Rush University Medical Center

About: Rush University Medical Center is a healthcare organization based out in Chicago, Illinois, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Medicine. The organization has 13915 authors who have published 29027 publications receiving 1379216 citations. The organization is also known as: Rush Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical Center.

The effect of angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition on diabetic nephropathy. The collaborative study group

Abstract: Background Renal function declines progressively in patients who have diabetic nephropathy, and the decline may be slowed by antihypertensive drugs The purpose of this study was to determine whether captopril has kidney-protecting properties independent of its effect on blood pressure in diabetic nephropathy Methods We performed a randomized, controlled trial comparing captopril with placebo in patients with insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus in whom urinary protein excretion was > or = 500 mg per day and the serum creatinine concentration was Results Two hundred seven patients received captopril, and 202 placebo Serum creatinine concentrations doubled in 25 patients in the captopril group, as compared with 43 patients in the placebo group (P = 0007) The associated reductions in risk of a doubling of the serum creatinine concentration were 48 percent in the captopril group as a whole, 76 percent in the subgroup with a baseline serum creatinine concentration of 20 mg per deciliter (177 mumol per liter), 55 percent in the subgroup with a concentration of 15 mg per deciliter (133 mumol per liter), and 17 percent in the subgroup with a concentration of 10 mg per deciliter (884 mumol per liter) The mean (+/- SD) rate of decline in creatinine clearance was 11 +/- 21 percent per year in the captopril group and 17 +/- 20 percent per year in the placebo group (P = 003) Among the patients whose base-line serum creatinine concentration was > or = 15 mg per deciliter, creatinine clearance declined at a rate of 23 +/- 25 percent per year in the captopril group and at a rate of 37 +/- 25 percent per year in the placebo group (P = 001) Captopril treatment was associated with a 50 percent reduction in the risk of the combined end points of death, dialysis, and transplantation that was independent of the small disparity in blood pressure between the groups Conclusions Captopril protects against deterioration in renal function in insulin-dependent diabetic nephropathy and is significantly more effective than blood-pressure control alone

Movement Disorder Society-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS): scale presentation and clinimetric testing results.

Abstract: We present a clinimetric assessment of the Movement Disorder Society (MDS)-sponsored revision of the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS). The MDS-UDPRS Task Force revised and expanded the UPDRS using recommendations from a published critique. The MDS-UPDRS has four parts, namely, I: Non-motor Experiences of Daily Living; II: Motor Experiences of Daily Living; III: Motor Examination; IV: Motor Complications. Twenty questions are completed by the patient/caregiver. Item-specific instructions and an appendix of complementary additional scales are provided. Movement disorder specialists and study coordinators administered the UPDRS (55 items) and MDS-UPDRS (65 items) to 877 English speaking (78% non-Latino Caucasian) patients with Parkinson's disease from 39 sites. We compared the two scales using correlative techniques and factor analysis. The MDS-UPDRS showed high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.79-0.93 across parts) and correlated with the original UPDRS (rho = 0.96). MDS-UPDRS across-part correlations ranged from 0.22 to 0.66. Reliable factor structures for each part were obtained (comparative fit index > 0.90 for each part), which support the use of sum scores for each part in preference to a total score of all parts. The combined clinimetric results of this study support the validity of the MDS-UPDRS for rating PD.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy

Abstract: In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.