 Neovascular AMD cases, and 200 Geographic Atrophy cases) were selected using data available in March 2005 and then were evaluated with a genome-wide scan. These data, as well as selected phenotypic data, were made available in the dbGaP. DNA from AREDS participants, which is currently being stored in the AREDS Genetic Repository, is available for research purposes. However, not all of the 3,700+ AREDS participants who submitted a blood sample currently have DNA available. In addition to including the data from the genome-wide scan on the 600 original samples, this second version of the AREDS dbGaP database provides a comprehensive set of data tables with extensive clinical information collected for the 4,757 participants who participated in AREDS. The tables include information collected at enrollment/baseline, during study follow-up, fundus and lens pathology, nutritional estimates, quality of life measures and measures of morbidity and mortality. In November 2010, over 72,000 high quality fundus and lens photographs of 595 AREDS participants (of the original 600 selected for the genome-wide scan) were made available in the AREDS dbGaP. In addition to the genome-wide scan data, the fundus and lens grading data for these participants are also available through the AREDS dbGaP. Details about the ocular photographs that are available may be found in the document "Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) Ocular Photographs". In January 2012, a measure of daily sunlight exposure was added in a separate "sunlight" table. Furthermore, the "followup" table has been revised. The visual acuity for the right eye was inadvertently missing at odd-numbered visits (01, 03, 05, etc.). This data is now part of the table. In February 2014 over 134,500 high-quality fundus photographs (macular field F2) of 4613 AREDS participants were added to the existing AREDS dbGaP resource. The AREDS dbGaP image archive already contains over 72,000 high quality fundus and lens photographs of 595 AREDS participants for whom dbGaP-accessible genotype data exist. Information about the available ocular photographs found in the document "Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS) Ocular Photographs" has been updated with an addendum. It is hoped that this resource will better help researchers understand two important diseases that affect an aging population. These data may be applied to examination and inference on genetic and genetic-environmental bases for age-related diseases of public health significance and may also help elucidate the clinical course of both conditions, generate hypotheses, and aid in the design of clinical trials of preventive interventions. Definitions of Final AMD Phenotype Categories Please see phd001138.1 for a detailed description of how AREDS participants' final AMD phenotype was categorized. User's Guide for AREDS Phenotype Data A detailed User's Guide for the AREDS phenotype data is available. This User's Guide is meant to be a comprehensive document which explains the complexities of the AREDS data. It is recommended that all researchers using AREDS phenotype data make use of this User's Guide.

  Study phs000001

• A Randomized, Double-Blind, Crossover Study of Sodium Phenylbutyrate (Buphenyl) and Low-Dose Arginine (100 mg/kg/day) Compared to High-Dose Arginine (500 mg/kg/day) Alone on Liver Function, Ureagenesis and Subsequent Nitric Oxide Production in Patients with Argininosuccinic Aciduria (ASA)

