28 research outputs found

    T Cell Receptor (TCR) Antagonism without a Negative Signal: Evidence from T Cell Hybridomas Expressing Two Independent TCRs

    Get PDF
    Antagonist peptides inhibit T cell responses by an unknown mechanism. By coexpressing two independent T cell receptors (TCRs) on a single T cell hybridoma, we addressed the question of whether antagonist ligands induce a dominant-negative signal that inhibits the function of a second, independent TCR. The two receptors, Vα2Vβ5 and Vα2Vβ10, restricted by H-2Kb and specific for the octameric peptides SIINFEKL and SSIEFARL, respectively, were coexpressed on the same cell. Agonist stimulation demonstrated that the two receptors behaved independently with regard to antigen-induced TCR downregulation and intracellular biochemical signaling. The exposure of one TCR (Vα2Vβ5) to antagonist peptides could not inhibit a second independent TCR (Vα2Vβ10) from responding to its antigen. Thus, our data clearly demonstrate that these antagonist ligands do not generate a dominant-negative signal which affects the responsiveness of the entire cell. In addition, a kinetic analysis showed that even 12 h after engagement with their cognate antigen and 10 h after reaching a steady-state of TCR internalization, T cells were fully inhibited by the addition of antagonist peptides. The window of susceptibility to antagonist ligands correlated exactly with the time required for the responding T cells to commit to interleukin 2 production. The data support a model where antagonist ligands can competitively inhibit antigenic peptides from productively engaging the TCR. This competitive inhibition is effective during the entire commitment period, where sustained TCR engagement is essential for full T cell activation

    NT-proBNP or Self-Reported Functional Capacity in Estimating Risk of Cardiovascular Events After Noncardiac Surgery

    Get PDF
    ImportanceNearly 16 million surgical procedures are conducted in North America yearly, and postoperative cardiovascular events are frequent. Guidelines suggest functional capacity or B-type natriuretic peptides (BNP) to guide perioperative management. Data comparing the performance of these approaches are scarce.ObjectiveTo compare the addition of either N-terminal pro-BNP (NT-proBNP) or self-reported functional capacity to clinical scores to estimate the risk of major adverse cardiac events (MACE).Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cohort study included patients undergoing inpatient, elective, noncardiac surgery at 25 tertiary care hospitals in Europe between June 2017 and April 2020. Analysis was conducted in January 2023. Eligible patients were either aged 45 years or older with a Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI) of 2 or higher or a National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, Risk Calculator for Myocardial Infarction and Cardiac (NSQIP MICA) above 1%, or they were aged 65 years or older and underwent intermediate or high-risk procedures.ExposuresPreoperative NT-proBNP and the following self-reported measures of functional capacity were the exposures: (1) questionnaire-estimated metabolic equivalents (METs), (2) ability to climb 1 floor, and (3) level of regular physical activity.Main Outcome and MeasuresMACE was defined as a composite end point of in-hospital cardiovascular mortality, cardiac arrest, myocardial infarction, stroke, and congestive heart failure requiring transfer to a higher unit of care.ResultsA total of 3731 eligible patients undergoing noncardiac surgery were analyzed; 3597 patients had complete data (1258 women [35.0%]; 1463 (40.7%) aged 75 years or older; 86 [2.4%] experienced a MACE). Discrimination of NT-proBNP or functional capacity measures added to clinical scores did not significantly differ (Area under the receiver operating curve: RCRI, age, and 4MET, 0.704; 95% CI, 0.646-0.763; RCRI, age, and 4MET plus floor climbing, 0.702; 95% CI, 0.645-0.760; RCRI, age, and 4MET plus physical activity, 0.724; 95% CI, 0.672-0.775; RCRI, age, and 4MET plus NT-proBNP, 0.736; 95% CI, 0.682-0.790). Benefit analysis favored NT-proBNP at a threshold of 5% or below, ie, if true positives were valued 20 times or more compared with false positives. The findings were similar for NSQIP MICA as baseline clinical scores.Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of nearly 3600 patients with elevated cardiovascular risk undergoing noncardiac surgery, there was no conclusive evidence of a difference between a NT-proBNP–based and a self-reported functional capacity–based estimate of MACE risk.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0301693

