Search

The BioPhyMeTRE project (2020-2023) focuses on the use of innovative biological and physical methods for a fast evaluation of the radiation exposure level of people involved in a radiological mass casualty incident. The proposed biological method combines the two standardized Dicentric and Micronuclei assays into a single one, which allows the simultaneous scoring of chromosome aberrations and micronuclei on the same slide [1]. The physical method is based on the use of a low-cost, portable photo-stimulated luminescence (PSL) reader for the individual dose assessment by using personal items that people can have in their pockets or bags [2]. Both methods can be applied for a quick screening of the potential victims by using user-friendly analytical procedures. The multi-parametric approach by different techniques provides complementary information useful to overcome the limits (low radiation sensitivity, signal instability, etc.) that each method has, since the “ideal” dosimeter does not exist. From the beginning of the project (April 2020) important progress has been made to optimize and automate the biological procedure and very satisfactory results have been obtained with the PSL technique applied to salty crackers and beach sand. Interlaboratory exercises for the validation of the analytical procedures are planned in the coming months. Next to the work for the improvement of the methods, other important activities have been carried out: online training for the transfer of knowledge and skills among the partners and disseminations of the results through the participation to several international conferences. The project, fully funded by the NATO Science for Peace and Security Programme (Grant G5684), is coordinated by the Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (ENEA) of Italy and involves the Institute of Radiation Safety and Ecology (IRSE) of National Nuclear Center of Kazakhstan, the National Health Institute (ISS) of Italy and the Ruđer Bošković Institute (RBI) of Croatia.

Arachidonic acid is one of the most abundant and ubiquitous omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid, present in esterified form in the membrane phospholipids of all mammalian cells and released from phospholipids by several phospholipases in response to various activating or inhibitory stimuli. Arachidonic acid is the precursor of a large number of enzymatically and non-enzymatically derived, biologically active autacoids, including prostaglandins (PGs), thromboxane (TX) A(2), leukotrienes, and epoxyeicosatetraenoic acids (collectively called eicosanoids), endocannabinoids and isoprostanes, respectively. Eicosanoids are local modulators of the physiological functions and pathophysiological rotes of blood vessels and platelets. For example, the importance of cyctooxygenase (COX)-1-derived TXA(2) from activated platelets in contributing to primary haemostasis and atherothrombosis is demonstrated in animal and human models by the bleeding complications and cardioprotective effects associated with low-dose aspirin, a selective inhibitor of platelet COX-1. The relevance of vascular COX-2-derived prostacyclin (PGI(2)) in endothelial thromboresistance and atheroprotection is clearly shown by animal and human models and by the adverse cardiovascular effects exerted by COX-2 inhibitors in humans. A vast array of arachidonic acid-transforming enzymes, downstream synthases and isomerases, transmembrane receptors, and specificity in their tissue expression make arachidonic acid metabolism a fine-tuning system of vascular health and disease. Its pharmacological regulation is central in human cardiovascular diseases, as demonstrated by biochemical measurements and intervention trials.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a pathological process characterized by atherosclerotic plaque accumulation in the epicardial arteries, whether obstructive or non-obstructive. This process can be modified by lifestyle adjustments, pharmacological therapies, and invasive interventions designed to achieve disease stabilization or regression. The disease can have long, stable periods but can also become unstable at any time, typically due to an acute atherothrombotic event caused by plaque rupture or erosion. However, the disease is chronic, most often progressive, and hence serious, even in clinically apparently silent periods. The dynamic nature of the CAD process results in various clinical presentations, which can be conveniently categorized as either acute coronary syndromes (ACS) or chronic coronary syndromes (CCS). The Guidelines presented here refer to the management of patients with CCS. The natural history of CCS is illustrated in Figure 1.

BackgroundGastroprotectant drugs are used for the prevention and treatment of peptic ulcer disease and might reduce its associated complications, but reliable estimates of the effects of gastroprotectants in different clinical settings are scarce. We aimed to examine the effects of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), prostaglandin analogues, and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) in different clinical circumstances by doing meta-analyses of tabular data from all relevant unconfounded randomised trials of gastroprotectant drugs. MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and Embase from Jan 1, 1950, to Dec 31, 2015, to identify unconfounded, randomised trials of a gastroprotectant drug (defined as a PPI, prostaglandin analogue, or H2RA) versus control, or versus another gastroprotectant. Two independent researchers reviewed the search results and extracted the prespecified outcomes and key characteristics for each trial. We did meta-analyses of the effects of gastroprotectant drugs on ulcer development, bleeding, and mortality overall, according to the class of gastroprotectant, and according to the individual drug within a gastroprotectant class. FindingsWe identified comparisons of gastroprotectant versus control in 849 trials (142 485 participants): 580 prevention trials (110 626 participants), 233 healing trials (24 033 participants), and 36 trials for the treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (7826 participants). Comparisons of one gastroprotectant drug versus another were available in 345 trials (64 905 participants), comprising 160 prevention trials (32 959 participants), 167 healing trials (28 306 participants), and 18 trials for treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (3640 participants). The median number of patients in each trial was 78 (IQR 44·0–210·5) and the median duration was 1·4 months (0·9–2·8). In prevention trials, gastroprotectant drugs reduced development of endoscopic ulcers (odds ratio [OR] 0·27, 95% CI 0·25–0·29; phet=0·0005). Gastroprotectant drugs were effective in preventing bleeding irrespective of the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (phet=0·56). In healing trials, gastroprotectants increased endoscopic ulcer healing (3·49, 95% CI 3·28–3·72; phethet=0·0107) and blood transfusion (phet=0·0130). InterpretationGastroprotectants, in particular PPIs, reduce the risk of peptic ulcer disease and its complications and promote healing of peptic ulcers in a wide range of clinical circumstances. However, this meta-analysis might have overestimated the benefits owing to small study bias.