  Individuals with Urea Cycle Disorders (UCD) cannot remove ammonia, a waste product, from the blood. At present there is little information on the use of sodium phenylbutyrate (Buphenyl™) in children with argininosuccinic aciduria (ASA). It is hoped that this drug may help lower ammonia and argininosuccinic acid levels in patients with ASA. Through this study we hope to learn whether the use of sodium phenylbutyrate (Buphenyl™) in patients with ASA, in addition to diet and arginine therapy, will decrease liver damage and the number of periods during which ammonia levels are high. The primary study objective is to determine if the treatment of ASA patients with sodium phenylbutyrate (Buphenyl™) in conjunction with lowered doses of arginine improves liver function as measured by short-term assessment of synthetic activity and the use of stable isotope tracers to assess ureagenesis and nitric oxide production. Twelve patients with ASA will be studied using a randomized, cross-over design. Medical records will be reviewed to confirm the diagnosis prior to enrollment. Patients will be on the each arm of the study for one week each preceded by a three day washout period. Patients will come to the Baylor College of Medicine General Clinical Research Center in Texas Children's Hospital for an inpatient hospitalization. This hospitalization is for diet control, clinical evaluation, and stable isotope infusions for measurement of in vivo rates of ureagenesis and nitric oxide production. During the washout periods Buphenyl™ or other alternative route medications, e.g., benzoate, will be discontinued and arginine will be administered at the standard therapeutic dose of 500 mg/kg/day or 10 grams/m2. Following randomization, subjects will be maintained on either high-dose arginine (500 mg/kg/day or 10 grams/m2) alone, or the alternative of low-dose arginine (100 mg/kg/d or 2 grams/m2) along with sodium phenylbutyrate (500 mg/kg/day or 10 grams/m2). For the second week they will be crossed over to the other arm of the study preceded by another three day washout. Previous medications and dietary protein intake (0.6 g/kg/day or current metabolic diet) will be continued during both arms of the study. The two arms may be performed as separate ten-day admissions. The decision to design the study with two arms, high-dose arginine and low-dose arginine/Buphenyl™, was reached after weighing several considerations. First, the current accepted practice for treatment of ASA is high-dose arginine. Based on metabolic flux studies, we have quantified the effects of this dose of arginine as compared to standard doses of Buphenyl™/phenylacetate on ureagenesis. Since the study is not designed or intended to address the independent effects of Buphenyl™ as compared to arginine alone, Buphenyl™ was added for safety reasons to accommodate loss of clearance of nitrogen by decreasing the arginine dose. Moreover, based on our experience with recruiting for previous versions of this study, most ASA patients with liver dysfunction are on an alternative route ammonia scavenger medication in addition to arginine. We found that this has in fact become an accepted practice. Hence, when considering study design from both a safety and recruitment perspective, it was most reasonable to design the study to investigate specifically the hypothesis that the production and presence of argininosuccinic acid leads to liver dysfunction. Since both low-dose arginine with Buphenyl™ and high-dose arginine alone lead to a decreased production of argininosuccinic acid, and both are currently accepted therapies in ASA and UCDs in general, the need to address their effects distinctly is not being investigated at this time. Sodium phenylbutyrate dosage will be 500 mg/kg/day in patients weighing less than 20kg and 10 g/m2/day in larger patients. Daily dosage will be given in equally divided doses 4 times per day. In order to ensure that the study remains double-blind to investigators, study staff and subjects, the Investigational Pharmacy Service at Texas Children's Hospital will dispense both the Buphenyl™ and arginine in powder form which is compounded into capsules or will be mixed with syrpalta (up to 5 grams will dissolve in 10cc liquid) and administered orally or through nasogastric or gastrostomy tube. No nasogastric tube should be placed or gastrostomy performed solely for the purpose of inclusion in this study. Because the reported adverse effects of sodium phenylbutyrate include gastritis, participants will be started on a standard dose of ranitidine (Zantac™), or comparable drug, during both arms of the study.

  Study phs001305

• Resuscitation Outcomes Consortium (ROC) Prehospital Resuscitation Using an Impedance Valve and Early Versus Delayed Analysis (PRIMED) (ROC-PRIMED-BioLINCC)

