Stem cells in liver regeneration and therapy

The liver has adapted to the inflow of ingested toxins by the evolutionary development of unique regenerative properties and responds to injury or tissue loss by the rapid division of mature cells. Proliferation of the parenchymal cells, i.e. hepatocytes and epithelial cells of the bile duct, is regulated by numerous cytokine/growth-factor-mediated pathways and is synchronised with extracellular matrix degradation and restoration of the vasculature. Resident hepatic stem/progenitor cells have also been identified in small numbers in normal liver and implicated in liver tissue repair. Their putative role in the physiology, pathophysiology and therapy of the liver, however, is not yet precisely known. Hepatic stem/progenitor cells also known as “oval cells” in rodents have been implicated in liver tissue repair, at a time when the capacity for hepatocyte and bile duct replication is exhausted or experimentally inhibited (facultative stem/progenitor cell pool). Although much more has to be learned about the role of stem/progenitor cells in the physiology and pathophysiology of the liver, experimental analysis of the therapeutic value of these cells has been initiated. Transplantation of hepatic stem/progenitor cells or in vivo pharmacological activation of the pool of hepatic stem cells may provide novel modalities for the therapy of liver diseases. In addition, extrahepatic stem cells (e.g. bone marrow cells) are being investigated for their contribution to liver regeneration. Hepatic progenitor cells derived from embryonic stem cells are included in this review, which also discusses future perspectives of stem cell-based therapies for liver diseases

The Young Supernova Experiment Data Release 1 (YSE DR1): Light Curves and Photometric Classification of 1975 Supernovae

Abstract We present the Young Supernova Experiment Data Release 1 (YSE DR1), comprised of processed multicolor PanSTARRS1 griz and Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF) gr photometry of 1975 transients with host–galaxy associations, redshifts, spectroscopic and/or photometric classifications, and additional data products from 2019 November 24 to 2021 December 20. YSE DR1 spans discoveries and observations from young and fast-rising supernovae (SNe) to transients that persist for over a year, with a redshift distribution reaching z ≈ 0.5. We present relative SN rates from YSE’s magnitude- and volume-limited surveys, which are consistent with previously published values within estimated uncertainties for untargeted surveys. We combine YSE and ZTF data, and create multisurvey SN simulations to train the ParSNIP and SuperRAENN photometric classification algorithms; when validating our ParSNIP classifier on 472 spectroscopically classified YSE DR1 SNe, we achieve 82% accuracy across three SN classes (SNe Ia, II, Ib/Ic) and 90% accuracy across two SN classes (SNe Ia, core-collapse SNe). Our classifier performs particularly well on SNe Ia, with high (&gt;90%) individual completeness and purity, which will help build an anchor photometric SNe Ia sample for cosmology. We then use our photometric classifier to characterize our photometric sample of 1483 SNe, labeling 1048 (∼71%) SNe Ia, 339 (∼23%) SNe II, and 96 (∼6%) SNe Ib/Ic. YSE DR1 provides a training ground for building discovery, anomaly detection, and classification algorithms, performing cosmological analyses, understanding the nature of red and rare transients, exploring tidal disruption events and nuclear variability, and preparing for the forthcoming Vera C. Rubin Observatory Legacy Survey of Space and Time.</jats:p

Serious Asthma Events with Fluticasone plus Salmeterol versus Fluticasone Alone

BACKGROUND: The safe and appropriate use of long-acting beta-agonists (LABAs) for the treatment of asthma has been widely debated. In two large clinical trials, investigators found a potential risk of serious asthma-related events associated with LABAs. This study was designed to evaluate the risk of administering the LABA salmeterol in combination with an inhaled glucocorticoid, fluticasone propionate. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, double-blind trial, adolescent and adult patients (age, ≥12 years) with persistent asthma were assigned to receive either fluticasone with salmeterol or fluticasone alone for 26 weeks. All the patients had a history of a severe asthma exacerbation in the year before randomization but not during the previous month. Patients were excluded from the trial if they had a history of life-threatening or unstable asthma. The primary safety end point was the first serious asthma-related event (death, endotracheal intubation, or hospitalization). Noninferiority of fluticasone-salmeterol to fluticasone alone was defined as an upper boundary of the 95% confidence interval for the risk of the primary safety end point of less than 2.0. The efficacy end point was the first severe asthma exacerbation. RESULTS: Of 11,679 patients who were enrolled, 67 had 74 serious asthma-related events, with 36 events in 34 patients in the fluticasone-salmeterol group and 38 events in 33 patients in the fluticasone-only group. The hazard ratio for a serious asthma-related event in the fluticasone-salmeterol group was 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.66), and noninferiority was achieved (P=0.003). There were no asthma-related deaths; 2 patients in the fluticasone-only group underwent asthma-related intubation. The risk of a severe asthma exacerbation was 21% lower in the fluticasone-salmeterol group than in the fluticasone-only group (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.89), with at least one severe asthma exacerbation occurring in 480 of 5834 patients (8%) in the fluticasone-salmeterol group, as compared with 597 of 5845 patients (10%) in the fluticasone-only group (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received salmeterol in a fixed-dose combination with fluticasone did not have a significantly higher risk of serious asthma-related events than did those who received fluticasone alone. Patients receiving fluticasone-salmeterol had fewer severe asthma exacerbations than did those in the fluticasone-only group

Ezetimibe added to statin therapy after acute coronary syndromes

BACKGROUND: Statin therapy reduces low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels and the risk of cardiovascular events, but whether the addition of ezetimibe, a nonstatin drug that reduces intestinal cholesterol absorption, can reduce the rate of cardiovascular events further is not known. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, randomized trial involving 18,144 patients who had been hospitalized for an acute coronary syndrome within the preceding 10 days and had LDL cholesterol levels of 50 to 100 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 2.6 mmol per liter) if they were receiving lipid-lowering therapy or 50 to 125 mg per deciliter (1.3 to 3.2 mmol per liter) if they were not receiving lipid-lowering therapy. The combination of simvastatin (40 mg) and ezetimibe (10 mg) (simvastatin-ezetimibe) was compared with simvastatin (40 mg) and placebo (simvastatin monotherapy). The primary end point was a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, unstable angina requiring rehospitalization, coronary revascularization ( 6530 days after randomization), or nonfatal stroke. The median follow-up was 6 years. RESULTS: The median time-weighted average LDL cholesterol level during the study was 53.7 mg per deciliter (1.4 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 69.5 mg per deciliter (1.8 mmol per liter) in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (P<0.001). The Kaplan-Meier event rate for the primary end point at 7 years was 32.7% in the simvastatin-ezetimibe group, as compared with 34.7% in the simvastatin-monotherapy group (absolute risk difference, 2.0 percentage points; hazard ratio, 0.936; 95% confidence interval, 0.89 to 0.99; P = 0.016). Rates of pre-specified muscle, gallbladder, and hepatic adverse effects and cancer were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: When added to statin therapy, ezetimibe resulted in incremental lowering of LDL cholesterol levels and improved cardiovascular outcomes. Moreover, lowering LDL cholesterol to levels below previous targets provided additional benefit