The key action of estradiol and progesterone enables GnRH delivery during gestation in the South American plains vizcacha, Lagostomus maximus

The South American plains vizcacha, Lagostomus maximus, is the only mammal described so far that shows expression of estrogen receptors (ERs) and progesterone receptors (PRs) in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) neurons. This animal therefore constitutes an exceptional model for the study of the effect of steroid hormones on the modulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian (HPO) axis. By using both in vivo and ex vivo approaches, we have found that pharmacological doses of progesterone (P4) and estradiol (E2) produced an inhibition in the expression of hypothalamic GnRH, while physiological doses produced a differential effect on the pulsatile release frequency or genomic expression of GnRH. Our ex vivo experiment indicates that a short-term effect of E2 modulates the frequency of GnRH release pattern that would be associated with membrane ERs. On the other hand, our in vivo approach suggests that a long-term effect of E2, acting through the classical nuclear ERs-PRs pathway, would produce the modification of GnRH mRNA expression during the GnRH pre-ovulatory surge. Particularly, P4 induced a rise in GnRH mRNA expression and protein release with a decrease in its release frequency. These results suggest different levels of action of steroid hormones on GnRH modulation. We conclude that the fine action of E2 and P4 constitute the key factor to enable the hypothalamic activity during the pregnancy of this mammal.Fil: Inserra, Pablo Ignacio Felipe. Universidad Maimónides. Área de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Biotecnológicas. Centro de Estudios Biomédicos, Biotecnológicos, Ambientales y de Diagnóstico; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Charif, Santiago Elías. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Maimónides. Área de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Biotecnológicas. Centro de Estudios Biomédicos, Biotecnológicos, Ambientales y de Diagnóstico; ArgentinaFil: Fidel, Victoria. Universidad Maimónides. Área de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Biotecnológicas. Centro de Estudios Biomédicos, Biotecnológicos, Ambientales y de Diagnóstico; ArgentinaFil: Giacchino, Mariela. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Maimónides. Área de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Biotecnológicas. Centro de Estudios Biomédicos, Biotecnológicos, Ambientales y de Diagnóstico; ArgentinaFil: Schmidt, Alejandro Raúl. Universidad Maimónides. Área de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Biotecnológicas. Centro de Estudios Biomédicos, Biotecnológicos, Ambientales y de Diagnóstico; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Villarreal, Federico M.. Universidad Maimónides. Área de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Biotecnológicas. Centro de Estudios Biomédicos, Biotecnológicos, Ambientales y de Diagnóstico; ArgentinaFil: Proietto, Sofia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Maimónides. Área de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Biotecnológicas. Centro de Estudios Biomédicos, Biotecnológicos, Ambientales y de Diagnóstico; ArgentinaFil: Cortasa, Santiago Andrés. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Maimónides. Área de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Biotecnológicas. Centro de Estudios Biomédicos, Biotecnológicos, Ambientales y de Diagnóstico; ArgentinaFil: Corso, María Clara. Universidad Maimónides. Área de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Biotecnológicas. Centro de Estudios Biomédicos, Biotecnológicos, Ambientales y de Diagnóstico; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Gariboldi, María Constanza. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Maimónides. Área de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Biotecnológicas. Centro de Estudios Biomédicos, Biotecnológicos, Ambientales y de Diagnóstico; ArgentinaFil: Leopardo, Noelia Paola. Universidad Maimónides. Área de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Biotecnológicas. Centro de Estudios Biomédicos, Biotecnológicos, Ambientales y de Diagnóstico; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; ArgentinaFil: Fraunhoffer, Nicolás A.. Universidad Maimónides. Área de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Biotecnológicas. Centro de Estudios Biomédicos, Biotecnológicos, Ambientales y de Diagnóstico; ArgentinaFil: Di Giorgio, Noelia Paula. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Fundación de Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental; ArgentinaFil: Lux Lantos, Victoria A.. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Fundación de Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental. Instituto de Biología y Medicina Experimental; ArgentinaFil: Halperin, Julia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Maimónides. Área de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Biotecnológicas. Centro de Estudios Biomédicos, Biotecnológicos, Ambientales y de Diagnóstico; ArgentinaFil: Vitullo, Alfredo Daniel. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Universidad Maimónides. Área de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Biotecnológicas. Centro de Estudios Biomédicos, Biotecnológicos, Ambientales y de Diagnóstico; ArgentinaFil: Dorfman, Verónica Berta. Universidad Maimónides. Área de Investigaciones Biomédicas y Biotecnológicas. Centro de Estudios Biomédicos, Biotecnológicos, Ambientales y de Diagnóstico; Argentina. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentin

SANI definition of Clinical Remission in Severe Asthma: a Delphi consensus

: Severe Asthma affects about 10% of the asthmatic population, and it is characterized by a low lung function and a higher count of blood leucocytes, mainly eosinophils. To date, various definitions are used in clinical practice and in the literature to identify asthma remission: clinical remission, inflammatory remission, and complete remission. The aim of this work is to highlight a consensus for asthma remission using a Delphi method. In the context of SANI (Severe Asthma Network Italy), accounting for 57 Severe Asthma Centers and more then 2200 patients, a Board of six expert drafted a list of candidate statements in a questionnaire, which has been revised to minimize redundancies and ensure clear and consistent wording for the first round (R1) of the analysis. 32 statements have been included in the R1 questionnaire, and then submitted to a panel of 80 experts, which used a 5-points Likert scale to measure their agreement to each statement. Then, an Interim Analysis of R1 data have been performed, items were discussed and considered to produce a consistent questionnaire for the round 2 (R2) of the analysis. After this, the Board set the R2 questionnaire, which included only the important key topics. Panelists have been asked to vote the statements in the R2 questionnaire afterwards. During R2, the criteria of complete clinical remission (the absence of need for OCS, symptoms, exacerbations/attacks, and a pulmonary function stability) and those of partial clinical remission (the absence of need for OCS, and 2 out of 3 criteria: the absence of symptoms, exacerbations/attacks, and a pulmonary stability) were confirmed. This SANI Delphi Analysis defined a valuable, independent and easy to use tool to test the efficacy of different treatments in patients with severe asthma enrolled into the SANI registry

Severe asthma: One disease and multiple definitions

Introduction: There is, so far, no universal definition of severe asthma. This definition usually relies on: number of exacerbations, inhaled therapy, need for oral corticosteroids, and respiratory function. The use of such parameters varies in the different definitions used. Thus, according to the parameters chosen, each patient may result in having severe asthma or not. The aim of this study was to evaluate how the choice of a specific definition of severe asthma can change the allocation of patients. Methods: Data collected from the Severe Asthma Network Italy (SANI) registry were analyzed. All the patients included were then reclassified according to the definitions of U-BIOPRED, NICE, WHO, ATS/ERS, GINA, ENFUMOSA, and TENOR. Results: 540 patients, were extracted from the SANI database. We observed that 462 (86%) met the ATS/ERS criteria as well as the GINA criteria, 259 (48%) the U-Biopred, 222 (41%) the NICE, 125 (23%) the WHO, 313 (58%) the Enfumosa, and 251 (46%) the TENOR criteria. The mean eosinophil value were similar in the ATS/ERS, U-Biopred, and Enfumosa (528, 532 and 516 cells/mcl), higher in WHO and Tenor (567 and 570 cells/mcl) and much higher in the NICE classification (624 cells/mcl). Lung function tests resulted similarly in all groups, with WHO (67%) and ATS/ERS-GINA (73%), respectively, showing the lower and upper mean FEV1 values. Conclusions: The present observations clearly evidence the heterogeneity in the distribution of patients when different definitions of severe asthma are used. However, the recent definition of severe asthma, provided by the GINA document, is similar to that indicated in 2014 by ATS/ERS, allowing mirror reclassification of the patients examined. This lack of homogeneity could complicate the access to biological therapies. The definition provided by the GINA document, which reflects what suggested by ATS/ERS, could partially overcome the problem

Spleen-Resident CD4+ and CD4− CD8α− Dendritic Cell Subsets Differ in Their Ability to Prime Invariant Natural Killer T Lymphocytes

