Explore the vast range of titles available.

Available COVID-19 mortality indices are limited to acute inpatient data. Using nationwide medical administrative data available prior to SARS-CoV-2 infection from the US Veterans Health Administration (VA), we developed the VA COVID-19 (VACO) 30-day mortality index and validated the index in two independent, prospective samples. We reviewed SARS-CoV-2 testing results within the VA between February 8 and August 18, 2020. The sample was split into a development cohort (test positive between March 2 and April 15, 2020), an early validation cohort (test positive between April 16 and May 18, 2020), and a late validation cohort (test positive between May 19 and July 19, 2020). Our logistic regression model in the development cohort considered demographics (age, sex, race/ethnicity), and pre-existing medical conditions and the Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI) derived from ICD-10 diagnosis codes. Weights were fixed to create the VACO Index that was then validated by comparing area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) in the early and late validation cohorts and among important validation cohort subgroups defined by sex, race/ethnicity, and geographic region. We also evaluated calibration curves and the range of predictions generated within age categories. 13,323 individuals tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 (median age: 63 years; 91% male; 42% non-Hispanic Black). We observed 480/3,681 (13%) deaths in development, 253/2,151 (12%) deaths in the early validation cohort, and 403/7,491 (5%) deaths in the late validation cohort. Age, multimorbidity described with CCI, and a history of myocardial infarction or peripheral vascular disease were independently associated with mortality-no other individual comorbid diagnosis provided additional information. The VACO Index discriminated mortality in development (AUC = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.77-0.81), and in early (AUC = 0.81 95% CI: 0.78-0.83) and late (AUC = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.78-0.86) validation. The VACO Index allows personalized estimates of 30-day mortality after COVID-19 infection. For example, among those aged 60-64 years, overall mortality was estimated at 9% (95% CI: 6-11%). The Index further discriminated risk in this age stratum from 4% (95% CI: 3-7%) to 21% (95% CI: 12-31%), depending on sex and comorbid disease. Prior to infection, demographics and comorbid conditions can discriminate COVID-19 mortality risk overall and within age strata. The VACO Index reproducibly identified individuals at substantial risk of COVID-19 mortality who might consider continuing social distancing, despite relaxed state and local guidelines.

Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer mortality, despite declining smoking rates. Previous lung cancer GWAS have identified numerous loci, but separating the genetic risks of lung cancer and smoking behavioral susceptibility remains challenging. Here, we perform multi-ancestry GWAS meta-analyses of lung cancer using the Million Veteran Program cohort (approximately 95% male cases) and a previous study of European-ancestry individuals, jointly comprising 42,102 cases and 181,270 controls, followed by replication in an independent cohort of 19,404 cases and 17,378 controls. We then carry out conditional meta-analyses on cigarettes per day and identify two novel, replicated loci, including the 19p13.11 pleiotropic cancer locus in squamous cell lung carcinoma. Overall, we report twelve novel risk loci for overall lung cancer, lung adenocarcinoma, and squamous cell lung carcinoma, nine of which are externally replicated. Finally, we perform PheWAS on polygenic risk scores for lung cancer, with and without conditioning on smoking. The unconditioned lung cancer polygenic risk score is associated with smoking status in controls, illustrating a reduced predictive utility in non-smokers. Additionally, our polygenic risk score demonstrates smoking-independent pleiotropy of lung cancer risk across neoplasms and metabolic traits. Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality, despite declining smoking rates. Gorman et al. report multi-ancestry GWAS meta-analyses of lung cancer providing insights into smoking-independent genetic predisposition to the disease.

We present allele frequencies of pharmacogenomics relevant variants across multiple ancestry in a sample representative of the US population. We analyzed 658,582 individuals with genotype data and extracted pharmacogenomics relevant single nucleotide variant (SNV) alleles, human leukocyte antigens (HLA) 4-digit alleles and an important copy number variant (CNV), the full deletion/duplication of CYP2D6 . We compiled distinct allele frequency tables for European, African American, Hispanic, and Asian ancestry individuals. In addition, we compiled allele frequencies based on local ancestry reconstruction in the African-American (2-way deconvolution) and Hispanic (3-way deconvolution) cohorts.

Rachel Ramoni is chief research and development officer for the Department of Veterans Affairs, where she oversees 2,000 active projects at more than 100 sites.

The risk factors associated with the stages of Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) disease progression are not well known. We aim to identify risk factors specific to each state of COVID-19 progression from SARS-CoV-2 infection through death. We included 648,202 participants from the Veteran Affairs Million Veteran Program (2011-). We identified characteristics and 1,809 ICD code-based phenotypes from the electronic health record. We used logistic regression to examine the association of age, sex, body mass index (BMI), race, and prevalent phenotypes to the stages of COVID-19 disease progression: infection, hospitalization, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and 30-day mortality (separate models for each). Models were adjusted for age, sex, race, ethnicity, number of visit months and ICD codes, state infection rate and controlled for multiple testing using false discovery rate (≤0.1). As of August 10, 2020, 5,929 individuals were SARS-CoV-2 positive and among those, 1,463 (25%) were hospitalized, 579 (10%) were in ICU, and 398 (7%) died. We observed a lower risk in women vs. men for ICU and mortality (Odds Ratio (95% CI): 0.48 (0.30-0.76) and 0.59 (0.31-1.15), respectively) and a higher risk in Black vs. Other race patients for hospitalization and ICU (OR (95%CI): 1.53 (1.32-1.77) and 1.63 (1.32-2.02), respectively). We observed an increased risk of all COVID-19 disease states with older age and BMI ≥35 vs. 20-24 kg/m2. Renal failure, respiratory failure, morbid obesity, acid-base balance disorder, white blood cell diseases, hydronephrosis and bacterial infections were associated with an increased risk of ICU admissions; sepsis, chronic skin ulcers, acid-base balance disorder and acidosis were associated with mortality. Older age, higher BMI, males and patients with a history of respiratory, kidney, bacterial or metabolic comorbidities experienced greater COVID-19 severity. Future studies to investigate the underlying mechanisms associated with these phenotype clusters and COVID-19 are warranted.

