Search

OBJECTIVE: Quantify the impact of genetic and socioeconomic factors on risk of type 2 diabetes (T2D) and obesity. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Among participants in the Mass General Brigham Biobank (MGBB) and UK Biobank (UKB), we used logistic regression models to calculate cross-sectional odds of T2D and obesity using 1) polygenic risk scores for T2D and BMI and 2) area-level socioeconomic risk (educational attainment) measures. The primary analysis included 26,737 participants of European genetic ancestry in MGBB with replication in UKB (N = 223,843), as well as in participants of non-European ancestry (MGBB N = 3,468; UKB N = 7,459). RESULTS: The area-level socioeconomic measure most strongly associated with both T2D and obesity was percent without a college degree, and associations with disease prevalence were independent of genetic risk (P < 0.001 for each). Moving from lowest to highest quintiles of combined genetic and socioeconomic burden more than tripled T2D (3.1% to 22.2%) and obesity (20.9% to 69.0%) prevalence. Favorable socioeconomic risk was associated with lower disease prevalence, even in those with highest genetic risk (T2D 13.0% vs. 22.2%, obesity 53.6% vs. 69.0% in lowest vs. highest socioeconomic risk quintiles). Additive effects of genetic and socioeconomic factors accounted for 13.2% and 16.7% of T2D and obesity prevalence, respectively, explained by these models. Findings were replicated in independent European and non-European ancestral populations. CONCLUSIONS: Genetic and socioeconomic factors significantly interact to increase risk of T2D and obesity. Favorable area-level socioeconomic status was associated with an almost 50% lower T2D prevalence in those with high genetic risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Racial/ethnic minorities have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. The effects of COVID-19 on the long-term mental health of minorities remains unclear. To evaluate differences in odds of screening positive for depression and anxiety among various racial and ethnic groups during the latter phase of the COVID-19 pandemic, we performed a cross-sectional analysis of 691,473 participants nested within the prospective smartphone-based COVID Symptom Study in the United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (U.K). from February 23, 2021 to June 9, 2021. In the U.S. (n=57,187), compared to White participants, the multivariable odds ratios (ORs) for screening positive for depression were 1·16 (95% CI: 1·02 to 1·31) for Black, 1·23 (1·11 to 1·36) for Hispanic, and 1·15 (1·02 to 1·30) for Asian participants, and 1·34 (1·13 to 1·59) for participants reporting more than one race/other even after accounting for personal factors such as prior history of a mental health disorder, COVID-19 infection status, and surrounding lockdown stringency. Rates of screening positive for anxiety were comparable. In the U.K. (n=643,286), racial/ethnic minorities had similarly elevated rates of positive screening for depression and anxiety. These disparities were not fully explained by changes in leisure time activities. Racial/ethnic minorities bore a disproportionate mental health burden during the COVID-19 pandemic. These differences will need to be considered as health care systems transition from prioritizing infection control to mitigating long-term consequences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diet is considered as one of the most important modifiable factors influencing human health, but efforts to identify foods or dietary patterns associated with health outcomes often suffer from biases, confounding, and reverse causation. Applying Mendelian randomization in this context may provide evidence to strengthen causality in nutrition research. To this end, we first identified 283 genetic markers associated with dietary intake in 445,779 UK Biobank participants. We then converted these associations into direct genetic effects on food exposures by adjusting them for effects mediated via other traits. The SNPs which did not show evidence of mediation were then used for MR, assessing the association between genetically predicted food choices and other risk factors, health outcomes. We show that using all associated SNPs without omitting those which show evidence of mediation, leads to biases in downstream analyses (genetic correlations, causal inference), similar to those present in observational studies. However, MR analyses using SNPs which have only a direct effect on the exposure on food exposures provided unequivocal evidence of causal associations between specific eating patterns and obesity, blood lipid status, and several other risk factors and health outcomes. Author summary: Food and drink consumption is one of the most important factors influencing human health and wellbeing. The role of diet in human physiology and disease has been widely studied, but challenges in accurately assessing long term diet result in contradicting findings. Mendelian randomization is a statistical technique that uses genetic variants associated with modifiable exposures to estimate the causal effect of an exposure to a health outcome and could be extremely useful in the context of diet-health relationships. In our study, we initially identified genetic variants associated to 29 measures of food and drink consumption. We then show that genetic variants associated with food and drink consumption are subject to reverse causation and confounding. We have thus developed a statistical genetics method to identify genetic variants directly associated with food and drink consumption. By using these genetic variants (and their corresponding direct effects) in Mendelian randomization analyses we provided consistent evidence of causal associations of food and drink consumption with obesity, blood lipid status, and several other risk factors and health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Worldwide, racial and ethnic minorities have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19 with increased risk of infection, its related complications, and death. In the initial phase of population-based vaccination in the United States (U.S.) and United Kingdom (U.K.), vaccine hesitancy may result in differences