  Accessing Data: Please refer to “Authorized Access” below regarding accessing data through the BioData Catalyst ecosystem. The data from this accession is not available for download through dbGaP.Objective: The purpose of this study was to examine two different treatments during a cardiac arrest that occurs outside of the hospital and whether either or both treatments would increase the number of people who lived to hospital discharge with satisfactory functional status. The first treatment involved using a device called the Impedance Threshold Device (ITD). The other treatment involved the amount of CPR given before the emergency medical services (EMS) providers first looked at the heart rhythm to determine if a shock is needed.Background: Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a common and lethal problem with a low survival rate, leading to an estimated 330,000 deaths each year in the United States and Canada. The traditional approach to out-of-hospital cardiac arrest has been to emphasize early analysis of cardiac rhythm, with delivery of defibrillatory shocks, if indicated, as quickly as possible. It has been suggested, however, that many participants may benefit from a period of CPR before the first analysis of rhythm.The impedance threshold device (ITD) is designed to enhance venous return and cardiac output during CPR by increasing the degree of negative intrathoracic pressure. Previous studies have suggested that the use of an ITD during CPR may improve survival rates after cardiac arrest. This effect is achieved by preventing the passive inflow of air into the chest during chest recoil between chest compressions without impeding active ventilation. The ITD has been found to improve hemodynamics, the perfusion of vital organs, and neurologically intact survival in studies in animals. The results of small, short-term clinical trials have suggested that the ITD can increase systolic blood pressure during resuscitation and improve short-term survival rates. Participants: In the ITD study, 4,345 participants were assigned to sham ITD and 4,373 to active ITD, while in the early versus later rhythm analysis, 5,290 participants were assigned to early cardiac rhythm analysis, and 4,643 were assigned to later cardiac rhythm analysis. This study qualified for exception from informed consent required for emergency research.Design: Most participants were enrolled simultaneously in both the early analysis versus later analysis component and the active ITD versus sham ITD component of the trial.The use of an active ITD was compared with that of a sham ITD in participants at 10 ROC sites in the United States and Canada. Participants, investigators, study coordinators, and all care providers were unaware of the treatment assignments. EMS personnel were trained in ITD function, proper use of the ITD, and all aspects of protocol implementation, with an emphasis on the optimal performance of CPR according to local guidelines. The first EMS responders to arrive at the scene of the arrest who were equipped with a randomly assigned ITD (active or sham) attached the device between the ventilation bag and face mask or between the bag and an advanced airway. Responders were encouraged to implement use of the device within 5 minutes after their arrival or as soon as clinically possible. Each of the 10 participating ROC centers was also divided into approximately 20 clusters. All episodes of cardiac arrest in a cluster were randomly assigned to one CPR strategy; after a set period of time, ranging from 3 to 12 months, all episodes in that cluster were then assigned to the other strategy. Participants in the early-analysis group were assigned to receive 30 to 60 seconds of chest compressions and ventilations (sufficient time to place defibrillator electrodes) before electrocardiographic (ECG) analysis, and those in the late-analysis group were assigned to receive 3 minutes of chest compressions and ventilations before ECG analysis. The start and stop times for CPR were recorded by the responders, and the information was supplemented by the recording of defibrillator time. Conclusions: All 10 sites halted enrollment in November 2009 when the data and safety monitoring board recommended termination because interim analysis showed that the findings were not likely to change with continuation of the study. Neither use of the ITD nor the amount of CPR given before cardiac rhythm analysis significantly improved survival with satisfactory function (i.e., a score of ≤3 on the modified Rankin scale) among participants with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest receiving standard CPR. There were also no significant differences in the secondary outcomes, including rates of return of spontaneous circulation on arrival at the emergency department, survival to hospital admission, and survival to hospital discharge.

