| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Zhu, RJ, et al.
(författare)
-
Mesenchymal stem cell treatment improves outcome of COVID-19 patients via multiple immunomodulatory mechanisms
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Cell research. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1748-7838 .- 1001-0602. ; 31:12, s. 1244-1262
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The infusion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) potentially improves clinical symptoms, but the underlying mechanism remains unclear. We conducted a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled (29 patients/group) phase II clinical trial to validate previous findings and explore the potential mechanisms. Patients treated with umbilical cord-derived MSCs exhibited a shorter hospital stay (P = 0.0198) and less time required for symptoms remission (P = 0.0194) than those who received placebo. Based on chest images, both severe and critical patients treated with MSCs showed improvement by day 7 (P = 0.0099) and day 21 (P = 0.0084). MSC-treated patients had fewer adverse events. MSC infusion reduced the levels of C-reactive protein, proinflammatory cytokines, and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) and promoted the maintenance of SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies. To explore how MSCs modulate the immune system, we employed single-cell RNA sequencing analysis on peripheral blood. Our analysis identified a novel subpopulation of VNN2+ hematopoietic stem/progenitor-like (HSPC-like) cells expressing CSF3R and PTPRE that were mobilized following MSC infusion. Genes encoding chemotaxis factors — CX3CR1 and L-selectin — were upregulated in various immune cells. MSC treatment also regulated B cell subsets and increased the expression of costimulatory CD28 in T cells in vivo and in vitro. In addition, an in vivo mouse study confirmed that MSCs suppressed NET release and reduced venous thrombosis by upregulating kindlin-3 signaling. Together, our results underscore the role of MSCs in improving COVID-19 patient outcomes via maintenance of immune homeostasis.
|
|
| 7. |
|
|
| 8. |
|
|
| 9. |
|
|
| 10. |
|
|
| 11. |
|
|
| 12. |
|
|
| 13. |
|
|
| 14. |
- Sbarra, AN, et al.
(författare)
-
Mapping routine measles vaccination in low- and middle-income countries
- 2021
-
Ingår i: Nature. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1476-4687 .- 0028-0836. ; 589:7842, s. 415-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- The safe, highly effective measles vaccine has been recommended globally since 1974, yet in 2017 there were more than 17 million cases of measles and 83,400 deaths in children under 5 years old, and more than 99% of both occurred in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)1–4. Globally comparable, annual, local estimates of routine first-dose measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) coverage are critical for understanding geographically precise immunity patterns, progress towards the targets of the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP), and high-risk areas amid disruptions to vaccination programmes caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)5–8. Here we generated annual estimates of routine childhood MCV1 coverage at 5 × 5-km2pixel and second administrative levels from 2000 to 2019 in 101 LMICs, quantified geographical inequality and assessed vaccination status by geographical remoteness. After widespread MCV1 gains from 2000 to 2010, coverage regressed in more than half of the districts between 2010 and 2019, leaving many LMICs far from the GVAP goal of 80% coverage in all districts by 2019. MCV1 coverage was lower in rural than in urban locations, although a larger proportion of unvaccinated children overall lived in urban locations; strategies to provide essential vaccination services should address both geographical contexts. These results provide a tool for decision-makers to strengthen routine MCV1 immunization programmes and provide equitable disease protection for all children.
|
|
| 15. |
|
|
| 16. |
|
|
| 17. |
|
|
| 18. |
- Zhang, JR, et al.
(författare)
-
Systematic bias between blinded independent central review and local assessment: literature review and analyses of 76 phase III randomised controlled trials in 45 688 patients with advanced solid tumour
- 2018
-
Ingår i: BMJ open. - : BMJ. - 2044-6055. ; 8:9, s. e017240-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Unbiased assessment of tumour response is crucial in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Blinded independent central review is usually used as a supplemental or monitor to local assessment but is costly. The aim of this study is to investigate whether systematic bias existed in RCTs by comparing the treatment effects of efficacy endpoints between central and local assessments.DesignLiterature review, pooling analysis and correlation analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, from 1 January 2010 to 30 June 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesEligible articles are phase III RCTs comparing anticancer agents for advanced solid tumours. Additionally, the articles should report objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), progression-free survival (PFS) or time to progression (TTP); the treatment effect of these endpoints, OR or HR, should be based on central and local assessments.ResultsOf 76 included trials involving 45 688 patients, 17 (22%) trials reported their endpoints with statistically inconsistent inferences (p value lower/higher than the probability of type I error) between central and local assessments; among them, 9 (53%) trials had statistically significant inference based on central assessment. Pooling analysis presented no systematic bias when comparing treatment effects of both assessments (ORR: OR=1.02 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.07), p=0.42, I2=0%; DCR: OR=0.97 (95% CI 0.92 to 1.03), p=0.32, I2=0%); PFS: HR=1.01 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.02), p=0.32, I2=0%; TTP: HR=1.04 (95% CI 0.95 to 1.14), p=0.37, I2=0%), regardless of funding source, mask, region, tumour type, study design, number of enrolled patients, response assessment criteria, primary endpoint and trials with statistically consistent/inconsistent inferences. Correlation analysis also presented no sign of systematic bias between central and local assessments (ORR, DCR, PFS: r>0.90, p<0.01; TTP: r=0.90, p=0.29).ConclusionsNo systematic bias could be found between local and central assessments in phase III RCTs on solid tumours. However, statistically inconsistent inferences could be made in many trials between both assessments.
|
|
| 19. |
|
|
| 20. |
- Zhou, XP, et al.
(författare)
-
Non-coding variability at the APOE locus contributes to the Alzheimer's risk
- 2019
-
Ingår i: Nature communications. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 2041-1723. ; 10:1, s. 3310-
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is a leading cause of mortality in the elderly. While the coding change of APOE-ε4 is a key risk factor for late-onset AD and has been believed to be the only risk factor in the APOE locus, it does not fully explain the risk effect conferred by the locus. Here, we report the identification of AD causal variants in PVRL2 and APOC1 regions in proximity to APOE and define common risk haplotypes independent of APOE-ε4 coding change. These risk haplotypes are associated with changes of AD-related endophenotypes including cognitive performance, and altered expression of APOE and its nearby genes in the human brain and blood. High-throughput genome-wide chromosome conformation capture analysis further supports the roles of these risk haplotypes in modulating chromatin states and gene expression in the brain. Our findings provide compelling evidence for additional risk factors in the APOE locus that contribute to AD pathogenesis.
|
|
