USING MENDELIAN RANDOMISATION TO INFER CAUSALITY IN DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY RESEARCH

Depression and anxiety co‐occur with substance use and abuse at a high rate. Ascertaining whether substance use plays a causal role in depression and anxiety is difficult or impossible with conventional observational epidemiology. Mendelian randomisation uses genetic variants as a proxy for environmental exposures, such as substance use, which can address problems of reverse causation and residual confounding, providing stronger evidence about causality. Genetic variants can be used instead of directly measuring exposure levels, in order to gain an unbiased estimate of the effect of various exposures on depression and anxiety. The suitability of the genetic variant as a proxy can be ascertained by confirming that there is no relationship between variant and outcome in those who do not use the substance. At present, there are suitable instruments for tobacco use, so we use that as a case study. Proof‐of‐principle Mendelian randomisation studies using these variants have found evidence for a causal effect of smoking on body mass index. Two studies have investigated tobacco and depression using this method, but neither found strong evidence that smoking causes depression or anxiety; evidence is more consistent with a self‐medication hypothesis. Mendelian randomisation represents a technique that can aid understanding of exposures that may or may not be causally related to depression and anxiety. As more suitable instruments emerge (including the use of allelic risk scores rather than individual single nucleotide polymorphisms), the effect of other substances can be investigated. Linkage disequilibrium, pleiotropy, and population stratification, which can distort Mendelian randomisation studies, are also discussed.     

Role of adenosine A2A receptor in organ-specific vascular reactivity following hemorrhagic shock in rats

Background

Previous studies have demonstrated differences among organs in terms of shock-induced vascular reactivity and a role for adenosine A2A receptors (A2ARs) in protection against ischemia/reperfusion injury. However, the contributions of A2ARs to organ-specific vascular reactivity and the protection of vascular responsiveness following shock are currently unknown.

Methods

We investigated the role of A2ARs in different arteries, including the left femoral artery (LFA), thoracic aorta (TA), superior mesenteric artery (SMA), right renal artery (RRA), pulmonary artery (PA), and middle cerebral artery (MCA), in hemorrhagic-shock rats.

Results

The vascular reactivities of the LFA, SMA, RRA, and MCA increased slightly during early shock and then gradually decreased, whereas those of the PA and TA decreased from the start of shock. Different blood vessels lost vascular reactivity at different rates compared with controls; the LFA had the highest rate of loss (64.51%), followed by the SMA (44.69%), TA (36.06%), PA (37.83%), and RRA (32.33%), whereas the MCA had the lowest rate (18.45%). The rate of loss of vascular reactivity in the different vessels was negatively correlated with A2AR expression levels in normal and shock conditions. The highly selective A2AR agonist CGS 21680 significantly improved vascular reactivity, hemodynamic parameters, and animal survival, whereas the specific antagonist SCH58261 further decreased the shock-induced reduction in vascular reactivity and hemodynamic parameters.

Conclusions

A2ARs are involved in the regulation and protection of vascular reactivity following shock. A2AR activation may have a beneficial effect on hemorrhagic shock by improving vascular reactivity and hemodynamic parameters.     

Repeat percutaneous coronary revascularization: Indications and outcomes in a “Real World” cohort

Objectives : To investigate rates of and reasons for second and subsequent stent procedures in an unselected, “real‐world” population. Background : Repeat stenting is the primary difference reported in clinical trials of alternative revascularization strategies. The incidence, indication, and outcome for repeat stenting in contemporary practice outside the more selective populations of trials and registries has not been described. Method : All patients undergoing a first percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedure with stenting from January 2001 to August 2009 (10,509) from a large UK tertiary referral and district general hospital were identified. Mortality and the incidence, timing, and indication for repeat revascularization in this population were investigated from patient records. Results : Of 10,509 patients undergoing a first PCI and stent implant 23.5% underwent repeat angiography of which 11.2% required repeat PCI and 2% coronary artery bypass grafting (median follow‐up of 3.8 years). A total of 1.3% went on to a third PCI. The commonest indication for repeat stenting was disease progression remote from the original stent (46%) and planned staged PCI (23%); 21% had a stent‐related indication. Functional assessment before repeat stenting was used in one‐third of stable patients. Mortality was 2.5% per annum. Conclusions : In contemporary practice, patients undergoing a first stenting procedure have a low subsequent mortality, and the substantial majority (86.4%) requires no further revascularization over a median 3.8 year follow‐up. For those who do require repeat stenting, this is most commonly at a site remote from the first stent. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.