  Study phs003825

• Lung Tissue Research Consortium (LTRC-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. Biospecimens: Access to Biospecimens is through the NHLBI Biologic Specimen and Data Repository Information Coordinating Center (BioLINCC). Biospecimens from LTRC include DNA, Plasma, Serum, Tissue - FFPE Cassettes, Tissue – RNALater Frozen, and Tissue - Snap Frozen. Please note that use of biospecimens in genetic research is subject to a tiered consent. Objectives: The LTRC was a biobank resource established by the NHLBI to collect and distribute lung tissue, blood samples, clinical data, and radiographic studies from participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), other related idiopathic interstitial pneumonias (IIP) and interstitial pneumonias associated with connective tissue diseases who undergo medically-indicated lung resection. All tissue and blood specimens and clinical data were banked centrally and stored for distribution to external investigators who have approved study proposals to investigate the pathogenesis or management of lung diseases. The ultimate goal of this program was to enable research that illuminates the pathobiology of lung diseases and leads to novel interventional treatments for these conditions. Background: Chronic lung diseases are a main cause of death and disability in the United States. COPD affects over 14 million individuals in the United States and represents the third leading cause of mortality. Cigarette smoking is a major risk factor. However, only one of six individuals who smoke develops COPD. This could imply either an individual susceptibility or an additional immunologic or infectious injury to lung cells. Current treatments offer symptomatic relief, but do not prevent disease progression. Better understanding of disease pathogenesis, including the potential roles of lung parenchymal cell apoptosis, immunologic injury, and inflammation may lead to therapies that improve survival and quality of life. Interstitial pneumonias, including IPF and those associated with connective tissue disease, are less common than COPD, but for many of these diseases there are poor outcomes. For example, IPF has a 50% survival rate 2-3 years following diagnosis, and currently no treatment exists which prolongs survival. The prevalence of IPF is approximately 28 cases per 100,000. The underlying histology of IPF is usual interstitial pneumonia (UIP), which can also occur in connective tissue diseases. The incidences of other interstitial pneumonias such as non-specific interstitial pneumonia (NSIP) or acute interstitial pneumonia (AIP) are less frequent but also occur as an expression of interstitial lung disease in the connective tissue diseases. Moreover, there is significant crossover of these three interstitial pneumonias so that cases of IPF/UIP may also reveal fibrotic NSIP and be complicated by episodes of AIP. This implies common injuries but dissimilar histological responses. All of these processes are characterized by epithelial injury, uncontrolled fibroproliferation and the deposition of collagen, irrespective of the histology. It is clear that a better understanding of the genesis of the interstitial pneumonias is required before effective interventions can be developed. Participants: A total of 4,486 participants were enrolled, and lung tissue was obtained from 3,333 of these participants.Design: Written informed consent of each participant was required before any LTRC procedure was performed. Phenotypic data were then obtained that included recording of relevant medical information, a limited exposure history, radiological evaluation, and pulmonary physiological and lung function testing. Questionnaires were administered to determine the extent of symptoms, associated medical illnesses, smoking, environmental and occupational exposures, and quality of life. Laboratory testing included pulmonary function testing, a six-minute walk test, and chest x-ray CT. Blood specimens were collected both for defining the clinical phenotype of donors and to obtain serum, plasma, and DNA for later investigative purposes. At the time of surgery, lung tissues were collected and processed for long-term storage. The LTRC collected only the 'non-tumorous' portions of lung tissue from surgical procedures performed for primary or metastatic lung tumors and received those specimens only after the local pathologist had procured all tissue required for clinical care. Samples of appropriate size were cut and placed in formalin, RNAlater, glutaraldehyde, or liquid nitrogen within 30 minutes of excision (approximately 5% of cases exceeded this target time). Blood and tissue specimens were subsequently shipped to a central Tissue Repository for further processing and long-term storage. A Radiology Center provided quality control and quality assessment of CT data. A Data Coordinating Center managed study operations and maintained a repository of study data. Conclusions: LTRC established a biospecimen collection that is unique in its size, diseases included, standardization of methods, and extent of phenotypic data, serving as a valuable resource to facilitate research on the pathobiology of lung diseases.

  Study phs003913

• NHGRI GREGoR Consortium: Genomics Research to Elucidate the Genetics of Rare Disease

