Border Terriers under primary veterinary care in England: demography and disorders

The Border Terrier is a working terrier type that is generally considered to be a relatively healthy and hardy breed. This study aimed to characterise the demography and common disorders of Border Terriers receiving veterinary care in England using de-identified electronic patient record data within the VetCompass™ Programme

The DNA mismatch repair gene hMSH2 is a potent coactivator of oestrogen receptor α

The DNA mismatch repair gene is a key regulator in the elimination of base–base mismatches and insertion/deletion loops (IDLs). Human MutS homologue 2 (hMSH2), originally identified as a human homologue of the bacterial MutS, is a tumour suppressor gene frequently mutated in hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer. Hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer is characterised by the early onset of colorectal cancer and the development of extracolonic cancers such as endometrial, ovarian, and urological cancers. Oestrogen receptor (ER) α and β are members of a nuclear receptor (NR) superfamily. Ligand-dependent transcription of ER is regulated by the p160 steroid receptor coactivator family, the thyroid hormone receptor-associated proteins/the vitamin D receptor-interacting proteins (TRAP/DRIP) mediator complex, and the TATA box-binding protein (TBP)-free TBP associated factor complex (TFTC) type histone acetyltransferase complex. Here, we report the interaction between ER α/β and hMSH2. Immunoprecipitation and glutathione-S-transferase pulldown assay revealed that ER α and hMSH2 interacted in a ligand-dependent manner, whereas ER β and hMSH2 interacted in a ligand-independent manner. Oestrogen receptor α/β bound to hMSH2 through the hMSH3/hMSH6 interaction domain of hMSH2. In a transient expression assay, hMSH2 potentiated the transactivation function of liganded ER α, but not that of ER β. These results suggest that hMSH2 may play an important role as a putative coactivator in ER α dependent gene expression

Systematic review: Effects, design choices, and context of pay-for-performance in health care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Pay-for-performance (P4P) is one of the primary tools used to support healthcare delivery reform. Substantial heterogeneity exists in the development and implementation of P4P in health care and its effects. This paper summarizes evidence, obtained from studies published between January 1990 and July 2009, concerning P4P effects, as well as evidence on the impact of design choices and contextual mediators on these effects. Effect domains include clinical effectiveness, access and equity, coordination and continuity, patient-centeredness, and cost-effectiveness.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The systematic review made use of electronic database searching, reference screening, forward citation tracking and expert consultation. The following databases were searched: Cochrane Library, EconLit, Embase, Medline, PsychINFO, and Web of Science. Studies that evaluate P4P effects in primary care or acute hospital care medicine were included. Papers concerning other target groups or settings, having no empirical evaluation design or not complying with the P4P definition were excluded. According to study design nine validated quality appraisal tools and reporting statements were applied. Data were extracted and summarized into evidence tables independently by two reviewers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>One hundred twenty-eight evaluation studies provide a large body of evidence -to be interpreted with caution- concerning the effects of P4P on clinical effectiveness and equity of care. However, less evidence on the impact on coordination, continuity, patient-centeredness and cost-effectiveness was found. P4P effects can be judged to be encouraging or disappointing, depending on the primary mission of the P4P program: supporting minimal quality standards and/or boosting quality improvement. Moreover, the effects of P4P interventions varied according to design choices and characteristics of the context in which it was introduced.</p> <p>Future P4P programs should (1) select and define P4P targets on the basis of baseline room for improvement, (2) make use of process and (intermediary) outcome indicators as target measures, (3) involve stakeholders and communicate information about the programs thoroughly and directly, (4) implement a uniform P4P design across payers, (5) focus on both quality improvement and achievement, and (6) distribute incentives to the individual and/or team level.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>P4P programs result in the full spectrum of possible effects for specific targets, from absent or negligible to strongly beneficial. Based on the evidence the review has provided further indications on how effect findings are likely to relate to P4P design choices and context. The provided best practice hypotheses should be tested in future research.</p

Ovarian cancer

Ovarian cancer is not a single disease and can be subdivided into at least five different histological subtypes that have different identifiable risk factors, cells of origin, molecular compositions, clinical features and treatments. Ovarian cancer is a global problem, is typically diagnosed at a late stage and has no effective screening strategy. Standard treatments for newly diagnosed cancer consist of cytoreductive surgery and platinum-based chemotherapy. In recurrent cancer, chemotherapy, anti-angiogenic agents and poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors are used, and immunological therapies are currently being tested. High-grade serous carcinoma (HGSC) is the most commonly diagnosed form of ovarian cancer and at diagnosis is typically very responsive to platinum-based chemotherapy. However, in addition to the other histologies, HGSCs frequently relapse and become increasingly resistant to chemotherapy. Consequently, understanding the mechanisms underlying platinum resistance and finding ways to overcome them are active areas of study in ovarian cancer. Substantial progress has been made in identifying genes that are associated with a high risk of ovarian cancer (such as BRCA1 and BRCA2), as well as a precursor lesion of HGSC called serous tubal intraepithelial carcinoma, which holds promise for identifying individuals at high risk of developing the disease and for developing prevention strategies