Search

Background & Aims: Autophagy plays a crucial role in hepatic homeostasis and its deregulation has been associated with chronic liver disease. However, the effect of autophagy on the release of fibrogenic extracellular vesicles (EVs) by platelet-derived growth factor (PDGF)-stimulated hepatic stellate cells (HSCs) remains unknown. Herein, we aimed to elucidate the role of autophagy, specifically relating to fibrogenic EV release, in fibrosis., Methods: In vitro experiments were conducted in primary human and murine HSCs as well as LX2 cells. Small EVs were purified by differential ultracentrifugation. Carbon tetrachloride (CCl 4 ) or bile duct ligation (BDL) were used to induce fibrosis in our mouse model. Liver lysates from patients with cirrhosis or healthy controls were compared by RNA sequencing., Results: In vitro, PDGF and its downstream molecule SHP2 (Src homology 2-containing protein tyrosine phosphatase 2) inhibited autophagy and increased HSC-derived EV release. We used this PDGF/SHP2 model to further investigate how autophagy affects fibrogenic EV release. RNA sequencing identified an mTOR (mammalian target of rapamycin) signaling molecule that was regulated by SHP2 and PDGF. Disruption of mTOR signaling abolished PDGF-dependent EV release. Activation of mTOR signaling induced the release of multivesicular body-derived exosomes (by inhibiting autophagy) and microvesicles (by activating ROCK1 signaling). These mTOR-dependent EVs promoted in vitro HSC migration. To assess the importance of this mechanism in vivo, SHP2 was selectively deleted in HSCs, which attenuated CCl 4- or BDL-induced liver fibrosis. Furthermore, in the CCl 4 model, mice receiving circulating EVs derived from mice with HSC-specific Shp2 deletion had less fibrosis than mice receiving EVs from control mice. Correspondingly, SHP2 was upregulated in patients with liver cirrhosis., Conclusion: These results demonstrate that autophagy in HSCs attenuates liver fibrosis by inhibiting the release of fibrogenic EVs., Lay Summary: During liver fibrosis and cirrhosis, activated hepatic stellate cells (HSCs) are the key cell type responsible for fibrotic tissue deposition. Recently, we demonstrated that activated HSCs release nano-sized vesicles enriched with fibrogenic proteins. In the current study, we unveil the mechanism by which these fibrogenic vesicles are released, moving a step closer to the long-term goal of therapeutically targeting this process., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflicts of interest that pertain to this work. Please refer to the accompanying ICMJE disclosure forms for further details., (Copyright © 2020 European Association for the Study of the Liver. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Psychological therapies are first-line interventions for depression, but existing provision is not accessible for many adults with intellectual disabilities. We investigated the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a behavioural activation intervention (BeatIt) for people with intellectual disabilities and depression. BeatIt was compared with a guided self-help intervention (StepUp)., Methods: We did a multicentre, single-blind, randomised, controlled trial with follow-up at 4 months and 12 months after randomisation. Participants aged 18 years or older, with mild to moderate intellectual disabilities and clinically significant depression were recruited from health and social care services in the UK. The primary outcome was the Glasgow Depression Scale for people with a Learning Disability (GDS-LD) score at 12 months. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. This trial is registered with ISCRTN, number ISRCTN09753005., Findings: Between Aug 8, 2013, and Sept 1, 2015, 161 participants were randomly assigned (84 to BeatIt; 77 to StepUp); 141 (88%) participants completed the trial. No group differences were found in the effects of BeatIt and StepUp based on GDS-LD scores at 12 months (12·03 [SD 7·99] GDS-LD points for BeatIt vs 12·43 [SD 7·64] GDS-LD points for StepUp; mean difference 0·26 GDS-LD points [95% CI -2·18 to 2·70]; p=0·833). Within-group improvements in GDS-LD scores occurred in both groups at 12 months (BeatIt, mean change -4·2 GDS-LD points [95% CI -6·0 to -2·4], p<0·0001; StepUp, mean change -4·5 GDS-LD points [-6·2 to -2·7], p<0·0001), with large effect sizes (BeatIt, 0·590 [95% CI 0·337-0·844]; StepUp, 0·627 [0·380-0·873]). BeatIt was not cost-effective when compared with StepUp, although the economic analyses indicated substantial uncertainty. Treatment costs were only approximately 3·6-6·8% of participants' total support costs. No treatment-related or trial-related adverse events were reported., Interpretation: This study is, to our knowledge, the first large randomised controlled trial assessing individual psychological interventions for people with intellectual disabilities and mental health problems. These findings show that there is no evidence that BeatIt is more effective than StepUp; both are active and potentially effective interventions., Funding: National Institute for Health Research., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Adults with intellectual disabilities have substantial health inequalities and poor access to health care. We assessed whether practice nurse-delivered health checks could improve the health of adults with intellectual disabilities compared with standard care., Methods: In this cluster-design, single-blind, randomised controlled trial, we included general practices in Scotland, UK. From June to December, 2011, we randomly assigned (1:1) these general practices to either health checks plus standard care (health-checks group), or standard care only (control group), and we recruited the patients from these practices. Randomisation was done with stratification by number of GPs per practice and number of registered patients with intellectual disabilities (<20 or ≥20). Two research assistants were masked to allocation, and undertook the review of 9 month medical records and interviews. Participants and carers were not masked. The intervention was one health check designed especially for people with intellectual disabilities delivered by a practice nurse. The objective was improvement in health and health care 9 months after randomisation, and the primary outcome was the incidence of newly detected health needs being met by this timepoint. Whether needs were met was established by the investigators being masked to group allocation. The analysis was by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Current Controlled Trials, number ISRCTN43324841., Findings: Between June 26 and Dec 20, 2011, we recruited 38 practices. 