Non Thermal Irreversible Electroporation: Novel Technology for Vascular Smooth Muscle Cells Ablation

Non thermal Irreversible electroporation (NTIRE) is a new tissue ablation method that induces selective damage only to the cell membrane while sparing all other tissue components. Our group has recently showed that NTIRE attenuated neointimal formation in rodent model. The goal of this study was to determine optimal values of NTIRE for vascular smooth muscle cell (VSMC) ablation.33 Sprague-Dawley rats were used to compare NTIRE protocols. Each animal had NTIRE applied to its left common carotid artery using a custom-made electrodes. The right carotid artery was used as control. Electric pulses of 100 microseconds were used. Eight IRE protocols were compared: 1-4) 10 pulses at a frequency of 10 Hz with electric fields of 3500, 1750, 875 and 437.5 V/cm and 5-8) 45 and 90 pulses at a frequency of 1 Hz with electric fields of 1750 and 875 V/cm. Animals were euthanized after one week. Histological analysis included VSMC counting and morphometry of 152 sections. Selective slides were stained with elastic Van Gieson and Masson trichrome to evaluate extra-cellular structures. The most efficient protocols were 10 pulses of 3500 V/cm at a frequency of 10 Hz and 90 pulses of 1750 V/cm at a frequency of 1 Hz, with ablation efficiency of 89+/-16% and 94+/-9% respectively. Extra-cellular structures were not damaged and the endothelial layer recovered completely.NTIRE is a promising, efficient and simple novel technology for VMSC ablation. It enables ablation within seconds without causing damage to extra-cellular structures, thus preserving the arterial scaffold and enabling endothelial regeneration. This study provides scientific information for future anti-restenosis experiments utilizing NTIRE

Diabetes-Specific Nutrition Algorithm: A Transcultural Program to Optimize Diabetes and Prediabetes Care

Type 2 diabetes (T2D) and prediabetes have a major global impact through high disease prevalence, significant downstream pathophysiologic effects, and enormous financial liabilities. To mitigate this disease burden, interventions of proven effectiveness must be used. Evidence shows that nutrition therapy improves glycemic control and reduces the risks of diabetes and its complications. Accordingly, diabetes-specific nutrition therapy should be incorporated into comprehensive patient management programs. Evidence-based recommendations for healthy lifestyles that include healthy eating can be found in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) from professional medical organizations. To enable broad implementation of these guidelines, recommendations must be reconstructed to account for cultural differences in lifestyle, food availability, and genetic factors. To begin, published CPGs and relevant medical literature were reviewed and evidence ratings applied according to established protocols for guidelines. From this information, an algorithm for the nutritional management of people with T2D and prediabetes was created. Subsequently, algorithm nodes were populated with transcultural attributes to guide decisions. The resultant transcultural diabetes-specific nutrition algorithm (tDNA) was simplified and optimized for global implementation and validation according to current standards for CPG development and cultural adaptation. Thus, the tDNA is a tool to facilitate the delivery of nutrition therapy to patients with T2D and prediabetes in a variety of cultures and geographic locations. It is anticipated that this novel approach can reduce the burden of diabetes, improve quality of life, and save lives. The specific Southeast Asian and Asian Indian tDNA versions can be found in companion articles in this issue of Current Diabetes Reports

The many meanings of evidence: a comparative analysis of the forms and roles of evidence within three health policy processes in Cambodia

Background Discussions within the health community routinely emphasise the importance of evidence in informing policy formulation and implementation. Much of the support for the evidence-based policy movement draws from concern that policy decisions are often based on inadequate engagement with high-quality evidence. In many such discussions, evidence is treated as differing only in quality, and assumed to improve decisions if it can only be used more. In contrast, political science scholars have described this as an overly simplistic view of the policy-making process, noting that research ‘use’ can mean a variety of things and rely on nuanced aspects of political systems. An approach more in recognition of how policy-making systems operate in practice can be to consider how institutions and ideas influence which pieces of evidence appear to be relevant for, and are used within, different policy processes. Methods Drawing on in-depth interviews undertaken in 2015/16 with key health sector stakeholders in Cambodia, we investigate the evidence perceived to be relevant to policy decisions for three contrasting health policy examples – tobacco control, HIV/AIDS and performance-based salary incentives. These cases allow us to examine the ways that policy relevant evidence may differ given the framing of the issue and the broader institutional context in which evidence is considered. Results The three health issues show few similarities in how pieces of evidence were used in various aspects of policy-making, despite all being discussed within a broad policy environment in which evidence-based policymaking is rhetorically championed. Instead, we find that evidence use can be better understood by mapping how these health policy issues differ in terms of the issue characteristics, and also in terms of the stakeholders structurally established as having dominant influence for each issue. Both of these have important implications for evidence use. Contrasting concerns of key stakeholders meant that evidence related to differing issues could be understood in terms of how it was policy relevant. The stakeholders involved, however, could further be seen to possess differing logics about how to go about achieving their various outcomes – logics that could further help explain the differences seen in evidence utilisation. Conclusion A comparative approach reiterates that evidence is not a uniform concept for which more is obviously better, but rather illustrates how different constructions and pieces of evidence become relevant in relation to the features of specific health policy decisions. An institutional approach that considers the structural position of stakeholders with differing core goals or objectives, as well as their logics related to evidence utilisation, can further help to understand some of the complexities of evidence use in health policymaking