Thomas W. Gardner

Bio: Thomas W. Gardner is an academic researcher from University of Michigan. The author has contributed to research in topics: Diabetic retinopathy & Diabetes mellitus. The author has an hindex of 50, co-authored 176 publications receiving 12894 citations. Previous affiliations of Thomas W. Gardner include Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center & Penn State Cancer Institute.

Neural apoptosis in the retina during experimental and human diabetes. Early onset and effect of insulin.

Abstract: This study determined whether retinal degeneration during diabetes includes retinal neural cell apoptosis. Image analysis of retinal sections from streptozotocin (STZ) diabetic rats after 7.5 months of STZ diabetes identified 22% and 14% reductions in the thickness of the inner plexiform and inner nuclear layers, respectively (P < 0. 001). The number of surviving ganglion cells was also reduced by 10% compared to controls (P < 0.001). In situ end labeling of DNA terminal dUTP nick end labeling (TUNEL) identified a 10-fold increase in the frequency of retinal apoptosis in whole-mounted rat retinas after 1, 3, 6, and 12 months of diabetes (P < 0.001, P < 0. 001, P < 0.01, and P < 0.01, respectively). Most TUNEL-positive cells were not associated with blood vessels and did not colocalize with the endothelial cell-specific antigen, von Willebrand factor. Insulin implants significantly reduced the number of TUNEL-positive cells (P < 0.05). The number of TUNEL-positive cells was also increased in retinas from humans with diabetes. These data indicate that retinal neural cell death occurs early in diabetes. This is the first quantitative report of an increase in neural cell apoptosis in the retina during diabetes, and indicates that neurodegeneration is an important component of diabetic retinopathy.

Retinopathy in Diabetes

Abstract: Diabetic retinopathy is the most frequent cause of new cases of blindness among adults aged 20 –74 years. During the first two decades of disease, nearly all patients with type 1 diabetes and 60% of patients with type 2 diabetes have retinopathy. In the Wisconsin Epidemiologic Study of Diabetic Retinopathy (WESDR), 3.6% of younger-onset patients (type 1 diabetes) and 1.6% of olderonset patients (type 2 diabetes) were legally blind. In the younger-onset group, 86% of blindness was attributable to diabetic retinopathy. In the older-onset group, in which other eye diseases were common, one-third of the cases of legal blindness were due to diabetic retinopathy. NATURAL HISTORY OF DIABETIC RETINOPATHY Diabetic retinopathy progresses from mild nonproliferative abnormalities, characterized by increased vascular permeability, to moderate and severe nonproliferative d iabetic r etinopathy (NPDR), characterized by vascular closure, to proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR), characterized by the growth of new blood vessels on the retina and posterior surface of the vitreous. Macular edema, characterized by retinal thickening from leaky blood vessels, can develop at all stages of retinopathy. Pregnancy, puberty, blood glucose control, hypertension, and cataract surgery can accelerate these changes. Vision-threatening retinopathy is rare in type 1 diabetic patients in the first 3–5 years of diabetes or before puberty. During the next two decades, nearly all type 1 diabetic patients develop retinopathy. Up to 21% of patients with type 2 diabetes have retinopathy at the time of first diagnosis of diabetes, and most develop some degree of retinopathy over time. Vision loss due to diabetic retinopathy results from several mechanisms. Central vision may be impaired by macular edema or capillary nonperfusion. New blood vessels of PDR and contraction of the accompanying fibrous tissue can distort the retina and lead to tractional retinal detachment, producing severe and often irreversible vision loss. In addition, the new blood vessels may bleed, adding the further complication of preretinal or vitreous hemorrhage. Finally, neovascular glaucoma associated with PDR can be a cause of visual loss.

Diabetic retinopathy: seeing beyond glucose-induced microvascular disease.

Abstract: Diabetic retinopathy remains a frightening prospect to patients and frustrates physicians. Destruction of damaged retina by photocoagulation remains the primary treatment nearly 50 years after its introduction. The diabetes pandemic requires new approaches to understand the pathophysiology and improve the detection, prevention, and treatment of retinopathy. This perspective considers how the unique anatomy and physiology of the retina may predispose it to the metabolic stresses of diabetes. The roles of neural retinal alterations and impaired retinal insulin action in the pathogenesis of early retinopathy and the mechanisms of vision loss are emphasized. Potential means to overcome limitations of current animal models and diagnostic testing are also presented with the goal of accelerating therapies to manage retinopathy in the face of ongoing diabetes.