in uptake. We performed a cohort study among U.S. and U.K. participants who volunteered to take part in the smartphone-based COVID Symptom Study (March 2020-February 2021) and used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios of vaccine hesitancy and uptake. In the U.S. (n = 87,388), compared to white participants, vaccine hesitancy was greater for Black and Hispanic participants and those reporting more than one or other race. In the U.K. (n = 1,254,294), racial and ethnic minority participants showed similar levels of vaccine hesitancy to the U.S. However, associations between participant race and ethnicity and levels of vaccine uptake were observed to be different in the U.S. and the U.K. studies. Among U.S. participants, vaccine uptake was significantly lower among Black participants, which persisted among participants that self-reported being vaccine-willing. In contrast, statistically significant racial and ethnic disparities in vaccine uptake were not observed in the U.K sample. In this study of self-reported vaccine hesitancy and uptake, lower levels of vaccine uptake in Black participants in the U.S. during the initial vaccine rollout may be attributable to both hesitancy and disparities in access. The authors show differences in self-reported vaccine hesitancy and uptake among participants from different racial and ethnic groups in the United States and in the United Kingdom during the initial phase of the COVID-19 vaccine rollout. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Little is known about the contribution of genetic variation to food timing, and breakfast has been determined to exhibit the most heritable meal timing. As breakfast timing and skipping are not routinely measured in large cohort studies, alternative approaches include analyses of correlated traits. Objectives The aim of this study was to elucidate breakfast skipping genetic variants through a proxy-phenotype genome-wide association study (GWAS) for breakfast cereal skipping, a commonly assessed correlated trait. Methods We leveraged the statistical power of the UK Biobank (n  = 193,860) to identify genetic variants related to breakfast cereal skipping as a proxy-phenotype for breakfast skipping and applied several in silico approaches to investigate mechanistic functions and links to traits/diseases. Next, we attempted validation of our approach in smaller breakfast skipping GWAS from the TwinUK (n  = 2,006) and the Cohorts for Heart and Aging Research in Genomic Epidemiology (CHARGE) consortium (n  = 11,963). Results In the UK Biobank, we identified 6 independent GWAS variants, including those implicated for caffeine (ARID3B/CYP1A1), carbohydrate metabolism (FGF21), schizophrenia (ZNF804A), and encoding enzymes important for N 6-methyladenosine RNA transmethylation (METTL4, YWHAB , and YTHDF3), which regulates the pace of the circadian clock. Expression of identified genes was enriched in the cerebellum. Genome-wide correlation analyses indicated positive correlations with anthropometric traits. Through Mendelian randomization (MR), we observed causal links between genetically determined breakfast skipping and higher body mass index, more depressive symptoms, and smoking. In bidirectional MR, we demonstrated a causal link between being an evening person and skipping breakfast, but not vice versa. We observed association of our signals in an independent breakfast skipping GWAS in another British cohort (P =  0.032), TwinUK, but not in a meta-analysis of non-British cohorts from the CHARGE consortium (P  = 0.095). Conclusions Our proxy-phenotype GWAS identified 6 genetic variants for breakfast skipping, linking clock regulation with food timing and suggesting a possible beneficial role of regular breakfast intake as part of a healthy lifestyle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Observational studies show that higher hemoglobin A1c (A1C) predicts coronary artery disease (CAD). It remains unclear whether this association is driven entirely by glycemia. We used Mendelian randomization (MR) to test whether A1C is causally associated with CAD through glycemic and/or nonglycemic factors.Research Design and Methods: To examine the association of A1C with CAD, we selected 50 A1C-associated variants (log10 Bayes factor ≥6) from an A1C genome-wide association study (GWAS; n = 159,940) and performed an inverse-variance weighted average of variant-specific causal estimates from CAD GWAS data (CARDIoGRAMplusC4D; 60,801 CAD case subjects/123,504 control subjects). We then replicated results in UK Biobank (18,915 CAD case subjects/455,971 control subjects) and meta-analyzed all results. Next, we conducted analyses using two subsets of variants, 16 variants associated with glycemic measures (fasting or 2-h glucose) and 20 variants associated with erythrocyte indices (e.g., hemoglobin [Hb]) but not glycemic measures. In additional MR analyses, we tested the association of Hb with A1C and CAD.Results: Genetically increased A1C was associated with higher CAD risk (odds ratio [OR] 1.61 [95% CI 1.40, 1.84] per %-unit, P = 6.9 × 10-12). Higher A1C was associated with increased CAD risk when using only glycemic variants (OR 2.23 [1.73, 2.89], P = 1.0 × 10-9) and when using only erythrocytic variants (OR 1.30 [1.08, 1.57], P = 0.006). Genetically decreased Hb, with concomitantly decreased mean corpuscular volume, was associated with higher A1C (0.30 [0.27, 0.33] %-unit, P = 2.9 × 10-6) per g/dL and higher CAD risk (OR 1.19 [1.04, 1.37], P = 0.02).Conclusions: Genetic evidence supports a causal link between higher A1C and higher CAD risk. This relationship is driven not only by glycemic but also by erythrocytic, glycemia-independent factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

These authors contributed equally: Long H. Nguyen, Amit D. Joshi, David A. Drew. The original version of this Article contained an error in Table 1. [Extracted from the article]