Whether and how to return individual genetic results to study participants is among the most contentious policy issues in contemporary genomic research. We surveyed corresponding authors of genome-wide association studies, identified through the National Human Genome Research Institute’s Catalog of Published Genome-Wide Association Studies, to describe the experiences and attitudes of these stakeholders. Of 357 corresponding authors, 200 (56%) responded. One hundred twenty-six (63%) had been responsible for primary data and sample collection, whereas 74 (37%) had performed secondary analyses. Only 7 (4%) had returned individual results within their index genome-wide association studies. Most (69%) believed that return of results to individual participants was warranted under at least some circumstances. Most respondents identified a desire to benefit participants’ health (63%) and respect for participants’ desire for information (57%) as major motivations for returning results. Most also identified uncertain clinical utility (76%), the possibility that participants will misunderstand results (74%), the potential for emotional harm (61%), the need to ensure access to trained clinicians (59%), and the potential for loss of confidentiality (51%) as major barriers to return of results. Investigators have limited experience returning individual results from genome-scale research, yet most are motivated to do so in at least some circumstances.

In June 2016, the NIH issued its Policy on the Use of a Single Institutional Review Board for Multi‐Site Research, “to establish the expectation that a single IRB (sIRB) of record will be used in the ethical review of non‐exempt human subjects research protocols funded by the NIH that are carried out at more than one site in the United States.” Based on its experience overseeing the protocol for the UDP within the NIH intramural research program, the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) IRB agreed to serve as the single IRB of record for the UDN, while NHGRI continued to be an enrollment site for the protocol. Local IRBs can serve as Privacy Boards to review and address reports of HIPAA‐related problems, such as the use of protected health information (PHI) without appropriate authorization. With 146 institution‐specific consent and assent forms and eight template documents, amendments that involve modification and review of these forms are the most time‐intensive. Because of this, we learned that institution‐based customization had to be minimized wherever possible.

Abstract Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has demonstrated the need to share data and biospecimens broadly to optimize clinical outcomes for US military Veterans. Methods In response, the Veterans Health Administration established VA SHIELD (Science and Health Initiative to Combat Infectious and Emerging Life-threatening Diseases), a comprehensive biorepository of specimens and clinical data from affected Veterans to advance research and public health surveillance and to improve diagnostic and therapeutic capabilities. Results VA SHIELD now comprises 12 sites collecting de-identified biospecimens from US Veterans affected by SARS-CoV-2. In addition, 2 biorepository sites, a data processing center, and a coordinating center have been established under the direction of the Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development. Phase 1 of VA SHIELD comprises 34 157 samples. Of these, 83.8% had positive tests for SARS-CoV-2, with the remainder serving as contemporaneous controls. The samples include nasopharyngeal swabs (57.9%), plasma (27.9%), and sera (12.5%). The associated clinical and demographic information available permits the evaluation of biological data in the context of patient demographics, clinical experience and management, vaccinations, and comorbidities. Conclusions VA SHIELD is representative of US national diversity with a significant potential to impact national healthcare. VA SHIELD will support future projects designed to better understand SARS-CoV-2 and other emergent healthcare crises. To the extent possible, VA SHIELD will facilitate the discovery of diagnostics and therapeutics intended to diminish COVID-19 morbidity and mortality and to reduce the impact of new emerging threats to the health of US Veterans and populations worldwide. The US Department of Veterans Affairs has implemented a biorepository providing biological specimens and data for studies of COVID-19, while simultaneously preparing for subsequent emerging life-threatening diseases. These resources are available for investigators to study COVID-19 and future emerging diseases.

The return of individual genetic research results has been identified as one of the most pressing ethical challenges warranting immediate policy attention. We explored the practices and perspectives of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) investigators on this topic. Corresponding authors of published GWAS were invited to participate in a semistructured interview. Interviews (n = 35) were transcribed and analyzed using conventional content analysis. Most investigators had not returned GWAS results. Several had experience returning results in the context of linkage/family studies, and many felt that it will become a larger issue in whole-genome/-exome sequencing. Research context and nature of the study are important considerations in the decision to return results. More nuanced ethical guidelines should take these contextual factors into account.

Drawing from real-life scenarios and insights shared at the RAISE (Responsible AI for Social and Ethical Healthcare) conference, we highlight the critical need for AI in health care (AIH) to primarily benefit patients and address current shortcomings in health care systems such as medical errors and access disparities.