Churchill Hospital

About: Churchill Hospital is a healthcare organization based out in Oxford, United Kingdom. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Transplantation. The organization has 3548 authors who have published 5357 publications receiving 304275 citations.

The miRNA Profile of Human Pancreatic Islets and Beta-Cells and Relationship to Type 2 Diabetes Pathogenesis

Abstract: Recent advances in the understanding of the genetics of type 2 diabetes (T2D) susceptibility have focused attention on the regulation of transcriptional activity within the pancreatic beta-cell. MicroRNAs (miRNAs) represent an important component of regulatory control, and have proven roles in the development of human disease and control of glucose homeostasis. We set out to establish the miRNA profile of human pancreatic islets and of enriched beta-cell populations, and to explore their potential involvement in T2D susceptibility. We used Illumina small RNA sequencing to profile the miRNA fraction in three preparations each of primary human islets and of enriched beta-cells generated by fluorescence-activated cell sorting. In total, 366 miRNAs were found to be expressed (i.e. >100 cumulative reads) in islets and 346 in beta-cells; of the total of 384 unique miRNAs, 328 were shared. A comparison of the islet-cell miRNA profile with those of 15 other human tissues identified 40 miRNAs predominantly expressed (i.e. >50% of all reads seen across the tissues) in islets. Several highly-expressed islet miRNAs, such as miR-375, have established roles in the regulation of islet function, but others (e.g. miR-27b-3p, miR-192-5p) have not previously been described in the context of islet biology. As a first step towards exploring the role of islet-expressed miRNAs and their predicted mRNA targets in T2D pathogenesis, we looked at published T2D association signals across these sites. We found evidence that predicted mRNA targets of islet-expressed miRNAs were globally enriched for signals of T2D association (p-values <0.01, q-values <0.1). At six loci with genome-wide evidence for T2D association (AP3S2, KCNK16, NOTCH2, SCL30A8, VPS26A, and WFS1) predicted mRNA target sites for islet-expressed miRNAs overlapped potentially causal variants. In conclusion, we have described the miRNA profile of human islets and beta-cells and provide evidence linking islet miRNAs to T2D pathogenesis.

Vildagliptin add‐on to metformin produces similar efficacy and reduced hypoglycaemic risk compared with glimepiride, with no weight gain: results from a 2‐year study

Abstract: Methods: A randomized, double-blind, active-comparator study of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus inadequately controlled (HbA1c 6.5-8.5%) by metformin monotherapy. Patients received vildagliptin (50 mg twice daily) or glimepiride (up to 6 mg/day) added to metformin. Results: In all, 3118 patients were randomized (vildagliptin, n = 1562; glimepiride, n = 1556). From similar baseline values (7.3%), after 2 years adjusted mean (s.e.) change in HbA1c was comparable between vildagliptin and glimepiride treatment: -0.1% (0.0%) and -0.1% (0.0%), respectively. The primary objective of non-inferiority was met. A similar proportion of patients reached HbA1c = 0.5% or HbA1c 0.3% above IR). Independent of disease duration, age was a predictor of effect sustainability. Fewer patients experienced hypoglycaemia with vildagliptin (2.3% vs. 18.2% with glimepiride) with a 14-fold difference in the number of hypoglycaemic events (59 vs. 838). Vildagliptin had a beneficial effect on body weight [mean (s.e.) change from baseline -0.3 (0.1) kg; between-group difference -1.5 kg; p < 0.001]. Overall, both treatments were well tolerated and displayed similar safety profiles. Conclusions: Vildagliptin add-on has similar efficacy to glimepiride after 2 years' treatment, with markedly reduced hypoglycaemia risk and no weight gain. (Less)

An Elastin Gene Mutation Producing Abnormal Tropoelastin and Abnormal Elastic Fibres in a Patient with Autosomal Dominant Cutis Laxa

Abstract: Elastin is the protein responsible for the characteristic elastic properties of many tissues including the skin, lungs and large blood vessels. Loss-of-function mutations in the elastin gene are known to cause the heart defect supravalvular aortic stenosis (SVAS). We and others have identified deletions, nonsense mutations and splice site mutations in SVAS patients that abolish the function of one elastin gene. We have now identified an elastin mutation in a patient with a completely different phenotype, the rare autosomal dominant condition cutis laxa. A frameshift mutation in exon 32 of the elastin gene is predicted to replace 37 amino acids at the C-terminus of elastin by a novel sequence of 62 amino acids. mRNA and immunoprecipitation studies show that the mutant allele is expressed. Electron microscopy of skin sections shows abnormal branching and fragmentation in the amorphous elastin component, and immunocytochemistry shows reduced elastin deposition in the elastic fibres and fewer microfibrils in the dermis. These findings suggest that the mutant tropoelastin protein is synthesized, secreted and incorporated into the elastic matrix, where it alters the architecture of elastic fibres. Interference with cross-linking would reduce elastic recoil in affected tissues and explain the cutis laxa phenotype.

