Meta-analysis Reveals Genome-Wide Significance at 15q13 for Nonsyndromic Clefting of Both the Lip and the Palate, and Functional Analyses Implicate GREM1 As a Plausible Causative Gene

Nonsyndromic orofacial clefts are common birth defects with multifactorial etiology. The most common type is cleft lip, which occurs with or without cleft palate (nsCLP and nsCLO, respectively). Although genetic components play an important role in nsCLP, the genetic factors that predispose to palate involvement are largely unknown. In this study, we carried out a meta-analysis on genetic and clinical data from three large cohorts and identified strong association between a region on chromosome 15q13 and nsCLP (P = 8.13×10−14 for rs1258763; relative risk (RR): 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32–1.61)) but not nsCLO (P = 0.27; RR: 1.09 (0.94–1.27)). The 5 kb region of strongest association maps downstream of Gremlin-1 (GREM1), which encodes a secreted antagonist of the BMP4 pathway. We show during mouse embryogenesis, Grem1 is expressed in the developing lip and soft palate but not in the hard palate. This is consistent with genotype-phenotype correlations between rs1258763 and a specific nsCLP subphenotype, since a more than two-fold increase in risk was observed in patients displaying clefts of both the lip and soft palate but who had an intact hard palate (RR: 3.76, CI: 1.47–9.61, Pdiff<0.05). While we did not find lip or palate defects in Grem1-deficient mice, wild type embryonic palatal shelves developed divergent shapes when cultured in the presence of ectopic Grem1 protein (P = 0.0014). The present study identified a non-coding region at 15q13 as the second, genome-wide significant locus specific for nsCLP, after 13q31. Moreover, our data suggest that the closely located GREM1 gene contributes to a rare clinical nsCLP entity. This entity specifically involves abnormalities of the lip and soft palate, which develop at different time-points and in separate anatomical regions.Clefts of the lip and palate are common birth defects, and require long-term multidisciplinary management. Their etiology involves genetic factors and environmental influences and/or a combination of both, however, these interactions are poorly defined. Moreover, although clefts of the lip may or may not involve the palate, the determinants predisposing to specific subphenotypes are largely unknown. Here we demonstrate that variations in the non-coding region near the GREM1 gene show a highly significant association with a particular phenotype in which cleft lip and cleft palate co-occ

Imputation of Orofacial Clefting Data Identifies Novel Risk Loci and Sheds Light on the Genetic Background of Cleft Lip ± Cleft Palate and Cleft Palate Only.

Abstract Nonsyndromic cleft lip with or without cleft palate (nsCL/P) is among the most common human birth defects with multifactorial etiology. Here, we present results from a genome-wide imputation study of nsCL/P in which, after adding replication cohort data, four novel risk loci for nsCL/P are identified (at chromosomal regions 2p21, 14q22, 15q24 and 19p13). On a systematic level, we show that the association signalswithin this high-density datasetare enriched in functionally-relevant genomic regions that are active in both human neural crest cells (hNCC) and mouse embryonic craniofacial tissue. This enrichment is also detectable in hNCC regions primed for later activity. Using GCTA analyses, we suggest that 30% of the estimated variance in risk for nsCL/P in the European population can be attributed to common variants, with 25.5% contributed to by the 24 risk loci known to date. For each of these, we identify credible SNPs using a Bayesian refinementapproach, with two loci harbouring only one probable causal variant. Finally, we demonstrate that there is no polygenic component of nsCL/P detectable that is shared with nonsyndromic cleft palate only (nsCPO). Our data suggest that, while common variants are strongly contributing to risk for nsCL/P, they do not seem to be involved in nsCPO which might be more often caused by rare deleterious variants. Our study generates novel insights into both nsCL/P and nsCPO etiology and provides a systematic framework for research into craniofacial development and malformation

Meta-analysis Reveals Genome-Wide Significance at 15q13 for Nonsyndromic Clefting of Both the Lip and the Palate, and Functional Analyses Implicate GREM1 As a Plausible Causative Gene

Nonsyndromic orofacial clefts are common birth defects with multifactorial etiology. The most common type is cleft lip, which occurs with or without cleft palate (nsCLP and nsCLO, respectively). Although genetic components play an important role in nsCLP, the genetic factors that predispose to palate involvement are largely unknown. In this study, we carried out a meta-analysis on genetic and clinical data from three large cohorts and identified strong association between a region on chromosome 15q13 and nsCLP (P = 8.13×10−14 for rs1258763; relative risk (RR): 1.46, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.32–1.61)) but not nsCLO (P = 0.27; RR: 1.09 (0.94–1.27)). The 5 kb region of strongest association maps downstream of Gremlin-1 (GREM1), which encodes a secreted antagonist of the BMP4 pathway. We show during mouse embryogenesis, Grem1 is expressed in the developing lip and soft palate but not in the hard palate. This is consistent with genotype-phenotype correlations between rs1258763 and a specific nsCLP subphenotype, since a more than two-fold increase in risk was observed in patients displaying clefts of both the lip and soft palate but who had an intact hard palate (RR: 3.76, CI: 1.47–9.61, Pdiff<0.05). While we did not find lip or palate defects in Grem1-deficient mice, wild type embryonic palatal shelves developed divergent shapes when cultured in the presence of ectopic Grem1 protein (P = 0.0014). The present study identified a non-coding region at 15q13 as the second, genome-wide significant locus specific for nsCLP, after 13q31. Moreover, our data suggest that the closely located GREM1 gene contributes to a rare clinical nsCLP entity. This entity specifically involves abnormalities of the lip and soft palate, which develop at different time-points and in separate anatomical regions

