Search

This study evaluates to what extent symptoms are present before, during, and after a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test, and to evaluate how the symptom burden and quality of Life (QoL) compares to those with a negative PCR test. Participants from the Dutch Lifelines COVID-19 Cohort Study filled-out as of March 2020 weekly, later bi-weekly and monthly, questions about demographics, COVID-19 diagnosis and severity, QoL, and symptoms. The study population included those with one positive or negative PCR test who filled out two questionnaires before and after the test, resulting in 996 SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive and 3978 negative participants. Nearly all symptoms were more often reported after a positive test versus the period before the test (p < 0.05), except fever. A higher symptom prevalence after versus before a test was also found for nearly all symptoms in negatives (p < 0.05). Before the test, symptoms were already partly present and reporting of nearly all symptoms before did not differ between positives and negatives (p > 0.05). QoL decreased around the test for positives and negatives, with a larger deterioration for positives. Not all symptoms after a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test might be attributable to the infection and symptoms were also common in negatives. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Frailty is associated with COVID-19 severity in clinical settings. No general population-based studies on the association between actual frailty status and COVID-19 hospitalization are available. Aims: To investigate the association between frailty and the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization once infected. Methods: 440 older adults who participated in the Lifelines COVID-19 Cohort study in the Northern Netherlands and reported positive COVID-19 testing results (54.2% women, age 70 ± 4 years in 2021) were included in the analyses. COVID-19 hospitalization status was self-reported. The Groningen Frailty Indicator (GFI) was derived from 15 self-reported questionnaire items related to daily activities, health problems, and psychosocial functioning, with a score ≥ 4 indicating frailty. Both frailty and COVID-19 hospitalization were assessed in the same period. Poisson regression models with robust standard errors were used to analyze the associations between frailty and COVID-19 hospitalization. Results: Of 440 older adults included, 42 were hospitalized because of COVID-19 infection. After adjusting for sociodemographic and lifestyle factors, a higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalization was observed for frail individuals (risk ratio (RR) [95% CI] 1.97 [1.06–3.67]) compared to those classified as non-frail. Discussion: Frailty was positively associated with COVID-19 hospitalization once infected, independent of sociodemographic and lifestyle factors. Future research on frailty and COVID-19 should consider biomarkers of aging and frailty to understand the pathophysiological mechanisms and manifestations between frailty and COVID-19 outcomes. Conclusions: Frailty was positively associated with the risk of hospitalization among older adults that were infected with COVID-19. Public health strategies for frailty prevention in older adults need to be advocated, as it is helpful to reduce the burden of the healthcare system, particularly during a pandemic like COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aims: Celiac disease (CeD), an immune-mediated disease with enteropathy triggered by gluten, affects ~1% of the general European population. Currently, there are no biomarkers to predict CeD development. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) are short RNAs involved in post-transcriptional gene regulation, and certain disease- and stage-specific miRNA profiles have been found previously. We aimed to investigate whether circulating miRNAs can predict the development of CeD. Methods: Using next-generation miRNA-sequencing, we determined miRNAs in >200 serum samples from 53 participants of the PreventCD study, of whom 33 developed CeD during follow-up. Following study inclusion at 3 months of age, samples were drawn at predefined ages, diagnosis (first anti-transglutaminase antibody (TGA) positivity or diagnostic biopsy) and after the start of a gluten-free diet (GFD). This allowed identification of circulating miRNAs that are deregulated before TGA positivity. For validation of the biomarkers for CeD and GFD response, two additional cohorts were included in subsequent meta-analyses. Additionally, miRNAs were measured in duodenal biopsies in a case-control cohort. Results: 53 circulating miRNAs were increased (27) or decreased (26) in CeD versus controls. We assessed specific trends in these individual miRNAs in the PreventCD cohort by grouping the pre-diagnostic samples of the CeD patients (all had negative TGA) by how close to seroconversion (first sample positive TGA) the samples were taken. 