New investigations into the stability of Mesna using LC-MS/MS and NMR

Both LC-MS/MS and NMR analyses confirmed the instability of Mesna and its conversion into Dimesna

Daily emollient during infancy for prevention of eczema: the BEEP randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Skin barrier dysfunction precedes eczema development. We tested whether daily use of emollient in the first year could prevent eczema in high-risk children. METHODS: We did a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in 12 hospitals and four primary care sites across the UK. Families were approached via antenatal or postnatal services for recruitment of term infants (at least 37 weeks' gestation) at high risk of developing eczema (ie, at least one first-degree relative with parent-reported eczema, allergic rhinitis, or asthma, diagnosed by a doctor). Term newborns with a family history of atopic disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to application of emollient daily (either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel) for the first year plus standard skin-care advice (emollient group) or standard skin-care advice only (control group). The randomisation schedule was created using computer-generated code (stratified by recruiting centre and number of first-degree relatives with atopic disease) and participants were assigned to groups using an internet-based randomisation system. The primary outcome was eczema at age 2 years (defined by UK working party criteria) with analysis as randomised regardless of adherence to allocation for participants with outcome data collected, and adjusting for stratification variables. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN21528841. Data collection for long-term follow-up is ongoing, but the trial is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: 1394 newborns were randomly assigned to study groups between Nov 19, 2014, and Nov 18, 2016; 693 were assigned to the emollient group and 701 to the control group. Adherence in the emollient group was 88% (466 of 532) at 3 months, 82% (427 of 519) at 6 months, and 74% (375 of 506) at 12 months in those with complete questionnaire data. At age 2 years, eczema was present in 139 (23%) of 598 infants with outcome data collected in the emollient group and 150 (25%) of 612 infants in the control group (adjusted relative risk 0·95 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·16], p=0·61; adjusted risk difference -1·2% [-5·9 to 3·6]). Other eczema definitions supported the results of the primary analysis. Mean number of skin infections per child in year 1 was 0·23 (SD 0·68) in the emollient group versus 0·15 (0·46) in the control group; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1·55 (95% CI 1·15 to 2·09). INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence that daily emollient during the first year of life prevents eczema in high-risk children and some evidence to suggest an increased risk of skin infections. Our study shows that families with eczema, asthma, or allergic rhinitis should not use daily emollients to try and prevent eczema in their newborn. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment

Daily emollient during infancy for prevention of eczema: the BEEP randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Skin barrier dysfunction precedes eczema development. We tested whether daily use of emollient in the first year could prevent eczema in high-risk children. METHODS: We did a multicentre, pragmatic, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in 12 hospitals and four primary care sites across the UK. Families were approached via antenatal or postnatal services for recruitment of term infants (at least 37 weeks' gestation) at high risk of developing eczema (ie, at least one first-degree relative with parent-reported eczema, allergic rhinitis, or asthma, diagnosed by a doctor). Term newborns with a family history of atopic disease were randomly assigned (1:1) to application of emollient daily (either Diprobase cream or DoubleBase gel) for the first year plus standard skin-care advice (emollient group) or standard skin-care advice only (control group). The randomisation schedule was created using computer-generated code (stratified by recruiting centre and number of first-degree relatives with atopic disease) and participants were assigned to groups using an internet-based randomisation system. The primary outcome was eczema at age 2 years (defined by UK working party criteria) with analysis as randomised regardless of adherence to allocation for participants with outcome data collected, and adjusting for stratification variables. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, ISRCTN21528841. Data collection for long-term follow-up is ongoing, but the trial is closed to recruitment. FINDINGS: 1394 newborns were randomly assigned to study groups between Nov 19, 2014, and Nov 18, 2016; 693 were assigned to the emollient group and 701 to the control group. Adherence in the emollient group was 88% (466 of 532) at 3 months, 82% (427 of 519) at 6 months, and 74% (375 of 506) at 12 months in those with complete questionnaire data. At age 2 years, eczema was present in 139 (23%) of 598 infants with outcome data collected in the emollient group and 150 (25%) of 612 infants in the control group (adjusted relative risk 0·95 [95% CI 0·78 to 1·16], p=0·61; adjusted risk difference -1·2% [-5·9 to 3·6]). Other eczema definitions supported the results of the primary analysis. Mean number of skin infections per child in year 1 was 0·23 (SD 0·68) in the emollient group versus 0·15 (0·46) in the control group; adjusted incidence rate ratio 1·55 (95% CI 1·15 to 2·09). INTERPRETATION: We found no evidence that daily emollient during the first year of life prevents eczema in high-risk children and some evidence to suggest an increased risk of skin infections. Our study shows that families with eczema, asthma, or allergic rhinitis should not use daily emollients to try and prevent eczema in their newborn. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment

ASO targeting RBM3 temperature-controlled poison exon splicing prevents neurodegeneration in vivo