85 participants (from 16 practices) were randomly assigned to intervention and 67 (from 17 practices) to standard care; five of the identified practices did not supply any participants. 83 intervention and 66 standard care participants completed the trial. More newly detected health needs were met in the intervention group than in the control standard care group (median 1 [range 0-8], 76·4% met [SD 36·5] vs 2 [0-11], 72·6% met [35·4]; odds ratio [OR] 1·73 [95% CI 0·93-3·22], p=0·085), although this difference was not significant. Significantly more health monitoring needs were met in the intervention group than standard care (median 2 [0-20], 69·9% [SD 34·2] vs 2 [0-22], 56·8% [29·4], OR 2·38 [95% CI 1·31-4·32, p=0·0053]). The probability that health checks are cost effective was between 0·6 and 0·8, irrespective of the cost-effectiveness threshold level. Costs per patient were -£71·48 for health checks and -£20·56 for standard care. The difference (-£50·92) was not significant [95% CI -434 to 362]. No adverse events were attributable to the intervention., Interpretation: Health checks given by practice nurses to adults with intellectual disabilities produced health-care improvements that were more conducive to longer-term health than standard care given to this population. The intervention dominated standard care, being both cheaper and more effective. Health-check programmes might therefore be indicated for adults with intellectual disabilities., Funding: Scottish Government Change Fund, NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde Research and Development., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: People with intellectual disabilities (ID) have many comorbidities but experience inequities in access to health care. National Health Service England uses an opt-in incentive scheme to encourage annual health checks of patients with ID in primary care. We investigated whether the first 3 years of the programme had improved health care of people with ID., Methods: We did a longitudinal cohort study that used data from The Health Improvement Network primary care database. We did multivariate logistic regression to assess associations between various characteristics and whether or not practices had opted in to the incentivised scheme., Findings: We assessed data for 8692 patients from 222 incentivised practices and those for 918 patients in 48 non-incentivised practices. More blood tests (eg, total cholesterol, odds ratio [OR] 1·88, 95% CI 1·47-2·41, p<0·0001) general health measurements (eg, smoking status, 6·0, 4·10-8·79, p<0·0001), specific health assessments (eg, hearing, 24·0, 11·5-49·9, p<0·0001), and medication reviews (2·23, 1·68-2·97, p<0·0001) were done in incentivised than in non-incentivised practices, and more health action plans (6·15, 1·41-26·9, p=0·0156) and secondary care referrals (1·47, 1·05-2·05, p=0·0256) were made. Identification rates were higher in incentivised practices for thyroid disorder (OR 2·72, 95% CI 1·09-6·81, p=0·0323), gastrointestinal disorders (1·94, 1·03-3·65, p=0·0390), and obesity (2·49, 1·76-3·53, p<0·0001)., Interpretation: Targeted annual health checks for people with ID in primary care could reduce health inequities., Funding: National Institute for Health Research., (Copyright © 2014 Buszewicz et al. Open Access article distributed under the term of CC BY. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the analgesic efficacy and safety of five graded doses of bromfenac sodium in patients experiencing moderate to severe pain after the surgical removal of impacted third molar teeth., Study Design: The study employed a randomized, double-blind, single-dose, 8-hour, inpatient evaluation period. The treatment groups included placebo (n = 21) and bromfenac (n = 102) at dosage strengths of 5 mg (n = 21), 25 mg (n = 20), 50 mg (n = 20), 100 mg (n = 20), and 200 mg (n = 21). Patients ingested a dose of study medication when their postsurgical pain reached a moderate or severe intensity. Pain intensity and pain relief were rated at 15, 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes and then hourly for the remaining 6 hours. Efficacy and safety variables were analyzed by means of analysis of variance and chi-squared tests where appropriate., Results: At all doses, bromfenac exhibited statistical superiority (p < 0.05) to placebo, with all but the 5-mg dose being significantly more efficacious for every summary analgesic measure (3- and 8-hour sum pain intensity difference and sum pain analog intensity difference, total pain relief, peak effects, sum of pain half gone, and global evaluation). Peak analgesic effects did not increase beyond those provided by the 25-mg dose of bromfenac, although both the 100- and 200-mg bromfenac doses provided a more rapid onset and a longer duration of analgesia than either the 25- or 50-mg dosage strengths. The most common side effects reported were headache, nausea, dizziness, and drowsiness; the incidence in the bromfenac group was no different from that in the placebo group., Conclusions: Bromfenac is a safe and efficacious analgesic, with a threshold dose of 5 mg and a positive dose-response up to 25 mg for peak effects and 100 mg for total analgesic activity.

The effectiveness of intraoral II-docaine patches was tested by asking participants to rate the pain experienced after insertions of a 25-gauge needle. Needlesticks were performed at baseline and at various time points after patch placement. Each needlestick included contact with the periosteum. Lidocaine patches achieved significantly better analgesia than the placebo within 2.5 to five minutes after placement. Drug-related side effects were minimal and venous blood levels of lidocaine were low, averaging 10 to 14 times less than those achieved with a typical injection of lidocaine plus epinephrine. The authors conclude that the lidocaine patches used in this study are effective and safe in reducing needle insertion pain in adults.

The mechanisms of action of centrally and peripherally acting analgesics are reviewed. Therapeutic implications are cited.