Combined supplementation of ascorbic acid and thyroid hormone T3 affects tenocyte proliferation. The effect of ascorbic acid in the production of nitric oxide

Background: Tissue engineering is now increasingly focusing on cell-based treatments as pro-mising tools to improve tendon repair. However, many crucial aspects of tendon biology remain to be understood before adopting the best experimental approach for cell-tissue engineering. Methods: The role played by Ascorbic Acid (AA) alone and in combination with thyroid hormone T3 in the viability and proliferation of primary human tendon-derived cells was investigated. Human tenocyte viability was detected by Trypan blue exclusion test and cellular proliferation rate was evaluated by CFSE CellTraceâ¢. In addition, the potential role of the AA in the production of Nitric Oxide (NO) was also examined. Results: In this in vitro model, an increase in tenocyte proliferation rate was observed as a consequence of progressively increased concentrations of AA (from 10 to 50 μg/ml). The addition of the T3 hormone to the culture further increased tenocyte proliferation rate. In detail, the most evident effect on cellular growth was achieved using the combined supplementation of 50 μg/ml AA and 10-7 M T3. Conclusion: We showed that the highest concentration of AA (100 and 500 μg/ml) caused cytotoxicity to human tenocytes. Moreover, it was shown that AA reduces NO synthesis. These results show that AA is a cell proliferation inducer that triggers tenocyte growth, while it reduces NO synthesis

Dual Acting Carbon Monoxide Releasing Molecules and Carbonic Anhydrase Inhibitors Differentially Modulate Inflammation in Human Tenocytes

Sustained oxidative stress and inflammation have been reported as the major factors responsible for the failure of tendon healing during rotator cuff tears (RCTs) and rotator cuff disease (RCD). Although, their therapeutic management remains still challenging. Carbonic anhydrases (CAs) are involved in many pathological conditions, and the overexpression of both CA9 and 12 in inflamed joints has been recently reported. Consequently, a selective CA9/12 inhibition could be a feasible strategy for improving tendon recovery after injury. In addition, since carbon monoxide (CO) has been proven to have an important role in modulating inflammation, CO releasing molecules (CORMs) can be also potentially suitable compounds. The present study aims at evaluating five newly synthesized dual-mode acting CA inhibitors (CAIs)-CORMs compounds, belonging to two chemical scaffolds, on tendon-derived human primary cells under H2O2 stimulation in comparison with Meloxicam. Our results show that compounds 2 and 7 are the most promising of the series in counteracting oxidative stress-induced cytotoxicity and display a better profile in terms of enhanced viability, decreased LDH release, and augmented tenocyte proliferation compared to Meloxicam. Moreover, compound 7, as a potent superoxide scavenger, exerts its action inhibiting NF-kB translocation and downregulating iNOS, whereas compound 2 is more effective in increasing collagen I deposition. Taken together, our data highlight a potential role of CA in RCTs and RCD and the prospective effectiveness of compounds acting as CAI-CORM during inflammation

Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles 2018 (MISEV2018): A Position Statement of the International Society for Extracellular Vesicles and Update of the MISEV2014 Guidelines

The last decade has seen a sharp increase in the number of scientific publications describing physiological and pathological functions of extracellular vesicles (EVs), a collective term covering various subtypes of cell-released, membranous structures, called exosomes, microvesicles, microparticles, ectosomes, oncosomes, apoptotic bodies, and many other names. However, specific issues arise when working with these entities, whose size and amount often make them difficult to obtain as relatively pure preparations, and to characterize properly. The International Society for Extracellular Vesicles (ISEV) proposed Minimal Information for Studies of Extracellular Vesicles (“MISEV”) guidelines for the field in 2014. We now update these “MISEV2014” guidelines based on evolution of the collective knowledge in the last four years. An important point to consider is that ascribing a specific function to EVs in general, or to subtypes of EVs, requires reporting of specific information beyond mere description of function in a crude, potentially contaminated, and heterogeneous preparation. For example, claims that exosomes are endowed with exquisite and specific activities remain difficult to support experimentally, given our still limited knowledge of their specific molecular machineries of biogenesis and release, as compared with other biophysically similar EVs. The MISEV2018 guidelines include tables and outlines of suggested protocols and steps to follow to document specific EV-associated functional activities. Finally, a checklist is provided with summaries of key points

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs):PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

PurposeAlthough comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measure- ment INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.MethodsThe development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.ResultsFrom the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final check- list to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review’s title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.ConclusionPRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding expla- nation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA- COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application

Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs):PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024