Retinal angiogenesis in development and disease

Abstract: The retina has long been regarded as 'an approachable part of the brain' for investigating neurosensory processes. Cell biologists are now capitalizing on the accessibility of the retina to investigate important aspects of developmental angiogenesis, including how it relates to neuronal and glial development, morphogenesis, oxygen sensing and progenitor cells. Pathological angiogenesis also occurs in the retina and is a major feature of leading blinding diseases, particularly diabetic retinopathy. The retina and its clinical disorders have a pivotal role in angiogenesis research and provide model systems in which to investigate neurovascular relationships and angiogenic diseases.

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2019 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

Abstract: March 5, 2019 e1 WRITING GROUP MEMBERS Emelia J. Benjamin, MD, ScM, FAHA, Chair Paul Muntner, PhD, MHS, FAHA, Vice Chair Alvaro Alonso, MD, PhD, FAHA Marcio S. Bittencourt, MD, PhD, MPH Clifton W. Callaway, MD, FAHA April P. Carson, PhD, MSPH, FAHA Alanna M. Chamberlain, PhD Alexander R. Chang, MD, MS Susan Cheng, MD, MMSc, MPH, FAHA Sandeep R. Das, MD, MPH, MBA, FAHA Francesca N. Delling, MD, MPH Luc Djousse, MD, ScD, MPH Mitchell S.V. Elkind, MD, MS, FAHA Jane F. Ferguson, PhD, FAHA Myriam Fornage, PhD, FAHA Lori Chaffin Jordan, MD, PhD, FAHA Sadiya S. Khan, MD, MSc Brett M. Kissela, MD, MS Kristen L. Knutson, PhD Tak W. Kwan, MD, FAHA Daniel T. Lackland, DrPH, FAHA Tené T. Lewis, PhD Judith H. Lichtman, PhD, MPH, FAHA Chris T. Longenecker, MD Matthew Shane Loop, PhD Pamela L. Lutsey, PhD, MPH, FAHA Seth S. Martin, MD, MHS, FAHA Kunihiro Matsushita, MD, PhD, FAHA Andrew E. Moran, MD, MPH, FAHA Michael E. Mussolino, PhD, FAHA Martin O’Flaherty, MD, MSc, PhD Ambarish Pandey, MD, MSCS Amanda M. Perak, MD, MS Wayne D. Rosamond, PhD, MS, FAHA Gregory A. Roth, MD, MPH, FAHA Uchechukwu K.A. Sampson, MD, MBA, MPH, FAHA Gary M. Satou, MD, FAHA Emily B. Schroeder, MD, PhD, FAHA Svati H. Shah, MD, MHS, FAHA Nicole L. Spartano, PhD Andrew Stokes, PhD David L. Tirschwell, MD, MS, MSc, FAHA Connie W. Tsao, MD, MPH, Vice Chair Elect Mintu P. Turakhia, MD, MAS, FAHA Lisa B. VanWagner, MD, MSc, FAST John T. Wilkins, MD, MS, FAHA Sally S. Wong, PhD, RD, CDN, FAHA Salim S. Virani, MD, PhD, FAHA, Chair Elect On behalf of the American Heart Association Council on Epidemiology and Prevention Statistics Committee and Stroke Statistics Subcommittee

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics—2020 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association

Abstract: Background: The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports on the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovas...

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012

Abstract: D iabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. Specifically titled sections of the standards address children with diabetes, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A large number of these interventions have been shown to be cost-effective (4). A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) andmodeled after existingmethods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA’s multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. For the current revision, committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010. Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the “Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012”) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http:// professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search. aspx. Subsequently, as is the case for all Position Statements, the standards of care were reviewed and approved by the ExecutiveCommittee of ADA’s Board ofDirectors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people. Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards. Readers who wish to comment on the “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012” are invited to do so at http://professional.diabetes.org/ CPR_Search.aspx. Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the standards revisionmeeting. Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the “Professional PracticeCommitteeMembers” table (see pg. S109). The AmericanDiabetes Association funds development of the standards and all its position statements out of its general revenues and does not utilize industry support for these purposes.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2010

Abstract: D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was used to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, and new evidence is incorporated. Members of the Professional Practice Committee and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the Introduction. Subsequently, as with all position statements, the standards of care are reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of ADA’s Board of Directors.

Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics-2021 Update: A Report From the American Heart Association.

Abstract: Background: The American Heart Association, in conjunction with the National Institutes of Health, annually reports the most up-to-date statistics related to heart disease, stroke, and cardiovascul...