  The NHGRI GREGoR (Genomics Research to Elucidate the Genetics of Rare Disease) Consortium was established in June 2021 with the goal of developing novel tools and approaches to advance the discovery of the genetic basis of rare conditions. Numerous types of molecular data are generated in GREGoR and available on the AnVIL cloud platform via dbGaP application, including short- and long-read genome and exome sequencing, transcriptomics, metabolomics, methylomics, and proteomics. De-identified clinical and demographic data is obtained, with a focus on standardized ontologies.Visit the GREGoR Consortium data webpage for summary information about the GREGoR Dataset, including numbers of participants and data types, methods documentation, and Release Notes. The Consortium comprises five Research Centers (RCs - see below), a Data Coordinating Center (DCC), and various partner members and external collaborators.Baylor College of Medicine Research Center (BCM-GREGoR) The Baylor College of Medicine GREGoR program, which is part of the GREGoR consortium, enrolls individuals, families, and cohorts with suspected rare disease across a range of syndromic and non-syndromic phenotypes. Subjects are enrolled from national and international collaborating physician referrals. Subjects provide written informed consent for future re-contact. Data generated and shared include family structure, detailed phenotypes, exome or short-read genome data, and in some cases long-read genome or RNA-sequencing, and these are shared upon completion of standard quality control checks and annotation. Broad Institute (Broad) The Broad Center for Mendelian Genomics, part of the GREGoR consortium uses next-generation sequencing (exome, genome, transcriptome, and long read sequencing), computational approaches, and functional studies to discover the variants and genes that underlie Mendelian conditions with a particularly focus on neuromuscular, neurodevelopmental, and syndromic phenotypes. Samples come from collaborators and direct enrollment through the Rare Genomes Project and we are committed to rapid data sharing without an embargo period. University of California, Irvine (UCI-GREGoR) To accelerate the pace of Mendelian disease gene discovery and clinical implementation, we propose a Mendelian Genomics Research Center, part of the GREGoR Consortium, leveraging the broad pediatric and adult clinical and research expertise at Children's National Hospital and University of California, Irvine. Our goal is to develop best practices to increase the diagnostic yield of rare diseases, engage the community to reduce health disparities for complex diagnoses, while creating a dataset accessible to all. Our Center will unite world class experts combining basic and translational research with innovative approaches to phenotyping, variant identification and functional investigation of both coding and non-coding sequence changes with the goals of discovering novel Mendelian gene variations and identifying variants not detected on current sequencing pipelines, disambiguating uncertain variants into disease-causing versus benign categorizations, and sharing information by working collaboratively with the GREGoR community.GREGoR Stanford Site (GSS) The goal of the GREGoR Stanford Site (GSS) is to provide a platform for functional genomics research and validation to improve diagnosis in Mendelian disease. Participants included individuals with undiagnosed suspected Mendelian disease who had non-diagnostic exome sequencing and their immediate family members. Participants and their family members provided written, informed consent and biological samples from which DNA, RNA, plasma, fibroblasts, PBMCs and other cell types were generated and stored. Samples from research participants and their immediate family members may have undergone short and long-read genome sequencing, transcriptome sequencing, metabolomics and/or lipidomics profiling, methyl-capture-sequencing and ATAC-sequencing. De-identified clinical data extracted from participant medical records are linked to the samples. University of Washington Center for Rare Disease Research (UW-CRDR) The goals of the University of Washington Center for Rare Disease Research are to: (1) maximize novel gene discovery for Mendelian conditions by recruitment, short- and long-read whole genome sequencing, transcriptome sequencing and analysis of families with rare conditions for which the gene is either unknown or the gene is known but no pathogenic variant can be identified via clinical testing; (2) develop new strategies for gene discovery for Mendelian conditions caused by variants that are difficult to detect using conventional testing strategies, variants of unknown function effect (e.g., regulatory, structural variants) or have unusual modes of inheritance; and (3) implement high-throughput screening and targeted follow-up functional studies to prioritize and validate candidate non-coding variants. De-identified data and phenotypic information are shared via MyGene2, ClinVar, and AnVIL.