Barriers and facilitators in the implementation of mobilization robots in hospitals from the perspective of clinical experts and developers

Abstract Background Early mobilization can help reduce severe side effects such as muscle atrophy that occur during hospitalization. However, due to time and staff shortages in intensive and critical care as well as safety risks for patients, it is often difficult to adhere to the recommended therapy time of twenty minutes twice a day. New robotic technologies might be one approach to achieve early mobilization effectively for patients and also relieve users from physical effort. Nevertheless, currently there is a lack of knowledge regarding the factors that are important for integrating of these technologies into complex treatment settings like intensive care units or rehabilitation units. Methods European experts from science, technical development and end-users of robotic systems (n = 13) were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guideline to identify barriers and facilitating factors for the integration of robotic systems into daily clinical practice. They were asked about structural, personnel and environmental factors that had an impact on integration and how they had solved challenges. A latent content analysis was performed regarding the COREQ criteria. Results We found relevant factors regarding the development, introduction, and routine of the robotic system. In this context, costs, process adjustments, a lack of exemptions, and a lack of support from the manufacturers/developers were identified as challenges. Easy handling, joint decision making between the end-users and the decision makers in the hospital, an accurate process design and the joint development of the robotic system of end-users and technical experts were found to be facilitating factors. Conclusion The integration and preparation for the integration of robotic assistance systems into the inpatient setting is a complex intervention that involves many parties. This study provides evidence for hospitals or manufacturers to simplify the planning of integrations for permanent use. Trial registration DRKS-ID: DRKS00023848; registered 10/12/2020. </jats:sec

Effects of robotic-assisted early mobilization versus conventional mobilization in intensive care unit patients: prospective interventional cohort study with retrospective control group analysis

Background Approximately one in three survivors of critical illness suffers from intensive-care-unit-acquired weakness, which increases mortality and impairs quality of life. By counteracting immobilization, a known risk factor, active mobilization may mitigate its negative effects on patients. In this single-center trial, the effect of robotic-assisted early mobilization in the intensive care unit (ICU) on patients’ outcomes was investigated. Methods We enrolled 16 adults scheduled for lung transplantation to receive 20 min of robotic-assisted mobilization and verticalization twice daily during their first week in the ICU (intervention group: IG). A control group (CG) of 13 conventionally mobilized patients after lung transplantation was recruited retrospectively. Outcome measures included the duration of mechanical ventilation, length of ICU stay, muscle parameters evaluated by ultrasound, and quality of life after three months. Results During the first week in the ICU, the intervention group received a median of 6 (interquartile range 3–8) robotic-assisted sessions of early mobilization and verticalization. There were no statistically significant differences in the duration of mechanical ventilation (IG: median 126 vs. CG: 78 h), length of ICU stay, muscle parameters evaluated by ultrasound, and quality of life after three months between the IG and CG. Conclusion In this study, robotic-assisted mobilization was successfully implemented in the ICU setting. No significant differences in patients’ outcomes were observed between conventional and robotic-assisted mobilization. However, randomized and larger studies are necessary to validate the adequacy of robotic mobilization in other cohorts

Robot-assisted early mobilization for intensive care unit patients: Feasibility and first-time clinical use