PurposeAlthough comprehensive and widespread guidelines on how to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) exist, for example from the COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measure- ment INstruments) initiative, key information is often missing in published reports. This article describes the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guideline: PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024.MethodsThe development process followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) guidelines and included a literature search, expert consultations, a Delphi study, a hybrid workgroup meeting, pilot testing, and an end-of-project meeting, with integrated patient/public involvement.ResultsFrom the literature and expert consultation, 49 potentially relevant reporting items were identified. Round 1 of the Delphi study was completed by 103 panelists, whereas round 2 and 3 were completed by 78 panelists. After 3 rounds, agreement (≥ 67%) on inclusion and wording was reached for 44 items. Eleven items without consensus for inclusion and/or wording were discussed at a workgroup meeting attended by 24 participants. Agreement was reached for the inclusion and wording of 10 items, and the deletion of 1 item. Pilot testing with 65 authors of OMI systematic reviews further improved the guideline through minor changes in wording and structure, finalized during the end-of-project meeting. The final check- list to facilitate the reporting of full systematic review reports contains 54 (sub)items addressing the review’s title, abstract, plain language summary, open science, introduction, methods, results, and discussion. Thirteen items pertaining to the title and abstract are also included in a separate abstract checklist, guiding authors in reporting for example conference abstracts.ConclusionPRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024 consists of two checklists (full reports; abstracts), their corresponding expla- nation and elaboration documents detailing the rationale and examples for each item, and a data flow diagram. PRISMA- COSMIN for OMIs 2024 can improve the reporting of systematic reviews of OMIs, fostering their reproducibility and allowing end-users to appraise the quality of OMIs and select the most appropriate OMI for a specific application

Intrapartum Antibiotic Chemoprophylaxis Policies for the Prevention of Group B Streptococcal Disease Worldwide: Systematic Review.

Background: Intrapartum antibiotic chemoprophylaxis (IAP) prevents most early-onset group B streptococcal (GBS) disease. However, there is no description of how IAP is used around the world. This article is the sixth in a series estimating the burden of GBS disease. Here we aimed to review GBS screening policies and IAP implementation worldwide. Methods: We identified data through (1) systematic literature reviews (PubMed/Medline, Embase, Literature in the Health Sciences in Latin America and the Caribbean [LILACS], World Health Organization library database [WHOLIS], and Scopus) and unpublished data from professional societies and (2) an online survey and searches of policies from medical societies and professionals. We included data on whether an IAP policy was in use, and if so whether it was based on microbiological or clinical risk factors and how these were applied, as well as the estimated coverage (percentage of women receiving IAP where indicated). Results: We received policy information from 95 of 195 (49%) countries. Of these, 60 of 95 (63%) had an IAP policy; 35 of 60 (58%) used microbiological screening, 25 of 60 (42%) used clinical risk factors. Two of 15 (13%) low-income, 4 of 16 (25%) lower-middle-income, 14 of 20 (70%) upper-middle-income, and 40 of 44 (91%) high-income countries had any IAP policy. The remaining 35 of 95 (37%) had no national policy (25/33 from low-income and lower-middle-income countries). Coverage varied considerably; for microbiological screening, median coverage was 80% (range, 20%-95%); for clinical risk factor-based screening, coverage was 29% (range, 10%-50%). Although there were differences in the microbiological screening methods employed, the individual clinical risk factors used were similar. Conclusions: There is considerable heterogeneity in IAP screening policies and coverage worldwide. Alternative global strategies, such as maternal vaccination, are needed to enhance the scope of global prevention of GBS disease

Rationale and design of an independent randomised controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of aripiprazole or haloperidol in combination with clozapine for treatment-resistant schizophrenia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>One third to two thirds of people with schizophrenia have persistent psychotic symptoms despite clozapine treatment. Under real-world circumstances, the need to provide effective therapeutic interventions to patients who do not have an optimal response to clozapine has been cited as the most common reason for simultaneously prescribing a second antipsychotic drug in combination treatment strategies. In a clinical area where the pressing need of providing therapeutic answers has progressively increased the occurrence of antipsychotic polypharmacy, despite the lack of robust evidence of its efficacy, we sought to implement a pre-planned protocol where two alternative therapeutic answers are systematically provided and evaluated within the context of a pragmatic, multicentre, independent randomised study.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>The principal clinical question to be answered by the present project is the relative efficacy and tolerability of combination treatment with clozapine plus aripiprazole compared with combination treatment with clozapine plus haloperidol in patients with an incomplete response to treatment with clozapine over an appropriate period of time. This project is a prospective, multicentre, randomized, parallel-group, superiority trial that follow patients over a period of 12 months. Withdrawal from allocated treatment within 3 months is the primary outcome.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The implementation of the protocol presented here shows that it is possible to create a network of community psychiatric services that accept the idea of using their everyday clinical practice to produce randomised knowledge. The employed pragmatic attitude allowed to randomly allocate more than 100 individuals, which means that this study is the largest antipsychotic combination trial conducted so far in Western countries. We expect that the current project, by generating evidence on whether it is clinically useful to combine clozapine with aripiprazole rather than with haloperidol, provides physicians with a solid evidence base to be directly applied in the routine care of patients with schizophrenia.</p> <p>Trial Registration</p> <p><b>Clincaltrials.gov Identifier</b>: NCT00395915</p