One important function of conventional dendritic cells (cDC) is their high capacity to capture, process and present Ag to T lymphocytes. Mouse splenic cDC subtypes, including CD8α+ and CD8α− cDC, are not identical in their Ag presenting and T cell priming functions. Surprisingly, few studies have reported functional differences between CD4− and CD4+ CD8α− cDC subsets. We show that, when loaded in vitro with OVA peptide or whole protein, and in steady-state conditions, splenic CD4− and CD4+ cDC are equivalent in their capacity to prime and direct CD4+ and CD8+ T cell differentiation. In contrast, in response to α-galactosylceramide (α-GalCer), CD4− and CD4+ cDC differentially activate invariant Natural Killer T (iNKT) cells, a population of lipid-reactive non-conventional T lymphocytes. Both cDC subsets equally take up α-GalCer in vitro and in vivo to stimulate the iNKT hybridoma DN32.D3, the activation of which depends solely on TCR triggering. On the other hand, and relative to their CD4+ counterparts, CD4− cDC more efficiently stimulate primary iNKT cells, a phenomenon likely due to differential production of co-factors (including IL-12) by cDC. Our data reveal a novel functional difference between splenic CD4+ and CD4− cDC subsets that may be important in immune responses

"Delirium Day": A nationwide point prevalence study of delirium in older hospitalized patients using an easy standardized diagnostic tool

Background: To date, delirium prevalence in adult acute hospital populations has been estimated generally from pooled findings of single-center studies and/or among specific patient populations. Furthermore, the number of participants in these studies has not exceeded a few hundred. To overcome these limitations, we have determined, in a multicenter study, the prevalence of delirium over a single day among a large population of patients admitted to acute and rehabilitation hospital wards in Italy. Methods: This is a point prevalence study (called "Delirium Day") including 1867 older patients (aged 65 years or more) across 108 acute and 12 rehabilitation wards in Italian hospitals. Delirium was assessed on the same day in all patients using the 4AT, a validated and briefly administered tool which does not require training. We also collected data regarding motoric subtypes of delirium, functional and nutritional status, dementia, comorbidity, medications, feeding tubes, peripheral venous and urinary catheters, and physical restraints. Results: The mean sample age was 82.0 \ub1 7.5 years (58 % female). Overall, 429 patients (22.9 %) had delirium. Hypoactive was the commonest subtype (132/344 patients, 38.5 %), followed by mixed, hyperactive, and nonmotoric delirium. The prevalence was highest in Neurology (28.5 %) and Geriatrics (24.7 %), lowest in Rehabilitation (14.0 %), and intermediate in Orthopedic (20.6 %) and Internal Medicine wards (21.4 %). In a multivariable logistic regression, age (odds ratio [OR] 1.03, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 1.01-1.05), Activities of Daily Living dependence (OR 1.19, 95 % CI 1.12-1.27), dementia (OR 3.25, 95 % CI 2.41-4.38), malnutrition (OR 2.01, 95 % CI 1.29-3.14), and use of antipsychotics (OR 2.03, 95 % CI 1.45-2.82), feeding tubes (OR 2.51, 95 % CI 1.11-5.66), peripheral venous catheters (OR 1.41, 95 % CI 1.06-1.87), urinary catheters (OR 1.73, 95 % CI 1.30-2.29), and physical restraints (OR 1.84, 95 % CI 1.40-2.40) were associated with delirium. Admission to Neurology wards was also associated with delirium (OR 2.00, 95 % CI 1.29-3.14), while admission to other settings was not. Conclusions: Delirium occurred in more than one out of five patients in acute and rehabilitation hospital wards. Prevalence was highest in Neurology and lowest in Rehabilitation divisions. The "Delirium Day" project might become a useful method to assess delirium across hospital settings and a benchmarking platform for future surveys

Effect of sitagliptin on cardiovascular outcomes in type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND: Data are lacking on the long-term effect on cardiovascular events of adding sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase 4 inhibitor, to usual care in patients with type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. METHODS: In this randomized, double-blind study, we assigned 14,671 patients to add either sitagliptin or placebo to their existing therapy. Open-label use of antihyperglycemic therapy was encouraged as required, aimed at reaching individually appropriate glycemic targets in all patients. To determine whether sitagliptin was noninferior to placebo, we used a relative risk of 1.3 as the marginal upper boundary. The primary cardiovascular outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, or hospitalization for unstable angina. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 3.0 years, there was a small difference in glycated hemoglobin levels (least-squares mean difference for sitagliptin vs. placebo, -0.29 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.32 to -0.27). Overall, the primary outcome occurred in 839 patients in the sitagliptin group (11.4%; 4.06 per 100 person-years) and 851 patients in the placebo group (11.6%; 4.17 per 100 person-years). Sitagliptin was noninferior to placebo for the primary composite cardiovascular outcome (hazard ratio, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.88 to 1.09; P<0.001). Rates of hospitalization for heart failure did not differ between the two groups (hazard ratio, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.20; P = 0.98). There were no significant between-group differences in rates of acute pancreatitis (P = 0.07) or pancreatic cancer (P = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with type 2 diabetes and established cardiovascular disease, adding sitagliptin to usual care did not appear to increase the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events, hospitalization for heart failure, or other adverse events

Canagliflozin and Renal Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes and Nephropathy

BACKGROUND Type 2 diabetes mellitus is the leading cause of kidney failure worldwide, but few effective long-term treatments are available. In cardiovascular trials of inhibitors of sodium–glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2), exploratory results have suggested that such drugs may improve renal outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes. METHODS In this double-blind, randomized trial, we assigned patients with type 2 diabetes and albuminuric chronic kidney disease to receive canagliflozin, an oral SGLT2 inhibitor, at a dose of 100 mg daily or placebo. All the patients had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (GFR) of 30 to 300 to 5000) and were treated with renin–angiotensin system blockade. The primary outcome was a composite of end-stage kidney disease (dialysis, transplantation, or a sustained estimated GFR of <15 ml per minute per 1.73 m 2), a doubling of the serum creatinine level, or death from renal or cardiovascular causes. Prespecified secondary outcomes were tested hierarchically. RESULTS The trial was stopped early after a planned interim analysis on the recommendation of the data and safety monitoring committee. At that time, 4401 patients had undergone randomization, with a median follow-up of 2.62 years. The relative risk of the primary outcome was 30% lower in the canagliflozin group than in the placebo group, with event rates of 43.2 and 61.2 per 1000 patient-years, respectively (hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.59 to 0.82; P=0.00001). The relative risk of the renal-specific composite of end-stage kidney disease, a doubling of the creatinine level, or death from renal causes was lower by 34% (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53 to 0.81; P<0.001), and the relative risk of end-stage kidney disease was lower by 32% (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.86; P=0.002). The canagliflozin group also had a lower risk of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (hazard ratio, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.67 to 0.95; P=0.01) and hospitalization for heart failure (hazard ratio, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.47 to 0.80; P<0.001). There were no significant differences in rates of amputation or fracture. CONCLUSIONS In patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease, the risk of kidney failure and cardiovascular events was lower in the canagliflozin group than in the placebo group at a median follow-up of 2.62 years

Canagliflozin and Cardiovascular and Renal Outcomes in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus and Chronic Kidney Disease in Primary and Secondary Cardiovascular Prevention Groups

Background: Canagliflozin reduces the risk of kidney failure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease, but effects on specific cardiovascular outcomes are uncertain, as are effects in people without previous cardiovascular disease (primary prevention). Methods: In CREDENCE (Canagliflozin and Renal Events in Diabetes With Established Nephropathy Clinical Evaluation), 4401 participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease were randomly assigned to canagliflozin or placebo on a background of optimized standard of care. Results: Primary prevention participants (n=2181, 49.6%) were younger (61 versus 65 years), were more often female (37% versus 31%), and had shorter duration of diabetes mellitus (15 years versus 16 years) compared with secondary prevention participants (n=2220, 50.4%). Canagliflozin reduced the risk of major cardiovascular events overall (hazard ratio [HR], 0.80 [95% CI, 0.67-0.95]; P=0.01), with consistent reductions in both the primary (HR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.49-0.94]) and secondary (HR, 0.85 [95% CI, 0.69-1.06]) prevention groups (P for interaction=0.25). Effects were also similar for the components of the composite including cardiovascular death (HR, 0.78 [95% CI, 0.61-1.00]), nonfatal myocardial infarction (HR, 0.81 [95% CI, 0.59-1.10]), and nonfatal stroke (HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.56-1.15]). The risk of the primary composite renal outcome and the composite of cardiovascular death or hospitalization for heart failure were also consistently reduced in both the primary and secondary prevention groups (P for interaction &gt;0.5 for each outcome). Conclusions: Canagliflozin significantly reduced major cardiovascular events and kidney failure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease, including in participants who did not have previous cardiovascular disease