Background: Gastroprotectant drugs are used for the prevention and treatment of peptic ulcer disease and might reduce its associated complications, but reliable estimates of the effects of gastroprotectants in different clinical settings are scarce. We aimed to examine the effects of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), prostaglandin analogues, and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) in different clinical circumstances by doing meta-analyses of tabular data from all relevant unconfounded randomised trials of gastroprotectant drugs. Background: Gastroprotectant drugs are used for the prevention and treatment of peptic ulcer disease and might reduce its associated complications, but reliable estimates of the effects of gastroprotectants in different clinical settings are scarce. We aimed to examine the effects of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), prostaglandin analogues, and histamine-2 receptor antagonists (H2RAs) in different clinical circumstances by doing meta-analyses of tabular data from all relevant unconfounded randomised trials of gastroprotectant drugs. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase from Jan 1, 1950, to Dec 31, 2015, to identify unconfounded, randomised trials of a gastroprotectant drug (defined as a PPI, prostaglandin analogue, or H2RA) versus control, or versus another gastroprotectant. Two independent researchers reviewed the search results and extracted the prespecified outcomes and key characteristics for each trial. We did meta-analyses of the effects of gastroprotectant drugs on ulcer development, bleeding, and mortality overall, according to the class of gastroprotectant, and according to the individual drug within a gastroprotectant class. Findings: We identified comparisons of gastroprotectant versus control in 849 trials (142 485 participants): 580 prevention trials (110 626 participants), 233 healing trials (24 033 participants), and 36 trials for the treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (7826 participants). Comparisons of one gastroprotectant drug versus another were available in 345 trials (64 905 participants), comprising 160 prevention trials (32 959 participants), 167 healing trials (28 306 participants), and 18 trials for treatment of acute upper gastrointestinal bleeding (3640 participants). The median number of patients in each trial was 78 (IQR 44·0–210·5) and the median duration was 1·4 months (0·9–2·8). In prevention trials, gastroprotectant drugs reduced development of endoscopic ulcers (odds ratio [OR] 0·27, 95% CI 0·25–0·29; p

International audience; Purpose: A European network was initiated in 2012 by 23 partners from 16 European countries with the aim to significantly increase individualized dose reconstruction in case of large-scale radiological emergency scenarios. Results: The network was built on three complementary pillars: (1) an operational basis with seven biological and physical dosimetric assays in ready-to-use mode, (2) a basis for education, training and quality assurance, and (3) a basis for further network development regarding new techniques and members. Techniques for individual dose estimation based on biological samples and/or inert personalized devices as mobile phones or smart phones were optimized to support rapid categorization of many potential victims according to the received dose to the blood or personal devices. Communication and cross-border collaboration were also standardized. To assure long-term sustainability of the network, cooperation with national and international emergency preparedness organizations was initiated and links to radiation protection and research platforms have been developed. A legal framework, based on a Memorandum of Understanding, was established and signed by 27 organizations by the end of 2015. Conclusions: RENEB is a European Network of biological and physical-retrospective dosimetry, with the capacity and capability to perform large-scale rapid individualized dose estimation. Specialized to handle large numbers of samples, RENEB is able to contribute to radiological emergency preparedness and wider large-scale research projects. © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.

International audience; Purpose: The RENEB accident exercise was carried out in order to train the RENEB participants in coordinating and managing potentially large data sets that would be generated in case of a major radiological event. Materials and methods: Each participant was offered the possibility to activate the network by sending an alerting email about a simulated radiation emergency. The same participant had to collect, compile and report capacity, triage categorization and exposure scenario results obtained from all other participants. The exercise was performed over 27 weeks and involved the network consisting of 28 institutes: 21 RENEB members, four candidates and three non-RENEB partners. Results: The duration of a single exercise never exceeded 10 days, while the response from the assisting laboratories never came later than within half a day. During each week of the exercise, around 4500 samples were reported by all service laboratories (SL) to be examined and 54 scenarios were coherently estimated by all laboratories (the standard deviation from the mean of all SL answers for a given scenario category and a set of data was not larger than 3 patient codes). Conclusions: Each participant received training in both the role of a reference laboratory (activating the network) and of a service laboratory (responding to an activation request). The procedures in the case of radiological event were successfully established and tested. © 2016 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group.