  Study phs003047

• The Primary Open-Angle Glaucoma Genes and Environment (GLAUGEN) Study

  Background Information: Primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) is an age-related, intraocular pressure (IOP)-dependent progressive optic neuropathy that ultimately leads to irreversible blindness. Vision loss from POAG is a condition of public health significance. Current evidence suggests that POAG is a polygenetic disease modified by environmental influences. Despite the fact that a positive family history of disease is an important risk factor for POAG, conventional linkage and candidate gene approaches have revealed less than 5% of the genetic component of the disease. Furthermore, there is no consensus on environment risk factors for POAG. Elevated IOP is the only modifiable risk factor for POAG; yet, lowering IOP slows, but does not halt the disease process. Study Objectives: The overall goal of our research is to elucidate the pathogenesis of POAG so that cost-effective disease detection and primary prevention strategies can be implemented. The primary aim of the Glaucoma Gene Environment Initiative (GLAUGEN), funded by the Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), is to discover genetic loci associated with POAG. The secondary aim of GLAUGEN, funded by NHGRI and the National Eye Institute, is to discover gene environment interactions in POAG. Methods and study populations: For this study, we have assembled cases and controls from three studies: the Nurses' Health Study (NHS), the Health Professionals Follow-up Study (HPFS) and the Genetic Etiologies of POAG (GEP) project based at Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary (MEEI). This case-control group includes 1057 unrelated cases and 1272 controls. Members of the NHS and HPFS also have repeated environmental exposure data collected prior to a diagnosis of POAG. NHS - The Nurses Health Study started in 1976 under the direction of Dr. Frank E. Speizer. With funding from the NIH, registered nurses from 11 US states were invited to complete a detailed questionnaire regarding lifestyle and health biennially. Initially, 121,000 women responded to the baseline questionnaire. Currently, Dr. Susan Hankinson serves as the program director for the NHS. HPFS - The Health Professionals Follow-up Study began in 1986 under the direction of Drs. Walter Willett and Meir Stampfer. Under the auspices of the NIH, they enlisted 51,529 male health professionals from throughout the US to complete similarly designed biennial questionnaires. Beginning in 1990, questions regarding ocular health were added to biennial questionaires completed by health professionals participating in the NHS and HPFS. This allowed us to formulate (PI: S. Hankinson; NEI) and maintain (PI: L. Pasquale; NEI) a cohort at risk for POAG derived from the respective general cohorts who were under ophthalmic care. We then developed a definition of POAG that allowed us to identify cases from a population that was geographically dispersed. The centerpiece of this definition is the presence of reproducible visual field loss consistent with nerve fiber layer (NFL) dropout (the NFL contains the axons that comprise the optic nerve) on reliable tests. Reproducible visual field loss occurred in the context of anterior segment findings that did not suggest a secondary cause of elevated IOP and posterior segment findings that did not suggest a secondary cause of visual field loss. We selected controls from the cohort at risk for POAG on the basis of age, gender and time period when cases were identified. GEP - The Genetic Etiologies of POAG was initiated in 1996 with funding from the National Eye Institute under the direction of Dr. Janey Wiggs. The purpose of this work was to discover novel genetic loci associated with POAG. In the GEP, cases were derived predominantly from the Glaucoma Service at MEEI. The majority of cases had an examination by a glaucoma specialist and met the definition for POAG used in NHS and HPFS. Cases with only one reliable visual field consistent with NFL dropout were included if there was a cup-disc ratio of 0.7 or more. The majority of controls were patients who presented to the MEEI comprehensive ophthalmology service for routine eye examination or from spouses of MEEI patients with secondary forms of glaucoma. Other controls were identified from regional glaucoma screenings held throughout Massachusetts. Members of GEP have detailed ocular phenotype data but limited information on environmental exposures. This study is part of the Gene Environment Association Studies initiative (GENEVA, http://www.genevastudy.org) funded by the trans-NIH Genes, Environment, and Health Initiative (GEI). The overarching goal is to identify novel genetic factors that contribute to primary open-angle glaucoma through large-scale genome-wide association studies of three well-characterized cohorts of cases and controls, some in matched pairs. Genotyping was performed at the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, a GENEVA genotyping center. Data cleaning and harmonization were performed at the GEI-funded GENEVA Coordinating Center at the University of Washington.

