Modern Western Legislation as a Pattern for Changes in the Montana Law of Water Rights

Law of Water Right

The histone deacetylase inhibitor valproic acid alters growth properties of renal cell carcinoma in vitro and in vivo

Histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitors represent a promising class of antineoplastic agents which affect tumour growth, differentiation and invasion. The effects of the HDAC inhibitor valproic acid (VPA) were tested in vitro and in vivo on pre-clinical renal cell carcinoma (RCC) models. Caki-1, KTC-26 or A498 cells were treated with various concentrations of VPA during in vitro cell proliferation 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazol-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide assays and to evaluate cell cycle manipulation. In vivo tumour growth was conducted in subcutaneous xenograft mouse models. The anti-tumoural potential of VPA combined with low-dosed interferon-α (IFN-α) was also investigated. VPA significantly and dose-dependently up-regulated histones H3 and H4 acetylation and caused growth arrest in RCC cells. VPA altered cell cycle regulating proteins, in particular CDK2, cyclin B, cyclin D3, p21 and Rb. In vivo, VPA significantly inhibited the growth of Caki-1 in subcutaneous xenografts, accompanied by a strong accumulation of p21 and bax in tissue specimens of VPA-treated animals. VPA–IFN-α combination markedly enhanced the effects of VPA monotherapy on RCC proliferation in vitro, but did not further enhance the anti-tumoural potential of VPA in vivo. VPA was found to have profound effects on RCC cell growth, lending support to the initiation of clinical testing of VPA for treating advanced RCC

Combining the receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor AEE788 and the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor RAD001 strongly inhibits adhesion and growth of renal cell carcinoma cells

Background Treatment options for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are limited due to resistance to chemo- and radiotherapy. The development of small-molecule multikinase inhibitors have now opened novel treatment options. The influence of the receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor AEE788, applied alone or combined with the mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitor RAD001, on RCC cell adhesion and proliferation in vitro has been evaluated. Methods RCC cell lines Caki-1, KTC-26 or A498 were treated with various concentrations of RAD001 or AEE788 and tumor cell proliferation, tumor cell adhesion to vascular endothelial cells or to immobilized extracellular matrix proteins (laminin, collagen, fibronectin) evaluated. The anti-tumoral potential of RAD001 combined with AEE788 was also investigated. Both, asynchronous and synchronized cell cultures were used to subsequently analyze drug induced cell cycle manipulation. Analysis of cell cycle regulating proteins was done by western blotting. Results RAD001 or AEE788 reduced adhesion of RCC cell lines to vascular endothelium and diminished RCC cell binding to immobilized laminin or collagen. Both drugs blocked RCC cell growth, impaired cell cycle progression and altered the expression level of the cell cycle regulating proteins cdk2, cdk4, cyclin D1, cyclin E and p27. The combination of AEE788 and RAD001 resulted in more pronounced RCC growth inhibition, greater rates of G0/G1 cells and lower rates of S-phase cells than either agent alone. Cell cycle proteins were much more strongly altered when both drugs were used in combination than with single drug application. The synergistic effects were observed in an asynchronous cell culture model, but were more pronounced in synchronous RCC cell cultures. Conclusions Potent anti-tumoral activitites of the multikinase inhibitors AEE788 or RAD001 have been demonstrated. Most importantly, the simultaneous use of both AEE788 and RAD001 offered a distinct combinatorial benefit and thus may provide a therapeutic advantage over either agent employed as a monotherapy for RCC treatment

Specific treatment of problems of the spine (STOPS): design of a randomised controlled trial comparing specific physiotherapy versus advice for people with subacute low back disorders

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Low back disorders are a common and costly cause of pain and activity limitation in adults. Few treatment options have demonstrated clinically meaningful benefits apart from advice which is recommended in all international guidelines. Clinical heterogeneity of participants in clinical trials is hypothesised as reducing the likelihood of demonstrating treatment effects, and sampling of more homogenous subgroups is recommended. We propose five subgroups that allow the delivery of specific physiotherapy treatment targeting the pathoanatomical, neurophysiological and psychosocial components of low back disorders. The aim of this article is to describe the methodology of a randomised controlled trial comparing specific physiotherapy treatment to advice for people classified into five subacute low back disorder subgroups.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A multi-centre parallel group randomised controlled trial is proposed. A minimum of 250 participants with subacute (6 weeks to 6 months) low back pain and/or referred leg pain will be classified into one of five subgroups and then randomly allocated to receive either physiotherapy advice (2 sessions over 10 weeks) or specific physiotherapy treatment (10 sessions over 10 weeks) tailored according to the subgroup of the participant. Outcomes will be assessed at 5 weeks, 10 weeks, 6 months and 12 months following randomisation. Primary outcomes will be activity limitation measured with a modified Oswestry Disability Index as well as leg and back pain intensity measured on separate 0-10 Numerical Rating Scales. Secondary outcomes will include a 7-point global rating of change scale, satisfaction with physiotherapy treatment, satisfaction with treatment results, the Sciatica Frequency and Bothersomeness Scale, quality of life (EuroQol-5D), interference with work, and psychosocial risk factors (Orebro Musculoskeletal Pain Questionnaire). Adverse events and co-interventions will also be measured. Data will be analysed according to intention to treat principles, using linear mixed models for continuous outcomes, Mann Whitney U tests for ordinal outcomes, and Chi-square, risk ratios and risk differences for dichotomous outcomes.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This trial will determine the difference in outcomes between specific physiotherapy treatment tailored to each of the five subgroups versus advice which is recommended in guidelines as a suitable treatment for most people with a low back disorder.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register (ANZCTR): <a href="http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12609000834257.aspx">ACTRN12609000834257</a>.</p

Rehabilitation versus surgical reconstruction for non-acute anterior cruciate ligament injury (ACL SNNAP): a pragmatic randomised controlled trial

BackgroundAnterior cruciate ligament (ACL) rupture is a common debilitating injury that can cause instability of the knee. We aimed to investigate the best management strategy between reconstructive surgery and non-surgical treatment for patients with a non-acute ACL injury and persistent symptoms of instability.MethodsWe did a pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, randomised controlled trial in 29 secondary care National Health Service orthopaedic units in the UK. Patients with symptomatic knee problems (instability) consistent with an ACL injury were eligible. We excluded patients with meniscal pathology with characteristics that indicate immediate surgery. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by computer to either surgery (reconstruction) or rehabilitation (physiotherapy but with subsequent reconstruction permitted if instability persisted after treatment), stratified by site and baseline Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score—4 domain version (KOOS4). This management design represented normal practice. The primary outcome was KOOS4 at 18 months after randomisation. The principal analyses were intention-to-treat based, with KOOS4 results analysed using linear regression. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN10110685, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02980367.FindingsBetween Feb 1, 2017, and April 12, 2020, we recruited 316 patients. 156 (49%) participants were randomly assigned to the surgical reconstruction group and 160 (51%) to the rehabilitation group. Mean KOOS4 at 18 months was 73·0 (SD 18·3) in the surgical group and 64·6 (21·6) in the rehabilitation group. The adjusted mean difference was 7·9 (95% CI 2·5–13·2; p=0·0053) in favour of surgical management. 65 (41%) of 160 patients allocated to rehabilitation underwent subsequent surgery according to protocol within 18 months. 43 (28%) of 156 patients allocated to surgery did not receive their allocated treatment. We found no differences between groups in the proportion of intervention-related complications.InterpretationSurgical reconstruction as a management strategy for patients with non-acute ACL injury with persistent symptoms of instability was clinically superior and more cost-effective in comparison with rehabilitation management