Background: COVID-19 vaccines show excellent efficacy in clinical trials and effectiveness in real-world data, but some people still become infected with SARS-CoV-2 after vaccination. This study aimed to identify risk factors for post-vaccination SARS-CoV-2 infection and describe the characteristics of post-vaccination illness.Methods: This prospective, community-based, nested, case-control study used self-reported data (eg, on demographics, geographical location, health risk factors, and COVID-19 test results, symptoms, and vaccinations) from UK-based, adult (≥18 years) users of the COVID Symptom Study mobile phone app. For the risk factor analysis, cases had received a first or second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine between Dec 8, 2020, and July 4, 2021; had either a positive COVID-19 test at least 14 days after their first vaccination (but before their second; cases 1) or a positive test at least 7 days after their second vaccination (cases 2); and had no positive test before vaccination. Two control groups were selected (who also had not tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 before vaccination): users reporting a negative test at least 14 days after their first vaccination but before their second (controls 1) and users reporting a negative test at least 7 days after their second vaccination (controls 2). Controls 1 and controls 2 were matched (1:1) with cases 1 and cases 2, respectively, by the date of the post-vaccination test, health-care worker status, and sex. In the disease profile analysis, we sub-selected participants from cases 1 and cases 2 who had used the app for at least 14 consecutive days after testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cases 3 and cases 4, respectively). Controls 3 and controls 4 were unvaccinated participants reporting a positive SARS-CoV-2 test who had used the app for at least 14 consecutive days after the test, and were matched (1:1) with cases 3 and 4, respectively, by the date of the positive test, health-care worker status, sex, body-mass index (BMI), and age. We used univariate logistic regression models (adjusted for age, BMI, and sex) to analyse the associations between risk factors and post-vaccination infection, and the associations of individual symptoms, overall disease duration, and disease severity with vaccination status.Findings: Between Dec 8, 2020, and July 4, 2021, 1 240 009 COVID Symptom Study app users reported a first vaccine dose, of whom 6030 (0·5%) subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cases 1), and 971 504 reported a second dose, of whom 2370 (0·2%) subsequently tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (cases 2). In the risk factor analysis, frailty was associated with post-vaccination infection in older adults (≥60 years) after their first vaccine dose (odds ratio [OR] 1·93, 95% CI 1·50-2·48; p<0·0001), and individuals living in highly deprived areas had increased odds of post-vaccination infection following their first vaccine dose (OR 1·11, 95% CI 1·01-1·23; p=0·039). Individuals without obesity (BMI <30 kg/m2) had lower odds of infection following their first vaccine dose (OR 0·84, 95% CI 0·75-0·94; p=0·0030). For the disease profile analysis, 3825 users from cases 1 were included in cases 3 and 906 users from cases 2 were included in cases 4. Vaccination (compared with no vaccination) was associated with reduced odds of hospitalisation or having more than five symptoms in the first week of illness following the first or second dose, and long-duration (≥28 days) symptoms following the second dose. Almost all symptoms were reported less frequently in infected vaccinated individuals than in infected unvaccinated individuals, and vaccinated participants were more likely to be completely asymptomatic, especially if they were 60 years or older.Interpretation: To minimise SARS-CoV-2 infection, at-risk populations must be targeted in efforts to boost vaccine effectiveness and infection control measures. Our findings might support caution around relaxing physical distancing and other personal protective measures in the post-vaccination era, particularly around frail older adults and individuals living in more deprived areas, even if these individuals are vaccinated, and might have implications for strategies such as booster vaccinations.Funding: ZOE, the UK Government Department of Health and Social Care, the Wellcome Trust, the UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, UK Research and Innovation London Medical Imaging and Artificial Intelligence Centre for Value Based Healthcare, the UK National Institute for Health Research, the UK Medical Research Council, the British Heart Foundation, and the Alzheimer's Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Obesity is a key predictor of type 2 diabetes (T2D). However, metabolic complications are not solely due to increased BMI. We hypothesized that differences between genetically predicted BMI and observed BMI (BMI-diff) could reflect deviation from individual set point and may predict incident T2D., Research Design and Methods: From the UK Biobank cohort, we selected participants of European ancestry without T2D (n = 332,154). The polygenic risk score for BMI was calculated via Bayesian regression and continuous shrinkage priors (PRS-CS). According to the BMI-diff, the 10-year risk of T2D was assessed using multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. Independent data from the Korean Genome and Epidemiology Study (KoGES) cohort from South Korea (n = 7,430) were used for replication., Results: Participants from the UK Biobank were divided into train (n = 268,041) and test set (n = 115,119) to establish genetically predicted BMI. In the test set, the genetically predicted BMI explained 7.1% of the variance of BMI, and there were 3,599 T2D cases (3.1%) during a 10-year follow-up. Participants in the higher quintiles of BMI-diff (more obese than genetically predicted) had significantly higher risk of T2D than those in the lowest quintile after adjusting for observed BMI: the adjusted hazard ratio of the 1st quintile (vs. 5th quintile) was 1.61 (95% CI 1.26-2.05, P < 0.001). Results were consistent among individuals in the KoGES study. Moreover, higher BMI than predicted was associated with impaired insulin sensitivity., Conclusions: Having a higher BMI than genetically predicted is associated with an increased risk of T2D. These findings underscore the potential to reassess T2D risk based on individual levels of obesity using genetic thresholds for BMI., (© 2024 by the American Diabetes Association.)