Neurodegenerative diseases are increasingly prevalent in the aging population, yet no disease-modifying treatments are currently available. Increasing the expression of the cold-shock protein RBM3 through therapeutic hypothermia is remarkably neuroprotective. However, systemic cooling poses a health risk, strongly limiting its clinical application. Selective upregulation of RBM3 at normothermia thus holds immense therapeutic potential. Here we identify a poison exon within the RBM3 gene that is solely responsible for its cold-induced expression. Genetic removal or antisense oligonucleotide (ASO)-mediated manipulation of this exon yields high RBM3 levels independent of cooling. Notably, a single administration of ASO to exclude the poison exon, using FDA-approved chemistry, results in long-lasting increased RBM3 expression in mouse brains. In prion-diseased mice, this treatment leads to remarkable neuroprotection, with prevention of neuronal loss and spongiosis despite high levels of disease-associated prion protein. Our promising results in mice support the possibility that RBM3-inducing ASOs might also deliver neuroprotection in humans in conditions ranging from acute brain injury to Alzheimer's disease

Astrocyte Unfolded Protein Response Induces a Specific Reactivity State that Causes Non-Cell-Autonomous Neuronal Degeneration.

Recent interest in astrocyte activation states has raised the fundamental question of how these cells, normally essential for synapse and neuronal maintenance, become pathogenic. Here, we show that activation of the unfolded protein response (UPR), specifically phosphorylated protein kinase R-like endoplasmic reticulum (ER) kinase (PERK-P) signaling-a pathway that is widely dysregulated in neurodegenerative diseases-generates a distinct reactivity state in astrocytes that alters the astrocytic secretome, leading to loss of synaptogenic function in vitro. Further, we establish that the same PERK-P-dependent astrocyte reactivity state is harmful to neurons in vivo in mice with prion neurodegeneration. Critically, targeting this signaling exclusively in astrocytes during prion disease is alone sufficient to prevent neuronal loss and significantly prolongs survival. Thus, the astrocyte reactivity state resulting from UPR over-activation is a distinct pathogenic mechanism that can by itself be effectively targeted for neuroprotection

Feedback between deformation and magmatism in the Lloyds River Fault Zone : an example of episodic fault reactivation in an accretionary setting, Newfoundland Appalachians

Author Posting. © American Geophysical Union, 2006. This article is posted here by permission of American Geophysical Union for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in Tectonics 25 (2006): TC4004, doi:10.1029/2005TC001789.The Lloyds River Fault Zone is a 10–15 km wide amphibolite-grade shear zone that formed during the Ordovician Taconic Orogeny. It separates ophiolites and arc–back-arc complexes formed in Iapetus from a peri-Laurentian microcontinent (Dashwoods microcontinent). The Lloyds River Fault Zone comprises three high-strain zones, dominantly composed of mylonitic amphibolites, separated by less deformed plutonic rocks. Structural, age and metamorphic data suggest the Lloyds River Fault Zone accommodated sinistral-oblique underthrusting of ophiolites underneath the Dashwoods microcontinent prior to 471 ± 5 Ma at 800°C and 6 kbar. Plutonic rocks within the Lloyds River Fault Zone comprise two suites dated at 464 ± 2 plus 462 ± 2 and 459 ± 3 Ma, respectively. The younger age of the plutons with respect to some of the amphibolites, evidence for magmatic deformation, and the elongate nature of the plutons parallel to the Lloyds River Fault Zone suggest they were emplaced within the fault zone during deformation. Both intrusive episodes triggered renewed deformation at high temperatures (770–750°C), illustrating the positive feedback between deformation and magmatism. Offshoots of the plutons intruded undeformed ophiolitic gabbros outside the Lloyds River Fault Zone. Deformation localized within the intrusive sheets, coeval with static contact metamorphism of the host gabbros, leading to the development of new, small-scale shear zones. This illustrates that channeling of plutons into shear zones and nucleation of shear zones in melt-rich zones may occur simultaneously within the same fault system.This research is funded by a scholarship from the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, University of Ottawa, to C.J.L. and a NSERC grant to C.v.S in his position as Adjunct Professor at the University of Ottawa

Emollients for preventing atopic eczema: Cost-effectiveness analysis of the BEEP trial.