Background: Early mobilization is only carried out to a limited extent in the intensive care unit. To address this issue, the robotic assistance system VEMOTION® was developed to facilitate (early) mobilization measures more easily. This paper describes the first integration of robotic assistance systems in acute clinical intensive care units. Objective: Feasibility test of robotic assistance in early mobilization of intensive care patients in routine clinical practice. Setting: Two intensive care units guided by anesthesiology at a German university hospital. Participants: Patients who underwent elective surgery with postoperative treatment in the intensive care unit and had an estimated ventilation time over 48 h. Methods: Participants underwent robot-assisted mobilization, scheduled for twenty-minute sessions twice a day, ten times or one week, conducted by nursing staff under actual operational conditions on the units. No randomization or blinding took place. We assessed data regarding feasible cutoff points (in brackets): the possibility of enrollment (x ≥ 50 %), duration (pre- and post-setup (x ≤ 25 min), therapy duration (x = 20 min), and intervention-related parameters (number of mobilizing professionals (x ≤ 2), intensity of training, events that led to adverse events, errors or discontinuation). Mobilizing professionals rated each mobilization regarding their physical stress (x ≤ 3) and feasibility (x ≥ 4) on a 7 Point Likert Scale. An estimated sample size of at least twenty patients was calculated. We analyzed the data descriptively. Results: Within 6 months, we screened thirty-two patients for enrollment. 23 patients were included in the study and 16 underwent mobilization using robotic assistance, 7 dropped out (enrollment eligibility = 69 %). On average, 1.9 nurses were involved per therapy unit. Participants received 5.6 robot-assisted mobilizations in mean. Pre- and post-setup had a mean duration of 18 min, therapy a mean of 21 min. The robot-assisted mobilization was started after a median of 18 h after admission to the intensive care unit. We documented two adverse events (pain), twelve errors in handling, and seven unexpected events that led to interruptions or discontinuation. No serious adverse events occurred. The mobilizing nurses rated their physical stress as low (mean 2.0 ± 1.3) and the intervention as feasible (mean 5.3 ± 1.6). Conclusions: Robot-assisted mobilization was feasible, but specific safety measures should be implemented to prevent errors. Robotic-assisted mobilization requires process adjustments and consideration of unit staffing levels, as the intervention does not save staff resources or time. Registration: clinicaltrials.org TRN: NCT05071248; Date: 2021/10/08; URL https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05071248. Tweetable abstract: Robot-assisted early mobilization in intensive care patients is feasible and no adverse event occurred

Robot-assisted early mobilization of intensive care patients : a feasibility study protocol

Background: Early mobilization positively infuences the outcome of critically ill patients, yet in clinical practice, the implementation is sometimes challenging. In this study, an adaptive robotic assistance system will be used for early mobilization in intensive care units. The study aims to evaluate the experience of the mobilizing professionals and the general feasibility of implementing robotic assistance for mobilization in intensive care as well as the efects on patient outcomes as a secondary outcome. Methods: The study is single-centric, prospective, and interventional and follows a longitudinal study design. To evaluate the feasibility of robotic-assisted early mobilization, the number of patients included, the number of performed VEM (very early mobilization) sessions, and the number and type of adverse events will be collected. The behavior and experience of mobilizing professionals will be evaluated using standardized observations (n > 90) and episodic interviews (n > 36) before implementation, shortly after, and in routine. Patient outcomes such as duration of mechanical ventilation, loss of muscle mass, and physical activity will be measured and compared with a historical patient population. Approximately 30 patients will be included. Discussion: The study will provide information about patient outcomes, feasibility, and the experience of mobilizing professionals. It will show whether robotic systems can increase the early mobilization frequency of critically ill patients. Within ICU structures, early mobilization as therapy could become more of a focus. Efects on the mobilizing professionals such as increased motivation, physical relief, or stress will be evaluated. In addition, this study will focus on whether current structures allow following the recommendation of mobilizing patients twice a day for at least 20 mi

Frühmobilisation auf der Intensivstation : sind robotergestützte Systeme die Zukunft?

'''Hintergrund:''' Bei etwa 43% aller Überlebenden der Intensivmedizin wird ein erworbenes Syndrom an Muskelschwäche beobachtet, welches Überleben und Lebensqualität vermindert. Da kausale Therapieoptionen bisher fehlen, stehen die Vermeidung der bekannten Risikofaktoren und Frühmobilisation im Vordergrund. Robotische Unterstützungssysteme werden vermehrt in der Mobilisation erprobt. '''Ziel der Arbeit:''' In diesem Übersichtsartikel wird die aktuelle Evidenz von Frühmobilisation von kritisch Kranken zusammengefasst und der Stellenwert robotischer Assistenzsysteme für Mobilisation diskutiert. '''Ergebnisse:''' Mobilisation sollte auf der Intensivstation nachMöglichkeit früh begonnen werden. Hierunter wird der Beginn in den ersten 72 h nach der Aufnahme auf die Intensivstation verstanden. Physiotherapeutische Interventionen während des Intensivaufenthalts zeigen positive Effekte auf die Lebensqualität von PatientInnen, auf die Dauer von invasiver Beatmung, Intensivaufenthalt und Delir. Strukturierte Behandlungsprotokolle führen zu mehr aktiver Mobilisation, höherer Mobilität und häufigerer funktioneller Unabhängigkeit bei Entlassung aus dem Krankenhaus. Nach Schlaganfällen erhöhen zusätzliche robotergestützte Therapieeinheiten insbesondere bei stärker eingeschränkten PatientInnen die Rate an Rückkehrern zum selbstständigen Gehen, scheinen sicher und verbesserten in kleinen Studien Muskelkraft und Lebensqualität. '''Schlussfolgerung:''' Frühmobilisation verbessert das Outcome von kritisch Erkrankten. Robotische Systeme unterstützen das Gangtraining nach einem Schlaganfall und werden auf der Intensivstation in ersten Studien zu Vertikalisierung und Frühmobilisation untersucht