Case Western Reserve University

About: Case Western Reserve University is a education organization based out in Cleveland, Ohio, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Cancer. The organization has 54617 authors who have published 106568 publications receiving 5071613 citations. The organization is also known as: Case & Case Western.

Mesenchymal Stem Cells: Time to Change the Name!

Abstract: Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) were officially named more than 25 years ago to represent a class of cells from human and mammalian bone marrow and periosteum that could be isolated and expanded in culture while maintaining their in vitro capacity to be induced to form a variety of mesodermal phenotypes and tissues. The in vitro capacity to form bone, cartilage, fat, etc., became an assay for identifying this class of multipotent cells and around which several companies were formed in the 1990s to medically exploit the regenerative capabilities of MSCs. Today, there are hundreds of clinics and hundreds of clinical trials using human MSCs with very few, if any, focusing on the in vitro multipotential capacities of these cells. Unfortunately, the fact that MSCs are called "stem cells" is being used to infer that patients will receive direct medical benefit, because they imagine that these cells will differentiate into regenerating tissue-producing cells. Such a stem cell treatment will presumably cure the patient of their medically relevant difficulties ranging from osteoarthritic (bone-on-bone) knees to various neurological maladies including dementia. I now urge that we change the name of MSCs to Medicinal Signaling Cells to more accurately reflect the fact that these cells home in on sites of injury or disease and secrete bioactive factors that are immunomodulatory and trophic (regenerative) meaning that these cells make therapeutic drugs in situ that are medicinal. It is, indeed, the patient's own site-specific and tissue-specific resident stem cells that construct the new tissue as stimulated by the bioactive factors secreted by the exogenously supplied MSCs. Stem Cells Translational Medicine 2017;6:1445-1451.

Pathophysiology and Prevention of Atrial Fibrillation

Abstract: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a ubiquitous yet diverse cardiac arrhythmia whose incidence increases with age; with most forms of cardiac and some pulmonary diseases; and with a number of metabolic, toxic, endocrine, or genetic abnormalities.1 2 Classification of clinical AF subtypes can be achieved on the basis of the ease by which episodes of the arrhythmia terminate as follows3 : “Paroxysmal” AF refers to episodes that generally stop spontaneously after no more than a few days. “Persistent” AF occurs less frequently than paroxysmal AF and, rather than self-terminating, requires cardioversion to restore sinus rhythm. “Permanent” AF cannot be converted to sinus rhythm. These terms apply strictly to chronic AF, because a single episode of the arrhythmia cannot be fully categorized. Although there are some mixed patterns, they generally derive from physician impatience for early cardioversion or from pragmatic clinical considerations (eg, to avoid thrombus formation or hemodynamic decompensation). Patients initially presenting with paroxysmal AF often progress to longer, non–self-terminating bouts. An exception may be paroxysmal AF during intense vagotonia. Moreover, AF initially responsive to pharmacological or electrical cardioversion tends to become resistant and cannot then be converted to sinus rhythm. To some extent, the failure of the physician to suggest or the patient to accept further cardioversion attempts may lead to diagnosis of “permanent” AF. Thus, the “point of no return” may be determined by true pathophysiological abnormalities or may merely be an artifact of clinical pragmatism. Effective prevention is essential in managing this arrhythmia whose occurrence is widespread, progression is relentless, and morbidity and mortality are significant. To focus on means for prevention necessitates considering both clinical risk factors and pathophysiology. AF derives from a complex continuum predisposing factors, summarized in Table 1⇓. In the West, about 5% of the population >65 years of age …

Metabolic effects of carvedilol vs metoprolol in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension: a randomized controlled trial.

Abstract: Contextβ-Blockers have been shown to decrease cardiovascular risk in patients with hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM); however, some components of the metabolic syndrome are worsened by some β-blockers.ObjectiveTo compare the effects of β-blockers with different pharmacological profiles on glycemic and metabolic control in participants with DM and hypertension receiving renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockade, in the context of cardiovascular risk factors.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsA randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial (The Glycemic Effects in Diabetes Mellitus: Carvedilol-Metoprolol Comparison in Hypertensives [GEMINI]) conducted between June 1, 2001, and April 6, 2004, at 205 US sites that compared the effects of carvedilol and metoprolol tartrate on glycemic control. The 1235 participants were aged 36 to 85 years with hypertension (>130/80 mm Hg) and type 2 DM (glycosylated hemoglobin [HbA1c], 6.5%-8.5%) and were receiving RAS blockers. Participants were followed up for 35 weeks.InterventionsParticipants were randomized to receive a 6.25- to 25-mg dose of carvedilol (n = 498) or 50- to 200-mg dose of metoprolol tartrate (n = 737), each twice daily. Open-label hydrochlorothiazide and a dihydropyridine calcium antagonist were added, if needed, to achieve blood pressure target.Main Outcome MeasuresDifference between groups in mean change from baseline HbA1c following 5 months of maintenance therapy. Additional prespecified comparisons included change from baseline HbA1c in individual treatment groups, treatment effect on insulin sensitivity, and microalbuminuria.ResultsThe 2 groups differed in mean change in HbA1c from baseline (0.13%; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.22% to –0.04%; P = .004; modified intention-to-treat analysis). The mean (SD) HbA1c increased with metoprolol (0.15% [0.04%]; P<.001) but not carvedilol (0.02% [0.04%]; P = .65). Insulin sensitivity improved with carvedilol (–9.1%; P = .004) but not metoprolol (–2.0%; P = .48); the between-group difference was –7.2% (95% CI, –13.8% to –0.2%; P = .004). Blood pressure was similar between groups. Progression to microalbuminuria was less frequent with carvedilol than with metoprolol (6.4% vs 10.3%; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.36-0.97; P = .04).ConclusionsBoth β-blockers were well tolerated; use of carvedilol in the presence of RAS blockade did not affect glycemic control and improved some components of the metabolic syndrome relative to metoprolol in participants with DM and hypertension. The effects of the 2 β-blockers on clinical outcomes need to be compared in long-term clinical trials.

Changes in pathogens causing early-onset sepsis in very-low-birth-weight infants.

Abstract: Background It is uncertain whether the rates and causes of early-onset sepsis (that occurring within 72 hours after birth) among very-low-birth-weight infants have changed in recent years, since antibiotics have begun to be used more widely during labor and delivery. Methods We studied 5447 very-low-birth-weight infants (those weighing between 401 and 1500 g) born at centers of the Neonatal Research Network of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development between 1998 and 2000 who had at least one blood culture in the first three days of life and compared them with 7606 very-low-birth-weight infants born at centers in the network between 1991 and 1993. Results Early-onset sepsis (as confirmed by positive blood cultures) was present in 84 infants in the more recent birth cohort (1.5 percent). As compared with the earlier birth cohort, there was a marked reduction in group B streptococcal sepsis (from 5.9 to 1.7 per 1000 live births of infants weighing 401 to 1500 g, P<0.001) and an increase ...

G protein-coupled receptor rhodopsin.

Abstract: The rhodopsin crystal structure provides a structural basis for understanding the function of this and other G protein–coupled receptors (GPCRs). The major structural motifs observed for rhodopsin are expected to carry over to other GPCRs, and the mechanism of transformation of the receptor from inactive to active forms is thus likely conserved. Moreover, the high expression level of rhodopsin in the retina, its specific localization in the internal disks of the photoreceptor structures [termed rod outer segments (ROS)], and the lack of other highly abundant membrane proteins allow rhodopsin to be examined in the native disk membranes by a number of methods. The results of these investigations provide evidence of the propensity of rhodopsin and, most likely, other GPCRs to dimerize, a property that may be pertinent to their function.