8/53 miRNAs differed significantly between controls and samples taken <1 year before TGA positivity: miR-21-3p, miR-374a-5p, 144-3p, miR-500a-3p, miR-486-3p let-7d-3p, let-7e-5p and miR-3605-3p. 6/26 downregulated miRNAs reconstituted upon GFD, including miR-150-5p/-3p, whereas no upregulated miRNAs were downregulated upon GFD. 15/53 biomarker candidates also differed between CeD biopsies and controls, with a concordant direction, indicating that these circulating miRNAs might originate from the intestine. Conclusions: We identified 53 circulating miRNAs that are potential early biomarkers for CeD, of which several can be detected more than a year before TGA positivity and some start to normalize upon GFD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although sex differences are described in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnoses and testing, many studies neglect possible gender-related influences. Additionally, research is often performed in clinical populations, while most COVID-19 patients are not hospitalized. Therefore, we investigated associations between sex and gender-related variables, and COVID-19 diagnoses and testing practices in a large general population cohort during the first wave of the pandemic when testing capacity was limited. Methods: We used data from the Lifelines COVID-19 Cohort (N = 74,722; 60.8% female). We applied bivariate and multiple logistic regression analyses. The outcomes were a COVID-19 diagnosis (confirmed by SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing or physician's clinical diagnosis) and PCR testing. Independent variables included among others participants' sex, age, somatic comorbidities, occupation, and smoking status. Sex-by-comorbidity and sex-by-occupation interaction terms were included to investigate sex differences in associations between the presence of comorbidities or an occupation with COVID-19 diagnoses or testing practices. Results: In bivariate analyses female sex was significantly associated with COVID-19 diagnoses and testing, but significance did not persist in multiple logistic regression analyses. However, a gender-related variable, being a health care worker, was significantly associated with COVID-19 diagnoses (OR = 1.68; 95%CI = 1.30–2.17) and testing (OR = 12.5; 95%CI = 8.55–18.3). Female health care workers were less often diagnosed and tested than male health care workers (ORinteraction = 0.54; 95%CI = 0.32–0.92, ORinteraction = 0.53; 95%CI = 0.29–0.97, respectively). Conclusions: We found no sex differences in COVID-19 diagnoses and testing in the general population. Among health care workers, a male preponderance in COVID-19 diagnoses and testing was observed. This could be explained by more pronounced COVID-19 symptoms in males or by gender inequities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This document is a correction notice for an article titled "Symptoms and quality of life before, during, and after a SARS-CoV-2 PCR positive or negative test: data from Lifelines" published in Scientific Reports. The correction states that H. Marike Boezen, one of the authors, is deceased. Additionally, there was an error in the Consortium list, where Judith G. M. Rosmalen was incorrectly listed as an author. The correction has been made to the original article. The authors of the article are Yvonne M. J. Goërtz, Martijn A. Spruit, Maarten Van Herck, Nicole Dukers-Muijrers, H. Marike Boezen, Jochen O. Mierau, H. Lude Franke, Jackie Dekens, Patrick Deelen, Pauline Lanting, Judith M. Vonk, Ilja Nolte, Anil P. S. Ori, Annique Claringbould, Floranne Boulogne, Marjolein X. L. Dijkema, Henry H. Wiersma, Robert Warmerdam, Soesma A. Jankipersadsing, Irene van Blokland, Geertruida H. de Bock, Cisca Wijmenga, Carla J. H. van der Kallen, Chris Burtin, and Daisy J. A. Janssen. [Extracted from the article]

Background: Since evidence-based dietary guidelines are lacking for IBD patients, they tend to follow "unguided" dietary habits; potentially leading to nutritional deficiencies and detrimental effects on disease course. Therefore, we compared dietary intake of IBD patients with controls. Methods: Dietary intake of macronutrients and 25 food groups of 493 patients (207 UC, 286 CD), and 1291 controls was obtained via a food frequency questionnaire. Results: 38.6% of patients in remission had protein intakes below the recommended 0.8 g/kg and 86.7% with active disease below the recommended 1.2 g/kg. Multinomial logistic regression, corrected for age, gender and BMI, showed that (compared to controls) UC patients consumed more meat and spreads, but less alcohol, breads, coffee and dairy; CD patients consumed more non-alcoholic drinks, potatoes, savoury snacks and sugar and sweets but less alcohol, dairy, nuts, pasta and prepared meals. Patients with active disease consumed more meat, soup and sugar and sweets but less alcohol, coffee, dairy, prepared meals and rice; patients in remission consumed more potatoes and spreads but less alcohol, breads, dairy, nuts, pasta and prepared meals. Conclusions: Patients avoiding potentially favourable foods and gourmandizing potentially unfavourable foods are of concern. Special attention is needed