Visible Light Responsive Photocatalyst Induces Progressive and Apical-Terminus Preferential Damages on Escherichia coli Surfaces

BACKGROUND: Recent research shows that visible-light responsive photocatalysts have potential usage in antimicrobial applications. However, the dynamic changes in the damage to photocatalyzed bacteria remain unclear. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Facilitated by atomic force microscopy, this study analyzes the visible-light driven photocatalyst-mediated damage of Escherichia coli. Results show that antibacterial properties are associated with the appearance of hole-like structures on the bacteria surfaces. Unexpectedly, these hole-like structures were preferentially induced at the apical terminus of rod shaped E. coli cells. Differentiating the damages into various levels and analyzing the percentage of damage to the cells showed that photocatalysis was likely to elicit sequential damages in E. coli cells. The process began with changing the surface properties on bacterial cells, as indicated in surface roughness measurements using atomic force microscopy, and holes then formed at the apical terminus of the cells. The holes were then subsequently enlarged until the cells were totally transformed into a flattened shape. Parallel experiments indicated that photocatalysis-induced bacterial protein leakage is associated with the progression of hole-like damages, further suggesting pore formation. Control experiments using ultraviolet light responsive titanium-dioxide substrates also obtained similar observations, suggesting that this is a general phenomenon of E. coli in response to photocatalysis. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The photocatalysis-mediated localization-preferential damage to E. coli cells reveals the weak points of the bacteria. This might facilitate the investigation of antibacterial mechanism of the photocatalysis

Blood pressure-lowering effects of nifedipine/candesartan combinations in high-risk individuals: Subgroup analysis of the DISTINCT randomised trial

The DISTINCT study (reDefining Intervention with Studies Testing Innovative Nifedipine GITS - Candesartan Therapy) investigated the efficacy and safety of nifedipine GITS/candesartan cilexetil combinations vs respective monotherapies and placebo in patients with hypertension. This descriptive sub-analysis examined blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects in high-risk participants, including those with renal impairment (estimated glomerular filtration rate<90 ml min-1, n=422), type 2 diabetes mellitus (n=202), hypercholesterolaemia (n=206) and cardiovascular (CV) risk factors (n=971), as well as the impact of gender, age and body mass index (BMI). Participants with grade I/II hypertension were randomised to treatment with nifedipine GITS (N) 20, 30, 60 mg and/or candesartan cilexetil (C) 4, 8, 16, 32 mg or placebo for 8 weeks. Mean systolic BP and diastolic BP reductions after treatment in high-risk participants were greater, overall, with N/C combinations vs respective monotherapies or placebo, with indicators of a dose-response effect. Highest rates of BP control (ESH/ESC 2013 guideline criteria) were also achieved with highest doses of N/C combinations in each high-risk subgroup. The benefits of combination therapy vs monotherapy were additionally observed in patient subgroups categorised by gender, age or BMI. All high-risk participants reported fewer vasodilatory adverse events in the pooled N/C combination therapy than the N monotherapy group. In conclusion, consistent with the DISTINCT main study outcomes, high-risk participants showed greater reductions in BP and higher control rates with N/C combinations compared with respective monotherapies and lesser vasodilatory side-effects compared with N monotherapy

Omecamtiv mecarbil in chronic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, GALACTIC‐HF: baseline characteristics and comparison with contemporary clinical trials

Aims: The safety and efficacy of the novel selective cardiac myosin activator, omecamtiv mecarbil, in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is tested in the Global Approach to Lowering Adverse Cardiac outcomes Through Improving Contractility in Heart Failure (GALACTIC‐HF) trial. Here we describe the baseline characteristics of participants in GALACTIC‐HF and how these compare with other contemporary trials. Methods and Results: Adults with established HFrEF, New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) ≥ II, EF ≤35%, elevated natriuretic peptides and either current hospitalization for HF or history of hospitalization/ emergency department visit for HF within a year were randomized to either placebo or omecamtiv mecarbil (pharmacokinetic‐guided dosing: 25, 37.5 or 50 mg bid). 8256 patients [male (79%), non‐white (22%), mean age 65 years] were enrolled with a mean EF 27%, ischemic etiology in 54%, NYHA II 53% and III/IV 47%, and median NT‐proBNP 1971 pg/mL. HF therapies at baseline were among the most effectively employed in contemporary HF trials. GALACTIC‐HF randomized patients representative of recent HF registries and trials with substantial numbers of patients also having characteristics understudied in previous trials including more from North America (n = 1386), enrolled as inpatients (n = 2084), systolic blood pressure &lt; 100 mmHg (n = 1127), estimated glomerular filtration rate &lt; 30 mL/min/1.73 m2 (n = 528), and treated with sacubitril‐valsartan at baseline (n = 1594). Conclusions: GALACTIC‐HF enrolled a well‐treated, high‐risk population from both inpatient and outpatient settings, which will provide a definitive evaluation of the efficacy and safety of this novel therapy, as well as informing its potential future implementation

A randomised trial of oral versus intravenous opioids for treatment of pain after cardiac surgery

Background: Cardiac surgery and sternotomy are procedures accompanied by substantial postoperative pain which is challenging to treat. In general, intravenous (IV) opioids are used in the immediate postoperative phase, followed by oral opioids. Oral opioids are easier to use and generally less expensive. Our goal was thus to determine whether a new opioid preparation provides adequate analgesia after sternotomy. In particular, we tested the primary hypothesis that total opioid use (in morphine equivalents) is not greater with oral opioid compared with patient-controlled IV morphine. Our secondary hypothesis was that analgesic efficacy is similar with oral and IV opioids. Methods: A total of 51 patients having elective cardiac surgery were enrolled in this study. After rapid postoperative respiratory weaning, the patients were randomised into one of two groups receiving different types of analgesia: oral Targin (a combination of oxycodone–hydrochloride and the opioid antagonist naloxone hydrochloride-dihydrate) or patient-controlled IV morphine. Pain score (visual analogue scale), sedation (Ramsey score), respiratory rate and side effects were assessed at 3, 5, 7, 9 and 11 h after surgery, and every 6 h throughout the third postoperative evening. Results: The total opioid dose in morphine equivalent doses was significantly lower with oral opioid than with IV morphine (adjusted geometric means [95 % confidence interval]: 34 [29; 38] vs. 69 [61; 78] mg, respectively). Pain scores were similar in each group. Conclusions: Analgesic quality was comparable with oral and IV opioids, suggesting that postoperative pain even after very painful procedures can be sufficiently managed with oral opioids