  Study phs000308

• Serrated Colorectal Cancer: An Emerging Disease Subtype

  This dataset represents two combined study populations. Serrated Colorectal Cancer: An Emerging Disease Subtype (called the Advanced Colorectal Cancer of Serrated Subtype Study or ACCESS Study) was a grant awarded to investigate a newly-recognized, biologically-distinct subtype of colorectal cancer (CRC) called “serrated CRC.” The objective of this project was to characterize factors related to the genetic predisposition, clinical presentation, and prognosis of serrated CRC. The study recruited incident invasive CRC cases diagnosed between April 2016 and December 2018, aged 20-74 years at diagnosis. Cases were identified through the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry serving 13 counties in western Washington State. Eligibility for all individuals was limited to those who were English-speaking and could consent. Participation included completing a baseline epidemiologic questionnaire shortly after diagnosis, optional donation of a saliva sample for genetic analysis, and optional consent to release of medical records and tissue specimens related to their diagnosis. Tumor specimens were tested for serrated CRC-defining molecular characteristics. Further, we have vital status on all participants and cause of death on those that have died since enrollment. Hormones and Colon Cancer: Epigenetic Subtypes, Risks, and Survival (called the Post-Menopausal Hormones Study or PMH Study) was a grant awarded to investigate the impact of post-menopausal hormone use on colon cancer risk, tumor molecular characteristics, and outcomes. Eligible cases were females, newly diagnosed with invasive colorectal adenocarcinoma between October 1998 and February 2002, aged 50 to 74 years. Cases were residents of 10 out of the 13 counties in western Washington State served by the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry. Eligibility for all individuals was limited to those who were English-speaking with available telephone numbers, in which they could be contacted. Unrelated population-based controls were randomly selected according to age distribution (in 5-year age intervals) of the eligible cases by using lists of licensed drivers from the Washington State Department of Licensing (for individuals aged 50 to 64 years) and rosters from the Health Care Financing Administration (now the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, for individuals older than 64 years). Participation included completing a baseline epidemiologic questionnaire, optional donation of a saliva sample for genetic analysis, and (for cases only) optional consent to release of medical records and tissue specimens related to their diagnosis. Tumor specimens were tested for epigenetic and other molecular characteristics. The ACCESS study was supported by funding from the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NCI/NIH) (R01CA196337, PI: Newcomb, PA), as was the PMH Study (R01CA076366, PI: Newcomb, PA). Additional support for the PMH Study came from the Seattle site of the Colon Cancer Family Registry (SCCFR) (U01CA167551, PI: Jenkins, M, and U01/U24CA074794, PI: Newcomb, PA). Additional support for case ascertainment was provided by the Cancer Surveillance System of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, which is funded by Contract Number HHSN261201300012I; NCI Control Number: N01 PC-2013-00012; Contract Number HHSN261201800004I; and NCI Control Number: N01 PC-2018-00004 from the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) Program of the National Cancer Institute with additional support from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center and the State of Washington. This research was also supported by the Genomics and Bioinformatics, Comparative Medicine, Specialized Pathology, Collaborative Data Services, and Experimental Histopathology Shared Resources of the Fred Hutch/University of Washington Cancer Consortium (P30 CA015704).Tumor marker testing was performed using formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded diagnostic tumor tissue specimens, and DNA extracted from those specimens. Testing for microsatellite instability (MSI) was based on either a 10-gene panel (BAT25, BAT26, BAT40, MYCL, D5S346, D17S250, ACTC, D18S55, D10S197, BAT34C4) or a 4-marker immunohistochemistry panel of DNA mismatch repair proteins (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PMS2). CpG island methylator phenotype (CIMP) testing was based on a validated quantitative DNA methylation assay using a five-gene panel (CACNA1G, IGF2, NEUROG1, RUNX3, SOCS1) or eight-gene panel (CACNA1G, IGF2, NEUROG1, RUNX3, SOCS1, MLH1, CRABP1, CDKN2A). Somatic p.V600E BRAF mutation status was tested for using a fluorescent allele-specific PCR assay. KRAS mutations in codons 12 and 13 were also assessed through forward and reverse sequencing of amplified tumor DNA. DNA was extracted from blood/saliva samples using conventional methods. The genotyping panel completed was the Build37 OncoArray500K-C, including 1%-6% blinded duplicates to monitor the quality of the genotyping. Quality control procedures were performed to 1) make sure that there were no patterns of missing data by batch, study, or plate, 2) check for gender discrepancies and kinship, 3) complete Principal Component Analysis, and 4) test for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (HWE). Samples were excluded based on call rate, heterozygosity, unexpected duplicates, gender discrepancy, and unexpectedly high identity-by-descent or unexpected genotypic concordance (>65%) with another individual. In addition, variants were excluded based on call rate (98%), lack of HWE in controls (P

  Study phs002171

• 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