Swimming Exercise Prevents Fibrogenesis in Chronic Kidney Disease by Inhibiting the Myofibroblast Transdifferentiation

BACKGROUND: The renal function of chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients may be improved by a number of rehabilitative mechanisms. Swimming exercise training was supposed to be beneficial to its recovery. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Doxorubicin-induced CKD (DRCKD) rat model was performed. Swimming training was programmed three days per week, 30 or 60 min per day for a total period of 11 weeks. Serum biochemical and pathological parameters were examined. In DRCKD, hyperlipidemia was observed. Active mesangial cell activation was evidenced by overexpression of PDGFR, P-PDGFR, MMP-2, MMP-9, α-SMA, and CD34 with a huge amount collagen deposition. Apparent myofibroblast transdifferentiation implicating fibrogenesis in the glomerular mesangium, glomerulonephritis and glomeruloscelorosis was observed with highly elevated proteinuria and urinary BUN excretion. The 60-min swimming exercise but not the 30 min equivalent rescued most of the symptoms. To quantify the effectiveness of exercise training, a physical parameter, i.e. "the strenuosity coefficient" or "the myokine releasing coefficient", was estimated to be 7.154 × 10(-3) pg/mL-J. CONCLUSIONS: The 60-min swimming exercise may ameliorate DRCKD by inhibiting the transdifferentiation of myofibroblasts in the glomerular mesangium. Moreover, rehabilitative exercise training to rescue CKD is a personalized remedy. Benefits depend on the duration and strength of exercise, and more importantly, on the individual physiological condition

Cost of detecting malignant lesions by endoscopy in 2741 primary care dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Current guidelines recommend empirical, noninvasive approaches to manage dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms, but concerns about missed lesions persist; the cost savings afforded by noninvasive approaches must be weighed against treatment delays. We investigated the prevalence of malignancies and other serious abnormalities in patients with dyspepsia and the cost of detecting these by endoscopy. METHODS: We studied 2741 primary-care outpatients, 18-70 years in age, who met Rome II criteria for dyspepsia. Patients with alarm features (dysphagia, bleeding, weight loss, etc) were excluded. All patients underwent endoscopy. The cost and diagnostic yield of an early endoscopy strategy in all patients were compared with those of endoscopy limited to age-defined cohorts. Costs were calculated for a low, intermediate, and high cost environment. RESULTS: Endoscopies detected abnormalities in 635 patients (23%). The most common findings were reflux esophagitis with erosions (15%), gastric ulcers (2.7%), and duodenal ulcers (2.3%). The prevalence of upper gastrointestinal malignancy was 0.22%. If all dyspeptic patients 50 years or older underwent endoscopy, 1 esophageal cancer and no gastric cancers would have been missed. If the age threshold for endoscopy were set at 50 years, at a cost of $500/endoscopy, it would cost$82,900 (95% CI, $35,714-$250,000) to detect each case of cancer. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care dyspeptic patients without alarm symptoms rarely have serious underlying conditions at endoscopy. The costs associated with diagnosing an occult malignancy are large, but an age cut-off of 50 years for early endoscopy provides the best assurance that an occult malignancy will not be missed