| 1. |
- Lindén, Daniel, 1971, et al.
(författare)
-
Pnpla3 silencing with antisense oligonucleotides ameliorates nonalcoholic steatohepatitis and fibrosis in Pnpla3 I148M knock-in mice.
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Molecular metabolism. - : Elsevier BV. - 2212-8778. ; 22:April, s. 49-61
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is becoming a leading cause of advanced chronic liver disease. The progression of NAFLD, including nonalcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH), has a strong genetic component, and the most robust contributor is the patatin-like phospholipase domain-containing 3 (PNPLA3) rs738409 encoding the 148M protein sequence variant. We hypothesized that suppressing the expression of the PNPLA3 148M mutant protein would exert a beneficial effect on the entire spectrum of NAFLD.We examined the effects of liver-targeted GalNAc3-conjugated antisense oligonucleotide (ASO)-mediated silencing of Pnpla3 in a knock-in mouse model in which we introduced the human PNPLA3 I148M mutation.ASO-mediated silencing of Pnpla3 reduced liver steatosis (p=0.038) in homozygous Pnpla3 148M/M knock-in mutant mice but not in wild-type littermates fed a steatogenic high-sucrose diet. In mice fed a NASH-inducing diet, ASO-mediated silencing of Pnpla3 reduced liver steatosis score and NAFLD activity score independent of the Pnpla3 genotype, while reductions in liver inflammation score (p=0.018) and fibrosis stage (p=0.031) were observed only in the Pnpla3 knock-in 148M/M mutant mice. These responses were accompanied by reduced liver levels of Mcp1 (p=0.026) and Timp2 (p=0.007) specifically in the mutant knock-in mice. This may reduce levels of chemokine attracting inflammatory cells and increase the collagenolytic activity during tissue regeneration.This study provides the first evidence that a Pnpla3 ASO therapy can improve all features of NAFLD, including liver fibrosis, and suppress the expression of a strong innate genetic risk factor, Pnpla3 148M, which may open up a precision medicine approach in NASH.
|
|
| 2. |
- Rubertsson, Sten, et al.
(författare)
-
Mechanical chest compressions and simultanous defibrillationvs conventional cardiopulmonary resuscitationin out-of hospital cardiac arrest:the LINC randomized trial
- 2014
-
Ingår i: Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). - : American Medical Association. - 0098-7484 .- 1538-3598. ; 311:1, s. 53-61
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- IMPORTANCE: A strategy using mechanical chest compressions might improve the poor outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, but such a strategy has not been tested in large clinical trials. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether administering mechanical chest compressions with defibrillation during ongoing compressions (mechanical CPR), compared with manual cardiopulmonary resuscitation (manual CPR), according to guidelines, would improve 4-hour survival. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multicenter randomized clinical trial of 2589 patients with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest conducted between January 2008 and February 2013 in 4 Swedish, 1 British, and 1 Dutch ambulance services and their referring hospitals. Duration of follow-up was 6 months. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive either mechanical chest compressions (LUCAS Chest Compression System, Physio-Control/Jolife AB) combined with defibrillation during ongoing compressions (n = 1300) or to manual CPR according to guidelines (n = 1289). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Four-hour survival, with secondary end points of survival up to 6 months with good neurological outcome using the Cerebral Performance Category (CPC) score. A CPC score of 1 or 2 was classified as a good outcome. RESULTS: Four-hour survival was achieved in 307 patients (23.6%) with mechanical CPR and 305 (23.7%) with manual CPR (risk difference, -0.05%; 95% CI, -3.3% to 3.2%; P > .99). Survival with a CPC score of 1 or 2 occurred in 98 (7.5%) vs 82 (6.4%) (risk difference, 1.18%; 95% CI, -0.78% to 3.1%) at intensive care unit discharge, in 108 (8.3%) vs 100 (7.8%) (risk difference, 0.55%; 95% CI, -1.5% to 2.6%) at hospital discharge, in 105 (8.1%) vs 94 (7.3%) (risk difference, 0.78%; 95% CI, -1.3% to 2.8%) at 1 month, and in 110 (8.5%) vs 98 (7.6%) (risk difference, 0.86%; 95% CI, -1.2% to 3.0%) at 6 months with mechanical CPR and manual CPR, respectively. Among patients surviving at 6 months, 99% in the mechanical CPR group and 94% in the manual CPR group had CPC scores of 1 or 2. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Among adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, there was no significant difference in 4-hour survival between patients treated with the mechanical CPR algorithm or those treated with guideline-adherent manual CPR. The vast majority of survivors in both groups had good neurological outcomes by 6 months. In clinical practice, mechanical CPR using the presented algorithm did not result in improved effectiveness compared with manual CPR. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00609778.
|
|
| 3. |
- Rubertsson, Sten, et al.
(författare)
-
Per-Protocol and Pre-Defined population analysis of the LINC study
- 2015
-
Ingår i: Resuscitation. - : Elsevier BV. - 0300-9572 .- 1873-1570. ; 96, s. 92-99
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE: To perform two predefined sub-group analyses within the LINC study and evaluate if the results were supportive of the previous reported intention to treat (ITT) analysis.METHODS: Predefined subgroup analyses from the previously published LINC study were performed. The Per-Protocol population (PPP) included the randomized patients included in the ITT-population but excluding those with violated inclusion or exclusion criteria and those that did not get the actual treatment to which the patient was randomized. In the Pre-Defined population (PDP) analyses patients were also excluded if the dispatch time to ambulance arrival at the address exceeded 12min, there was a non-witnessed cardiac arrest, or if it was not possible to determine whether the arrest was witnessed or not, and those cases where LUCAS was not brought to the scene at the first instance.RESULTS: After exclusion from the 2589 patients within the ITT-population, the Per-Protocol analysis was performed in 2370 patients and the Pre-Defined analysis within 1133 patients. There was no significant difference in 4-h survival of patients between the mechanical-CPR group and the manual-CPR group in the Per-Protocol population; 279 of 1172 patients (23.8%) versus 281 of 1198 patients (23.5%) (risk difference -0.35%, 95% C.I. -3.1 to 3.8, p=0.85) or in the Pre-Defined population; 176 of 567 patients (31.0%) versus 192 of 566 patients (33.9%) (risk difference -2.88%, 95% C.I. -8.3 to 2.6, p=0.31). There was no difference in any of the second outcome variables analyzed in the Pre-Protocol or Pre-Defined populations.CONCLUSIONS: The results from these predefined sub-group analyses of the LINC study population did not show any difference in 4h survival or in secondary outcome variables between patients treated with mechanical-CPR or manual-CPR. This is consistent with the previously published ITT analysis.
|
|
