Microstructure of the juvenile sheep aortic valve hinge region and the trilamellar sliding hypothesis.

Background: The aortic valve mechanism performs extremely sophisticated functions which depend on the microstructure of its component parts. The hinge mechanism of the aortic leaflets plays a crucial part in the overall function. However, the detailed microstructure and its relation to function has not been adequately studied. Methods: The aortic roots of juvenile sheep were fixed under physiologic pressure. Sections through all three sinuses were then performed to illustrate the microstructure of the hinge mechanism in different regions of the aortic root. Results: The hinge region in the different sinuses showed unique microstructure with a trilamellar topology with a dominant core consisting of glycosaminoglycans. The exact arrangement of the trilamellar structures varies around the aortic sinuses, which could have functional implications. These features allow the hinge to perform its complex functions through what we have described as "the trilamellar sliding hypothesis". Conclusion: The microstructure of the hinge mechanism is unique and enables it to perform it sophisticated functions

Biomaterial Hypersensitivity: Is It Real? Supportive Evidence and Approach Considerations for Metal Allergic Patients following Total Knee Arthroplasty

The prospect of biomaterial hypersensitivity developing in response to joint implant materials was first presented more than 30 years ago. Many studies have established probable causation between first-generation metal-on-metal hip implants and hypersensitivity reactions. In a limited patient population, implant failure may ultimately be related to metal hypersensitivity. The examination of hypersensitivity reactions in current-generation metal-on-metal knee implants is comparatively limited. The purpose of this study is to summarize all available literature regarding biomaterial hypersensitivity after total knee arthroplasty, elucidate overall trends about this topic in the current literature, and provide a foundation for clinical approach considerations when biomaterial hypersensitivity is suspected

Acetylcholine receptors (muscarinic) (version 2019.4) in the IUPHAR/BPS Guide to Pharmacology Database

Muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (nomenclature as agreed by the NC-IUPHAR Subcommittee on Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptors [45]) are GPCRs of the Class A, rhodopsin-like family where the endogenous agonist is acetylcholine. In addition to the agents listed in the table, AC-42, its structural analogues AC-260584 and 77-LH-28-1, N-desmethylclozapine, TBPB and LuAE51090 have been described as functionally selective agonists of the M1 receptor subtype via binding in a mode distinct from that utilized by non-selective agonists [243, 242, 253, 155, 154, 181, 137, 11, 230]. There are two pharmacologically characterised allosteric sites on muscarinic receptors, one defined by it binding gallamine, strychnine and brucine, and the other defined by the binding of KT 5720, WIN 62,577, WIN 51,708 and staurosporine [161, 162]

Acetylcholine receptors (muscarinic) in GtoPdb v.2021.3

Muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (mAChRs) (nomenclature as agreed by the NC-IUPHAR Subcommittee on Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptors [50]) are activated by the endogenous agonist acetylcholine. All five (M1-M5) mAChRs are ubiquitously expressed in the human body and are therefore attractive targets for many disorders. Functionally, M1, M3, and M5 mAChRs preferentially couple to Gq/11 proteins, whilst M2 and M4 mAChRs predominantly couple to Gi/o proteins. Both agonists and antagonists of mAChRs are clinically approved drugs, including pilocarpine for the treatment of elevated intra-ocular pressure and glaucoma, and atropine for the treatment of bradycardia and poisoning by muscarinic agents such as organophosphates

Acetylcholine receptors (muscarinic) in GtoPdb v.2023.1

Muscarinic acetylcholine receptors (mAChRs) (nomenclature as agreed by the NC-IUPHAR Subcommittee on Muscarinic Acetylcholine Receptors [53]) are activated by the endogenous agonist acetylcholine. All five (M1-M5) mAChRs are ubiquitously expressed in the human body and are therefore attractive targets for many disorders. Functionally, M1, M3, and M5 mAChRs preferentially couple to Gq/11 proteins, whilst M2 and M4 mAChRs predominantly couple to Gi/o proteins. Both agonists and antagonists of mAChRs are clinically approved drugs, including pilocarpine for the treatment of elevated intra-ocular pressure and glaucoma, and atropine for the treatment of bradycardia and poisoning by muscarinic agents such as organophosphates. Of note, it has been observed that mAChRs dimerise reversibly [134] and that dimerisation/oligomerisation can be affected by ligands [183, 196]