for protein intake in the treatment of these patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Epidemiological research has shown there to be a strong relationship between preconceptional, prenatal, birth and early-life factors and lifelong health. The Lifelines NEXT is a birth cohort designed to study the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic determinants on health and disease in a four-generation design. It is embedded within the Lifelines cohort study, a prospective three-generation population-based cohort study recording the health and health-related aspects of 167,729 individuals living in Northern Netherlands. In Lifelines NEXT we aim to include 1500 pregnant Lifelines participants and intensively follow them, their partners and their children until at least 1 year after birth. Longer-term follow-up of physical and psychological health will then be embedded following Lifelines procedures. During the Lifelines NEXT study period biomaterials—including maternal and neonatal (cord) blood, placental tissue, feces, breast milk, nasal swabs and urine—will be collected from the mother and child at 10 time points. We will also collect data on medical, social, lifestyle and environmental factors via questionnaires at 14 different time points and continuous data via connected devices. The extensive collection of different (bio)materials from mother and child during pregnancy and afterwards will provide the means to relate environmental factors including maternal and neonatal microbiome composition) to (epi)genetics, health and developmental outcomes. The nesting of the study within Lifelines enables us to include preconceptional transgenerational data and can be used to identify other extended families within the cohort. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: There is a critical need for population-based prospective cohort studies because they follow individuals before the onset of disease, allowing for studies that can identify biomarkers and diseasemodifying effects, and thereby contributing to systems epidemiology. Participants: This paper describes the design and baseline characteristics of an intensively examined subpopulation of the LifeLines cohort in the Netherlands. In this unique subcohort, LifeLines DEEP, we included 1539 participants aged 18 years and older. Findings to date: We collected additional blood (n=1387), exhaled air (n=1425) and faecal samples (n=1248), and elicited responses to gastrointestinal health questionnaires (n=1176) for analysis of the genome, epigenome, transcriptome, microbiome, metabolome and other biological levels. Here, we provide an overview of the different data layers in LifeLines DEEP and present baseline characteristics of the study population including food intake and quality of life. We also describe how the LifeLines DEEP cohort allows for the detailed investigation of genetic, genomic and metabolic variation for a wide range of phenotypic outcomes. Finally, we examine the determinants of gastrointestinal health, an area of particular interest to us that can be addressed by LifeLines DEEP. Future plans: We have established a cohort of which multiple data levels allow for the integrative analysis of populations for translation of this information into biomarkers for disease, and which will offer new insights into disease mechanisms and prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Differences in gut microbiota composition and function were observed between patients with inflammatory bowel disease or irritable bowel syndrome. Distinguishing two similar gut disorders: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are two of the most common diseases of the gastrointestinal tract. In new work, Vich Vila and colleagues have characterized the gut microbiota composition of both disorders using shotgun metagenomic sequencing of stool samples from 1792 individuals. Analyses involving bacterial taxonomy, metabolic functions, antibiotic resistance genes, virulence factors, and bacterial growth rates showed key differences between these two gut disorders. On the basis of gut microbiota composition differences, patients with IBD could be distinguished from those with IBS. Changes in the gut microbiota have been associated with two of the most common gastrointestinal diseases, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Here, we performed a case-control analysis using shotgun metagenomic sequencing of stool samples from 1792 individuals with IBD and IBS compared with control individuals in the general population. Despite substantial overlap between the gut microbiome of patients with IBD and IBS compared with control individuals, we were able to use gut microbiota composition differences to distinguish patients with IBD from those with IBS. By combining species-level profiles and strain-level profiles with bacterial growth rates, metabolic functions, antibiotic resistance, and virulence factor analyses, we identified key bacterial species that may be involved in two common gastrointestinal diseases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]