BACKGROUND: Recent discoveries have led to the suggestion that enhancing skin barrier from birth might prevent eczema and food allergy. OBJECTIVE: To determine the cost-effectiveness of daily all-over-body application of emollient during the first year of life for preventing atopic eczema in high-risk children at 2 years from a health service perspective. We also considered a 5-year time horizon as a sensitivity analysis. METHODS: A within-trial economic evaluation using data on health resource use and quality of life captured as part of the BEEP trial alongside the trial data. Parents/carers of 1394 infants born to families at high risk of atopic disease were randomised 1:1 to the emollient group, which were advised to apply emollient (Doublebase Gel or Diprobase Cream) to their child at least once daily to the whole body during the first year of life or usual care. Both groups received advice on general skin care. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as incremental cost per percentage decrease in risk of eczema in the primary cost-effectiveness analysis. Secondary analysis, undertaken as a cost-utility analysis, reports incremental cost per Quality-Adjusted Life Year (QALY) where child utility was elicited using the proxy CHU-9D at 2 years. RESULTS: At 2 years, the adjusted incremental cost was £87.45 (95% CI -54.31, 229.27) per participant, whilst the adjusted proportion without eczema was 0.0164 (95% CI -0.0329, 0.0656). The ICER was £5337 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. Adjusted incremental QALYs were very slightly improved in the emollient group, 0.0010 (95% CI -0.0069, 0.0089). At 5 years, adjusted incremental costs were lower for the emollient group, -£106.89 (95% CI -354.66, 140.88) and the proportion without eczema was -0.0329 (95% CI -0.0659, 0.0002). The 5-year ICER was £3201 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. However, when inpatient costs due to wheezing were excluded, incremental costs were lower and incremental effects greater in the usual care group. CONCLUSIONS: In line with effectiveness endpoints, advice given in the BEEP trial to apply daily emollient during infancy for eczema prevention in high-risk children does not appear cost-effective

Emollients for prevention of atopic dermatitis; 5‐year findings from the BEEP randomised trial

Background The effectiveness of emollients for preventing atopic dermatitis/eczema is controversial. The Barrier Enhancement for Eczema Prevention trial evaluated the effects of daily emollients during the first year of life on atopic dermatitis and atopic conditions to age 5 years. Methods 1394 term infants with a family history of atopic disease were randomized (1:1) to daily emollient plus standard skin-care advice (693 emollient group) or standard skin-care advice alone (701 controls). Long-term follow-up at ages 3, 4 and 5 years was via parental questionnaires. Main outcomes were parental report of a clinical diagnosis of atopic dermatitis and food allergy. Results Parents reported more frequent moisturizer application in the emollient group through to 5 years. A clinical diagnosis of atopic dermatitis between 12 and 60 months was reported for 188/608 (31%) in the emollient group and 178/631 (28%) in the control group (adjusted relative risk 1.10, 95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.30). Although more parents in the emollient group reported food reactions in the previous year at 3 and 4 years, cumulative incidence of doctor-diagnosed food allergy by 5 years was similar between groups (92/609 [15%] emollients and 87/632 [14%] controls, adjusted relative risk 1.11, 95% confidence interval 0.84 to 1.45). Findings were similar for cumulative incidence of asthma and hay fever. Conclusions Daily emollient application during the first year of life does not prevent atopic dermatitis, food allergy, asthma or hay fever

Emollients for preventing atopic eczema: Cost‐effectiveness analysis of the BEEP trial

BackgroundRecent discoveries have led to the suggestion that enhancing skin barrier from birth might prevent eczema and food allergy. ObjectiveTo determine the cost‐effectiveness of daily all‐over‐body application of emollient during the first year of life for preventing atopic eczema in high‐risk children at 2 years from a health service perspective. We also considered a 5‐year time horizon as a sensitivity analysis. MethodsA within‐trial economic evaluation using data on health resource use and quality of life captured as part of the BEEP trial alongside the trial data. Parents/carers of 1394 infants born to families at high risk of atopic disease were randomised 1:1 to the emollient group, which were advised to apply emollient (Doublebase Gel or Diprobase Cream) to their child at least once daily to the whole body during the first year of life or usual care. Both groups received advice on general skin care. The main economic outcomes were incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio (ICER), defined as incremental cost per percentage decrease in risk of eczema in the primary cost‐effectiveness analysis. Secondary analysis, undertaken as a cost‐utility analysis, reports incremental cost per Quality‐Adjusted Life Year (QALY) where child utility was elicited using the proxy CHU‐9D at 2 years. ResultsAt 2 years, the adjusted incremental cost was £87.45 (95% CI −54.31, 229.27) per participant, whilst the adjusted proportion without eczema was 0.0164 (95% CI −0.0329, 0.0656). The ICER was £5337 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. Adjusted incremental QALYs were very slightly improved in the emollient group, 0.0010 (95% CI −0.0069, 0.0089). At 5 years, adjusted incremental costs were lower for the emollient group, −£106.89 (95% CI −354.66, 140.88) and the proportion without eczema was −0.0329 (95% CI −0.0659, 0.0002). The 5‐year ICER was £3201 per percentage decrease in risk of eczema. However, when inpatient costs due to wheezing were excluded, incremental costs were lower and incremental effects greater in the usual care group. ConclusionsIn line with effectiveness endpoints, advice given in the BEEP trial to apply daily emollient during infancy for eczema prevention in high‐risk children does not appear cost‐effective