Calsequestrin as a risk factor in Graves’ hyperthyroidism and Graves’ ophthalmopathy patients

Background: The pathogenesis of Graves’ ophthalmopathy (GO), Graves’ hyperthyroidism (GH) and the mechanisms for its link to thyroid autoimmunity are poorly understood. Our research focuses on the role of the skeletal muscle calcium binding protein calsequestrin (CASQ1) in thyroid. We measured the concentration of the CASQ1 protein correlating levels with parameters of the eye signs, CASQ1 antibody levels and CASQ1 gene polymorphism rs3838284. Methods: CASQ1 protein was measured by quantitative Western Blotting. The protein concentrations were expressed as pmol/mg total protein by reference to CASQ1 standards. Results: Western blot analysis showed the presence of two forms of CASQ1 in the thyroid. The mean concentration of CASQ1 protein was significantly reduced in patients with Graves’ disease, compared to thyroid from control subjects with multi-nodular goitre or thyroid cancer. Although in patients with GO it was lower than that, compared with patients with GH this difference was not significant. Reduced CASQ1 in Graves’ thyroid correlated with the homozygous genotype of the rs3838284 CASQ1 polymorphism. Conclusions: Decreased CASQ1 in the thyroid of patients with Graves’ disease compared to thyroid from control subjects is not explained but may reflect consumption of the protein during an autoimmune reaction against CASQ1 in the thyroid

Physicians' and nurses' opinions on selective decontamination of the digestive tract and selective oropharyngeal decontamination: a survey

Contains fulltext : 89741.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)INTRODUCTION: Use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract (SDD) and selective oropharyngeal decontamination (SOD) in intensive care patients has been controversial for years. Through regular questionnaires we determined expectations concerning SDD (effectiveness) and experience with SDD and SOD (workload and patient friendliness), as perceived by nurses and physicians. METHODS: A survey was embedded in a group-randomized, controlled, cross-over multicenter study in the Netherlands in which, during three 6-month periods, SDD, SOD or standard care was used in random order. At the end of each study period, all nurses and physicians from participating intensive care units received study questionnaires. RESULTS: In all, 1024 (71%) of 1450 questionnaires were returned by nurses and 253 (82%) of 307 by physicians. Expectations that SDD improved patient outcome increased from 71% and 77% of respondents after the first two study periods to 82% at the end of the study (P = 0.004), with comparable trends among nurses and physicians. Nurses considered SDD to impose a higher workload (median 5.0, on a scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high)) than SOD (median 4.0) and standard care (median 2.0). Both SDD and SOD were considered less patient friendly than standard care (medians 4.0, 4.0 and 6.0, respectively). According to physicians, SDD had a higher workload (median 5.5) than SOD (median 5.0), which in turn was higher than standard care (median 2.5). Furthermore, physicians graded patient friendliness of standard care (median 8.0) higher than that of SDD and SOD (both median 6.0). CONCLUSIONS: Although perceived effectiveness of SDD increased as the trial proceeded, both among physicians and nurses, SOD and SDD were, as compared to standard care, considered to increase workload and to reduce patient friendliness. Therefore, education about the importance of oral care and on the effects of SDD and SOD on patient outcomes will be important when implementing these strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN35176830