Biomaterial Hypersensitivity: Is It Real? Supportive Evidence and Approach Considerations for Metal Allergic Patients following Total Knee Arthroplasty

The prospect of biomaterial hypersensitivity developing in response to joint implant materials was first presented more than 30 years ago. Many studies have established probable causation between first-generation metal-on-metal hip implants and hypersensitivity reactions. In a limited patient population, implant failure may ultimately be related to metal hypersensitivity. The examination of hypersensitivity reactions in current-generation metal-on-metal knee implants is comparatively limited. The purpose of this study is to summarize all available literature regarding biomaterial hypersensitivity after total knee arthroplasty, elucidate overall trends about this topic in the current literature, and provide a foundation for clinical approach considerations when biomaterial hypersensitivity is suspected

Does supplementation with leucine-enriched protein alone and in combination with fish-oil-derived n–3 PUFA affect muscle mass, strength, physical performance, and muscle protein synthesis in well-nourished older adults? A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

peer-reviewedBackground Leucine-enriched protein (LEU-PRO) and long-chain (LC) n–3 (ω–3) PUFAs have each been proposed to improve muscle mass and function in older adults, whereas their combination may be more effective than either alone. Objective The impact of LEU-PRO supplementation alone and combined with LC n–3 PUFAs on appendicular lean mass, strength, physical performance and myofibrillar protein synthesis (MyoPS) was investigated in older adults at risk of sarcopenia. Methods This 24-wk, 3-arm parallel, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in 107 men and women aged ≥65 y with low muscle mass and/or strength. Twice daily, participants consumed a supplement containing either LEU-PRO (3 g leucine, 10 g protein; n = 38), LEU-PRO plus LC n–3 PUFAs (0.8 g EPA, 1.1 g DHA; LEU-PRO+n–3; n = 38), or an isoenergetic control (CON; n = 31). Appendicular lean mass, handgrip strength, leg strength, physical performance, and circulating metabolic and renal function markers were measured pre-, mid-, and postintervention. Integrated rates of MyoPS were assessed in a subcohort (n = 28). Results Neither LEU-PRO nor LEU-PRO+n–3 supplementation affected appendicular lean mass, handgrip strength, knee extension strength, physical performance or MyoPS. However, isometric knee flexion peak torque (treatment effect: −7.1 Nm; 95% CI: −12.5, −1.8 Nm; P < 0.01) was lower postsupplementation in LEU-PRO+n–3 compared with CON. Serum triacylglycerol and total adiponectin concentrations were lower, and HOMA-IR was higher, in LEU-PRO+n–3 compared with CON postsupplementation (all P < 0.05). Estimated glomerular filtration rate was higher and cystatin c was lower in LEU-PRO and LEU-PRO+n–3 postsupplementation compared with CON (all P < 0.05). Conclusions Contrary to our hypothesis, we did not observe a beneficial effect of LEU-PRO supplementation alone or combined with LC n–3 PUFA supplementation on appendicular lean mass, strength, physical performance or MyoPS in older adults at risk of sarcopenia. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03429491.Horizon 2020 Framework ProgrammeThis work was supported by the Department of Agriculture, Food and the Marine Food Institutional Research Measure grant entitled NUTRIMAL “Novel Nutritional Solutions for the Prevention of Malnutrition” (grant 14F822), the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Program under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 666010, and a Research Fellowship awarded to CHM by the European Society of Clinical Nutrition and Metabolism (ESPEN). HMR was supported by funding from the Joint Programming Initiative Healthy Diet for a Healthy Life (JPI HDHL) EU Food Biomarkers Alliance “FOODBAll” with Science Foundation Ireland (14/JPHDHL/B3076)

Second asymptomatic carotid surgery trial (ACST-2): a randomised comparison of carotid artery stenting versus carotid endarterectomy