    Retrospective, multicenter analysis comparing conventional with oncoplastic breast conserving surgery: oncological and surgical outcomes in women with high-risk breast cancer from the OPBC-01/iTOP2 study

    Get PDF
    Introduction: Recent data suggest that margins ≥2 mm after breast-conserving surgery may improve local control in invasive breast cancer (BC). By allowing large resection volumes, oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCII; Clough level II/Tübingen 5-6) may achieve better local control than conventional breast conserving surgery (BCS; Tübingen 1-2) or oncoplastic breast conservation with low resection volumes (OBCI; Clough level I/Tübingen 3-4). Methods: Data from consecutive high-risk BC patients treated in 15 centers from the Oncoplastic Breast Consortium (OPBC) network, between January 2010 and December 2013, were retrospectively reviewed. Results: A total of 3,177 women were included, 30% of whom were treated with OBC (OBCI n = 663; OBCII n = 297). The BCS/OBCI group had significantly smaller tumors and smaller resection margins compared with OBCII (pT1: 50% vs. 37%, p = 0.002; proportion with margin <1 mm: 17% vs. 6%, p < 0.001). There were significantly more re-excisions due to R1 (“ink on tumor”) in the BCS/OBCI compared with the OBCII group (11% vs. 7%, p = 0.049). Univariate and multivariable regression analysis adjusted for tumor biology, tumor size, radiotherapy, and systemic treatment demonstrated no differences in local, regional, or distant recurrence-free or overall survival between the two groups. Conclusions: Large resection volumes in oncoplastic surgery increases the distance from cancer cells to the margin of the specimen and reduces reexcision rates significantly. With OBCII larger tumors are resected with similar local, regional and distant recurrence-free as well as overall survival rates as BCS/OBCI

    Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: A systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