Background: The Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) and the Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) COVID-19 vaccines have shown excellent safety and efficacy in phase 3 trials. We aimed to investigate the safety and effectiveness of these vaccines in a UK community setting., Methods: In this prospective observational study, we examined the proportion and probability of self-reported systemic and local side-effects within 8 days of vaccination in individuals using the COVID Symptom Study app who received one or two doses of the BNT162b2 vaccine or one dose of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. We also compared infection rates in a subset of vaccinated individuals subsequently tested for SARS-CoV-2 with PCR or lateral flow tests with infection rates in unvaccinated controls. All analyses were adjusted by age (≤55 years vs >55 years), sex, health-care worker status (binary variable), obesity (BMI <30 kg/m 2 vs ≥30 kg/m 2 ), and comorbidities (binary variable, with or without comorbidities)., Findings: Between Dec 8, and March 10, 2021, 627 383 individuals reported being vaccinated with 655 590 doses: 282 103 received one dose of BNT162b2, of whom 28 207 received a second dose, and 345 280 received one dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Systemic side-effects were reported by 13·5% (38 155 of 282 103) of individuals after the first dose of BNT162b2, by 22·0% (6216 of 28 207) after the second dose of BNT162b2, and by 33·7% (116 473 of 345 280) after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Local side-effects were reported by 71·9% (150 023 of 208 767) of individuals after the first dose of BNT162b2, by 68·5% (9025 of 13 179) after the second dose of BNT162b2, and by 58·7% (104 282 of 177 655) after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. Systemic side-effects were more common (1·6 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 2·9 times after the first dose of BNT162b2) among individuals with previous SARS-CoV-2 infection than among those without known past infection. Local effects were similarly higher in individuals previously infected than in those without known past infection (1·4 times after the first dose of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 1·2 times after the first dose of BNT162b2). 3106 of 103 622 vaccinated individuals and 50 340 of 464 356 unvaccinated controls tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Significant reductions in infection risk were seen starting at 12 days after the first dose, reaching 60% (95% CI 49-68) for ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 69% (66-72) for BNT162b2 at 21-44 days and 72% (63-79) for BNT162b2 after 45-59 days., Interpretation: Systemic and local side-effects after BNT162b2 and ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccination occur at frequencies lower than reported in phase 3 trials. Both vaccines decrease the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection after 12 days., Funding: ZOE Global, National Institute for Health Research, Chronic Disease Research Foundation, National Institutes of Health, UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome Trust, UK Research and Innovation, American Gastroenterological Association., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests CM reports grants from Chronic Disease Research Foundation (CDRF) during the conduct of the study. JW, AM, LP, CH, SS, and JC report being employees of ZOE Global during the conduct of the study. ATC reports grants from Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from Bayer Pharma, Pfizer, and Boehringer Ingelheim, outside the submitted work. DAD reports grants from National Institutes of Health (NIH), Massachusetts Consortium on Pathogen Readiness, and American Gastroenterological Association, during the conduct of the study, and that he served as a co-investigator on an unrelated nutrition trial sponsored by ZOE Global. CHS reports grants from Alzheimer's Society during the conduct of the study. AMV reports grants from Medical Research Council (MRC) and personal fees from ZOE Global, during the conduct of the study. ALG reports having shares in AstraZeneca and receiving grants from Novavax, outside the submitted work. CJS reports grants from CDRF, MRC, and Wellcome Trust, during the conduct of the study. SO reports grants from Wellcome Trust, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), and CDRF, during the conduct of the study. TDS reports being a consultant for ZOE Global, during the conduct of the study. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)