Review of dohan eherenfest et al. (2009) on “classification of platelet concentrates: from pure platelet-rich plasma (p-prp) to leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (l-prf)”

This classic discusses the original publication of Dohan Eherenfest et al. on "Classification of platelet concentrates: from pure platelet-rich plasma (P-PRP) to leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF)", in which the authors propose four categories of platelet concentrates depending on their leukocyte and fibrin content (P-PRP, leucocyte- and platelet-rich plasma (L-PRP), pure platelet-rich fibrin (P-PRF), and L-PRF) to group a "jungle" of products in which the term platelet-rich plasma (PRP) was used indistinctly. They were able to identify common factors such as: (1) the use of anticoagulant and immediate centrifugation of the blood after its collection, (2) most preparation techniques allowed platelet concentrate preparation within an hour, (3) the centrifugation aimed to separate the blood in layers that would allow the extraction of specific fractions, and (4) the product was activated with thrombin or calcium chloride. The reviewed manuscript has been listed among the most cited PRP articles in regenerative medicine, with more than 800 citations, driving the current scientific research and clinical practice by categorizing L-PRP and P-PRP (now, leukocyte-poor PRP). The classification has also opened the door to understanding intrinsic biological mechanisms between the platelets, leukocytes, fibrin, and growth factors, later considered for studying the proliferation and differentiation of cells in different tissues affected by PRP. Since the initial classification of platelet concentrates, several other classification systems have been proposed and published in the current literature, such as the PAW, Mishra, PLRA, DEPA, MARSPILL, etc. These classifications have identified important aspects of PRP that affect the biological composition and, ultimately, the indications and outcomes. To date, there is still a lack of standardization in sample preparation, cohort heterogeneity, and incomplete reporting of sample preparation utilized, leading to a lack of clarity and challenging researchers and clinicians

Physical and mental health comorbidity is common in people with multiple sclerosis: nationally representative cross-sectional population database analysis

<b>Background</b> Comorbidity in Multiple Sclerosis (MS) is associated with worse health and higher mortality. This study aims to describe clinician recorded comorbidities in people with MS. <p></p> <b>Methods</b> 39 comorbidities in 3826 people with MS aged ≥25 years were compared against 1,268,859 controls. Results were analysed by age, gender, and socioeconomic status, with unadjusted and adjusted Odds Ratios (ORs) calculated using logistic regression. <p></p> <b>Results</b> People with MS were more likely to have one (OR 2.44; 95% CI 2.26-2.64), two (OR 1.49; 95% CI 1.38-1.62), three (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.69-2.04), four or more (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.47-1.77) non-MS chronic conditions than controls, and greater mental health comorbidity (OR 2.94; 95% CI 2.75-3.14), which increased as the number of physical comorbidities rose. Cardiovascular conditions, including atrial fibrillation (OR 0.49; 95% CI 0.36-0.67), chronic kidney disease (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.40-0.65), heart failure (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.45-0.85), coronary heart disease (OR 0.64; 95% CI 0.52-0.71), and hypertension (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.59-0.72) were significantly less common in people with MS. <p></p> <b>Conclusion</b> People with MS have excess multiple chronic conditions, with associated increased mental health comorbidity. The low recorded cardiovascular comorbidity warrants further investigation

Neuroendocrine–immune disequilibrium and endometriosis: an interdisciplinary approach

Endometriosis, a chronic disease characterized by endometrial tissue located outside the uterine cavity, affects one fourth of young women and is associated with chronic pelvic pain and infertility. However, an in-depth understanding of the pathophysiology and effective treatment strategies of endometriosis is still largely elusive. Inadequate immune and neuroendocrine responses are significantly involved in the pathophysiology of endometriosis, and key findings are summarized in the present review. We discuss here the role of different immune mechanisms particularly adhesion molecules, protein–glycan interactions, and pro-angiogenic mediators in the development and progression of the disease. Finally, we introduce the concept of endometrial dissemination as result of a neuroendocrine-immune disequilibrium in response to high levels of perceived stress caused by cardinal clinical symptoms of endometriosis

The genetic basis of endometriosis and comorbidity with other pain and inflammatory conditions

Endometriosis is a common condition associated with debilitating pelvic pain and infertility. A genome-wide association study meta-analysis, including 60,674 cases and 701,926 controls of European and East Asian descent, identified 42 genome-wide significant loci comprising 49 distinct association signals. Effect sizes were largest for stage 3/4 disease, driven by ovarian endometriosis. Identified signals explained up to 5.01% of disease variance and regulated expression or methylation of genes in endometrium and blood, many of which were associated with pain perception/maintenance (SRP14/BMF, GDAP1, MLLT10, BSN and NGF). We observed significant genetic correlations between endometriosis and 11 pain conditions, including migraine, back and multisite chronic pain (MCP), as well as inflammatory conditions, including asthma and osteoarthritis. Multitrait genetic analyses identified substantial sharing of variants associated with endometriosis and MCP/migraine. Targeted investigations of genetically regulated mechanisms shared between endometriosis and other pain conditions are needed to aid the development of new treatments and facilitate early symptomatic intervention