    Get PDF
    Background: A key component of achieving universal health coverage is ensuring that all populations have access to quality health care. Examining where gains have occurred or progress has faltered across and within countries is crucial to guiding decisions and strategies for future improvement. We used the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) to assess personal health-care access and quality with the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index for 195 countries and territories, as well as subnational locations in seven countries, from 1990 to 2016. Methods Drawing from established methods and updated estimates from GBD 2016, we used 32 causes from which death should not occur in the presence of effective care to approximate personal health-care access and quality by location and over time. To better isolate potential effects of personal health-care access and quality from underlying risk factor patterns, we risk-standardised cause-specific deaths due to non-cancers by location-year, replacing the local joint exposure of environmental and behavioural risks with the global level of exposure. Supported by the expansion of cancer registry data in GBD 2016, we used mortality-to-incidence ratios for cancers instead of risk-standardised death rates to provide a stronger signal of the effects of personal health care and access on cancer survival. We transformed each cause to a scale of 0-100, with 0 as the first percentile (worst) observed between 1990 and 2016, and 100 as the 99th percentile (best); we set these thresholds at the country level, and then applied them to subnational locations. We applied a principal components analysis to construct the HAQ Index using all scaled cause values, providing an overall score of 0-100 of personal health-care access and quality by location over time. We then compared HAQ Index levels and trends by quintiles on the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary measure of overall development. As derived from the broader GBD study and other data sources, we examined relationships between national HAQ Index scores and potential correlates of performance, such as total health spending per capita. Findings In 2016, HAQ Index performance spanned from a high of 97\ub71 (95% UI 95\ub78-98\ub71) in Iceland, followed by 96\ub76 (94\ub79-97\ub79) in Norway and 96\ub71 (94\ub75-97\ub73) in the Netherlands, to values as low as 18\ub76 (13\ub71-24\ub74) in the Central African Republic, 19\ub70 (14\ub73-23\ub77) in Somalia, and 23\ub74 (20\ub72-26\ub78) in Guinea-Bissau. The pace of progress achieved between 1990 and 2016 varied, with markedly faster improvements occurring between 2000 and 2016 for many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia, whereas several countries in Latin America and elsewhere saw progress stagnate after experiencing considerable advances in the HAQ Index between 1990 and 2000. Striking subnational disparities emerged in personal health-care access and quality, with China and India having particularly large gaps between locations with the highest and lowest scores in 2016. In China, performance ranged from 91\ub75 (89\ub71-93\ub76) in Beijing to 48\ub70 (43\ub74-53\ub72) in Tibet (a 43\ub75-point difference), while India saw a 30\ub78-point disparity, from 64\ub78 (59\ub76-68\ub78) in Goa to 34\ub70 (30\ub73-38\ub71) in Assam. Japan recorded the smallest range in subnational HAQ performance in 2016 (a 4\ub78-point difference), whereas differences between subnational locations with the highest and lowest HAQ Index values were more than two times as high for the USA and three times as high for England. State-level gaps in the HAQ Index in Mexico somewhat narrowed from 1990 to 2016 (from a 20\ub79-point to 17\ub70-point difference), whereas in Brazil, disparities slightly increased across states during this time (a 17\ub72-point to 20\ub74-point difference). Performance on the HAQ Index showed strong linkages to overall development, with high and high-middle SDI countries generally having higher scores and faster gains for non-communicable diseases. Nonetheless, countries across the development spectrum saw substantial gains in some key health service areas from 2000 to 2016, most notably vaccine-preventable diseases. Overall, national performance on the HAQ Index was positively associated with higher levels of total health spending per capita, as well as health systems inputs, but these relationships were quite heterogeneous, particularly among low-to-middle SDI countries. Interpretation GBD 2016 provides a more detailed understanding of past success and current challenges in improving personal health-care access and quality worldwide. Despite substantial gains since 2000, many low-SDI and middle- SDI countries face considerable challenges unless heightened policy action and investments focus on advancing access to and quality of health care across key health services, especially non-communicable diseases. Stagnating or minimal improvements experienced by several low-middle to high-middle SDI countries could reflect the complexities of re-orienting both primary and secondary health-care services beyond the more limited foci of the Millennium Development Goals. Alongside initiatives to strengthen public health programmes, the pursuit of universal health coverage hinges upon improving both access and quality worldwide, and thus requires adopting a more comprehensive view-and subsequent provision-of quality health care for all populations

    Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: A systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016

    Get PDF
    Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. Background A key component of achieving universal health coverage is ensuring that all populations have access to quality health care. Examining where gains have occurred or progress has faltered across and within countries is crucial to guiding decisions and strategies for future improvement. We used the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) to assess personal health-care access and quality with the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index for 195 countries and territories, as well as subnational locations in seven countries, from 1990 to 2016. Methods Drawing from established methods and updated estimates from GBD 2016, we used 32 causes from which death should not occur in the presence of effective care to approximate personal health-care access and quality by location and over time. To better isolate potential effects of personal health-care access and quality from underlying risk factor patterns, we risk-standardised cause-specific deaths due to non-cancers by location-year, replacing the local joint exposure of environmental and behavioural risks with the global level of exposure. Supported by the expansion of cancer registry data in GBD 2016, we used mortality-to-incidence ratios for cancers instead of risk-standardised death rates to provide a stronger signal of the effects of personal health care and access on cancer survival. We transformed each cause to a scale of 0-100, with 0 as the first percentile (worst) observed between 1990 and 2016, and 100 as the 99th percentile (best); we set these thresholds at the country level, and then applied them to subnational locations. We applied a principal components analysis to construct the HAQ Index using all scaled cause values, providing an overall score of 0-100 of personal health-care access and quality by location over time. We then compared HAQ Index levels and trends by quintiles on the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary measure of overall development. As derived from the broader GBD study and other data sources, we examined relationships between national HAQ Index scores and potential correlates of performance, such as total health spending per capita. Findings In 2016, HAQ Index performance spanned from a high of 97·1 (95% UI 95·8-98·1) in Iceland, followed by 96·6 (94·9-97·9) in Norway and 96·1 (94·5-97·3) in the Netherlands, to values as low as 18·6 (13·1-24·4) in the Central African Republic, 19·0 (14·3-23·7) in Somalia, and 23·4 (20·2-26·8) in Guinea-Bissau. The pace of progress achieved between 1990 and 2016 varied, with markedly faster improvements occurring between 2000 and 2016 for many countries in sub-Saharan Africa and southeast Asia, whereas several countries in Latin America and elsewhere saw progress stagnate after experiencing considerable advances in the HAQ Index between 1990 and 2000. Striking subnational disparities emerged in personal health-care access and quality, with China and India having particularly large gaps between locations with the highest and lowest scores in 2016. In China, performance ranged from 91·5 (89·1-93·6) in Beijing to 48·0 (43·4-53·2) in Tibet (a 43·5-point difference), while India saw a 30·8-point disparity, from 64·8 (59·6-68·8) in Goa to 34·0 (30·3-38·1) in Assam. Japan recorded the smallest range in subnational HAQ performance in 2016 (a 4·8-point difference), whereas differences between subnational locations with the highest and lowest HAQ Index values were more than two times as high for the USA and three times as high for England. State-level gaps in the HAQ Index in Mexico somewhat narrowed from 1990 to 2016 (from a 20·9-point to 17·0-point difference), whereas in Brazil, disparities slightly increased across states during this time (a 17·2-point to 20·4-point difference). Performance on the HAQ Index showed strong linkages to overall development, with high and high-middle SDI countries generally having higher scores and faster gains for non-communicable diseases. Nonetheless, countries across the development spectrum saw substantial gains in some key health service areas from 2000 to 2016, most notably vaccine-preventable diseases. Overall, national performance on the HAQ Index was positively associated with higher levels of total health spending per capita, as well as health systems inputs, but these relationships were quite heterogeneous, particularly among low-to-middle SDI countries. Interpretation GBD 2016 provides a more detailed understanding of past success and current challenges in improving personal health-care access and quality worldwide. Despite substantial gains since 2000, many low-SDI and middle- SDI countries face considerable challenges unless heightened policy action and investments focus on advancing access to and quality of health care across key health services, especially non-communicable diseases. Stagnating or minimal improvements experienced by several low-middle to high-middle SDI countries could reflect the complexities of re-orienting both primary and secondary health-care services beyond the more limited foci of the Millennium Development Goals. Alongside initiatives to strengthen public health programmes, the pursuit of universal health coverage hinges upon improving both access and quality worldwide, and thus requires adopting a more comprehensive view - and subsequent provision - of quality health care for all populations

    Measuring performance on the Healthcare Access and Quality Index for 195 countries and territories and selected subnational locations: a systematic analysis from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016.

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: A key component of achieving universal health coverage is ensuring that all populations have access to quality health care. Examining where gains have occurred or progress has faltered across and within countries is crucial to guiding decisions and strategies for future improvement. We used the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2016 (GBD 2016) to assess personal health-care access and quality with the Healthcare Access and Quality (HAQ) Index for 195 countries and territories, as well as subnational locations in seven countries, from 1990 to 2016. METHODS: Drawing from established methods and updated estimates from GBD 2016, we used 32 causes from which death should not occur in the presence of effective care to approximate personal health-care access and quality by location and over time. To better isolate potential effects of personal health-care access and quality from underlying risk factor patterns, we risk-standardised cause-specific deaths due to non-cancers by location-year, replacing the local joint exposure of environmental and behavioural risks with the global level of exposure. Supported by the expansion of cancer registry data in GBD 2016, we used mortality-to-incidence ratios for cancers instead of risk-standardised death rates to provide a stronger signal of the effects of personal health care and access on cancer survival. We transformed each cause to a scale of 0-100, with 0 as the first percentile (worst) observed between 1990 and 2016, and 100 as the 99th percentile (best); we set these thresholds at the country level, and then applied them to subnational locations. We applied a principal components analysis to construct the HAQ Index using all scaled cause values, providing an overall score of 0-100 of personal health-care access and quality by location over time. We then compared HAQ Index levels and trends by quintiles on the Socio-demographic Index (SDI), a summary measure of overall development. As derived from the broader GBD study and other data sources, we examined relationships between national HAQ Index scores and potential correlates of performance, such as total health spending per capita

    Overground walking patterns after chronic incomplete spinal cord injury show distinct response patterns to unloading

    Get PDF
    Abstract Background Body weight support (BWS) is often provided to incomplete spinal cord injury (iSCI) patients during rehabilitation to enable gait training before full weight-bearing is recovered. Emerging robotic devices enable BWS during overground walking, increasing task-specificity of the locomotor training. However, in contrast to a treadmill setting, there is little information on how unloading is integrated into overground locomotion. We investigated the effect of a transparent multi-directional BWS system on overground walking patterns at different levels of unloading in individuals with chronic iSCI (CiSCI) compared to controls. Methods Kinematics of 12 CiSCI were analyzed at six different BWS levels from 0 to 50% body weight unloading during overground walking at 2kmh− 1 and compared to speed-matched controls. Results In controls, temporal parameters, single joint trajectories, and intralimb coordination responded proportionally to the level of unloading, while spatial parameters remained unaffected. In CiSCI, unloading induced similar changes in temporal parameters. CiSCI, however, did not adapt their intralimb coordination or single joint trajectories to the level of unloading. Conclusions The findings revealed that continuous, dynamic unloading during overground walking results in subtle and proportional gait adjustments corresponding to changes in body load. CiSCI demonstrated diminished responses in specific domains of gait, indicating that their altered neural processing impeded the adjustment to environmental constraints. CiSCI retain their movement patterns under overground unloading, indicating that this is a viable locomotor therapy tool that may also offer a potential window on the diminished neural control of intralimb coordination

    Deep brain stimulation for locomotion in incomplete human spinal cord injury (DBS-SCI): protocol of a prospective one-armed multi-centre study

    Get PDF
    INTRODUCTION Spinal cord injury (SCI) is a devastating condition with immediate impact on the individual's health and quality of life. Major functional recovery reaches a plateau 3-4 months after injury despite intensive rehabilitative training. To enhance training efficacy and improve long-term outcomes, the combination of rehabilitation with electrical modulation of the spinal cord and brain has recently aroused scientific interest with encouraging results. The mesencephalic locomotor region (MLR), an evolutionarily conserved brainstem locomotor command and control centre, is considered a promising target for deep brain stimulation (DBS) in patients with SCI. Experiments showed that MLR-DBS can induce locomotion in rats with spinal white matter destructions of >85%. METHODS AND ANALYSIS In this prospective one-armed multi-centre study, we investigate the safety, feasibility, and therapeutic efficacy of MLR-DBS to enable and enhance locomotor training in severely affected, subchronic and chronic American Spinal Injury Association Impairment Scale C patients in order to improve functional recovery. Patients undergo an intensive training programme with MLR-DBS while being regularly followed up until 6 months post-implantation. The acquired data of each timepoint are compared with baseline while the primary endpoint is performance in the 6-minute walking test. The clinical trial protocol was written in accordance with the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials checklist. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION This first in-man study investigates the therapeutic potential of MLR-DBS in SCI patients. One patient has already been implanted with electrodes and underwent MLR stimulation during locomotion. Based on the preliminary results which promise safety and feasibility, recruitment of further patients is currently ongoing. Ethical approval has been obtained from the Ethical Committee of the Canton of Zurich (case number BASEC 2016-01104) and Swissmedic (10000316). Results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT03053791
    corecore