Oral morphine for cancer pain

Abstract: Background This is the third updated version of a Cochrane review first published in Issue 4, 2003 of The Cochrane Library and first updated in 2007. Morphine has been used for many years to relieve pain. Oral morphine in either immediate release or modified release form remains the analgesic of choice for moderate or severe cancer pain. Objectives To determine the efficacy of oral morphine in relieving cancer pain, and to assess the incidence and severity of adverse events. Search methods We searched the following databases: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL 2015, Issue 9); MEDLINE (1966 to October 2015); and EMBASE (1974 to October 2015). We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov (1 October 2015). Selection criteria Published randomised controlled trials (RCTs) using placebo or active comparators reporting on the analgesic effect of oral morphine in adults and children with cancer pain. We excluded trials with fewer than 10 participants. Data collection and analysis One review author extracted data, which were checked by another review author. There were insufficient comparable data for meta-analysis to be undertaken or to produce numbers needed to treat (NNTs) for the analgesic effect. We extracted any available data on the number or proportion of participants with 'no worse than mild pain' or treatment success (very satisfied, or very good or excellent on patient global impression scales). Main results We identified seven new studies in this update. We excluded six, and one study is ongoing so also not included in this update. This review contains a total of 62 included studies, with 4241 participants. Thirty-six studies used a cross-over design ranging from one to 15 days, with the greatest number (11) for seven days for each arm of the trial. Overall we judged the included studies to be at high risk of bias because the methods of randomisation and allocation concealment were poorly reported. The primary outcomes for this review were participant-reported pain and pain relief. Fifteen studies compared oral morphine modified release (Mm/r) preparations with morphine immediate release (MIR). Fourteen studies compared Mm/r in different strengths; six of these included 24-hour modified release products. Fifteen studies compared Mm/r with other opioids. Six studies compared MIR with other opioids. Two studies compared oral Mm/r with rectal Mm/r. Three studies compared MIR with MIR by a different route of administration. Two studies compared Mm/r with Mm/r at different times and two compared MIR with MIR given at a different time. One study was found comparing each of the following: Mm/r tablet with Mm/r suspension; Mm/r with non-opioids; MIR with non-opioids; and oral morphine with epidural morphine. In the previous update, a standard of 'no worse than mild pain' was set, equivalent to a score of 30/100 mm or less on a visual analogue pain intensity scale (VAS), or the equivalent in other pain scales. Eighteen studies achieved this level of pain relief on average, and no study reported that good levels of pain relief were not attained. Where results were reported for individual participants in 17 studies, 'no worse than mild pain' was achieved by 96% of participants (362/377), and an outcome equivalent to treatment success in 63% (400/638). Morphine is an effective analgesic for cancer pain. Pain relief did not differ between Mm/r and MIR. Modified release versions of morphine were effective for 12- or 24-hour dosing depending on the formulation. Daily doses in studies ranged from 25 mg to 2000 mg with an average of between 100 mg and 250 mg. Dose titration was undertaken with both instant release and modified release products. A small number of participants did not achieve adequate analgesia with morphine. Adverse events were common, predictable, and approximately 6% of participants discontinued treatment with morphine because of intolerable adverse events. The quality of the evidence is generally poor. Studies are old, often small, and were largely carried out for registration purposes and therefore were only designed to show equivalence between different formulations. Authors' conclusions The conclusions have not changed for this update. The effectiveness of oral morphine has stood the test of time, but the randomised trial literature for morphine is small given the importance of this medicine. Most trials recruited fewer than 100 participants and did not provide appropriate data for meta-analysis. Only a few reported how many people had good pain relief, but where it was reported, over 90% had no worse than mild pain within a reasonably short time period. The review demonstrates the wide dose range of morphine used in studies, and that a small percentage of participants are unable to tolerate oral morphine. The review also shows the wide range of study designs, and inconsistency in cross-over designs. Trial design was frequently based on titration of morphine or comparator to achieve adequate analgesia, then crossing participants over in cross-over design studies. It was not clear if these trials were sufficiently powered to detect any clinical differences between formulations or comparator drugs. New studies added to the review for the previous update reinforced the view that it is possible to use modified release morphine to titrate to analgesic effect. There is qualitative evidence that oral morphine has much the same efficacy as other available opioids.