Background: Among asymptomatic patients with severe carotid artery stenosis but no recent stroke or transient cerebral ischaemia, either carotid artery stenting (CAS) or carotid endarterectomy (CEA) can restore patency and reduce long-term stroke risks. However, from recent national registry data, each option causes about 1% procedural risk of disabling stroke or death. Comparison of their long-term protective effects requires large-scale randomised evidence. Methods: ACST-2 is an international multicentre randomised trial of CAS versus CEA among asymptomatic patients with severe stenosis thought to require intervention, interpreted with all other relevant trials. Patients were eligible if they had severe unilateral or bilateral carotid artery stenosis and both doctor and patient agreed that a carotid procedure should be undertaken, but they were substantially uncertain which one to choose. Patients were randomly allocated to CAS or CEA and followed up at 1 month and then annually, for a mean 5 years. Procedural events were those within 30 days of the intervention. Intention-to-treat analyses are provided. Analyses including procedural hazards use tabular methods. Analyses and meta-analyses of non-procedural strokes use Kaplan-Meier and log-rank methods. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN21144362. Findings: Between Jan 15, 2008, and Dec 31, 2020, 3625 patients in 130 centres were randomly allocated, 1811 to CAS and 1814 to CEA, with good compliance, good medical therapy and a mean 5 years of follow-up. Overall, 1% had disabling stroke or death procedurally (15 allocated to CAS and 18 to CEA) and 2% had non-disabling procedural stroke (48 allocated to CAS and 29 to CEA). Kaplan-Meier estimates of 5-year non-procedural stroke were 2·5% in each group for fatal or disabling stroke, and 5·3% with CAS versus 4·5% with CEA for any stroke (rate ratio [RR] 1·16, 95% CI 0·86–1·57; p=0·33). Combining RRs for any non-procedural stroke in all CAS versus CEA trials, the RR was similar in symptomatic and asymptomatic patients (overall RR 1·11, 95% CI 0·91–1·32; p=0·21). Interpretation: Serious complications are similarly uncommon after competent CAS and CEA, and the long-term effects of these two carotid artery procedures on fatal or disabling stroke are comparable. Funding: UK Medical Research Council and Health Technology Assessment Programme

Effects of fluoxetine on functional outcomes after acute stroke (FOCUS): a pragmatic, double-blind, randomised, controlled trial

Background Results of small trials indicate that fluoxetine might improve functional outcomes after stroke. The FOCUS trial aimed to provide a precise estimate of these effects. Methods FOCUS was a pragmatic, multicentre, parallel group, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial done at 103 hospitals in the UK. Patients were eligible if they were aged 18 years or older, had a clinical stroke diagnosis, were enrolled and randomly assigned between 2 days and 15 days after onset, and had focal neurological deficits. Patients were randomly allocated fluoxetine 20 mg or matching placebo orally once daily for 6 months via a web-based system by use of a minimisation algorithm. The primary outcome was functional status, measured with the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), at 6 months. Patients, carers, health-care staff, and the trial team were masked to treatment allocation. Functional status was assessed at 6 months and 12 months after randomisation. Patients were analysed according to their treatment allocation. This trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN83290762. Findings Between Sept 10, 2012, and March 31, 2017, 3127 patients were recruited. 1564 patients were allocated fluoxetine and 1563 allocated placebo. mRS data at 6 months were available for 1553 (99·3%) patients in each treatment group. The distribution across mRS categories at 6 months was similar in the fluoxetine and placebo groups (common odds ratio adjusted for minimisation variables 0·951 [95% CI 0·839–1·079]; p=0·439). Patients allocated fluoxetine were less likely than those allocated placebo to develop new depression by 6 months (210 [13·43%] patients vs 269 [17·21%]; difference 3·78% [95% CI 1·26–6·30]; p=0·0033), but they had more bone fractures (45 [2·88%] vs 23 [1·47%]; difference 1·41% [95% CI 0·38–2·43]; p=0·0070). There were no significant differences in any other event at 6 or 12 months. Interpretation Fluoxetine 20 mg given daily for 6 months after acute stroke does not seem to improve functional outcomes. Although the treatment reduced the occurrence of depression, it increased the frequency of bone fractures. These results do not support the routine use of fluoxetine either for the prevention of post-stroke depression or to promote recovery of function. Funding UK Stroke Association and NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme