Role of cellular senescence and NOX4-mediated oxidative stress in systemic sclerosis pathogenesis.

Systemic sclerosis (SSc) is a systemic autoimmune disease characterized by progressive fibrosis of skin and numerous internal organs and a severe fibroproliferative vasculopathy resulting frequently in severe disability and high mortality. Although the etiology of SSc is unknown and the detailed mechanisms responsible for the fibrotic process have not been fully elucidated, one important observation from a large US population study was the demonstration of a late onset of SSc with a peak incidence between 45 and 54 years of age in African-American females and between 65 and 74 years of age in white females. Although it is not appropriate to consider SSc as a disease of aging, the possibility that senescence changes in the cellular elements involved in its pathogenesis may play a role has not been thoroughly examined. The process of cellular senescence is extremely complex, and the mechanisms, molecular events, and signaling pathways involved have not been fully elucidated; however, there is strong evidence to support the concept that oxidative stress caused by the excessive generation of reactive oxygen species may be one important mechanism involved. On the other hand, numerous studies have implicated oxidative stress in SSc pathogenesis, thus, suggesting a plausible mechanism in which excessive oxidative stress induces cellular senescence and that the molecular events associated with this complex process play an important role in the fibrotic and fibroproliferative vasculopathy characteristic of SSc. Here, recent studies examining the role of cellular senescence and of oxidative stress in SSc pathogenesis will be reviewed

Delphi consensus on the current clinical and therapeutic knowledge on Anderson-Fabry disease

BACKGROUND: Management of Anderson-Fabry disease (AFD) is contentious, particularly regarding enzyme replacement therapy (ERT). We report results of a Delphi consensus panel on AFD management. METHODS: A survey to gauge consensus among AFD experts was distributed online and responses were analysed. Statements on: 1) diagnosis; 2) when starting ERT; 3) management of ERT infusion and adverse reactions; and 4) follow-up/monitoring response to therapy and progression of disease were included. Responses without consensus were discussed with an enlarged panel and modified to reach consensus. RESULTS: 15 experts responded to the survey. After plenary discussion among the enlarged panel, consensus was reached on most statements. Key points were the use of a target organ biopsy to show Gb3 deposits in symptomatic women with negative molecular analysis, the need for ERT in symptomatic women and in all patients with persistent signs and symptoms±organ damage. It was agreed to assess vital signs before ERT administration and use a 0.2μL filter on infusion to reduce the risk of adverse reactions, that serum should be drawn prior to the first infusion for anti-agalsidase antibody analysis to have a baseline value if a subsequent adverse reaction appears, and that pre-medication is required in those with prior infusion reactions. Holter ECG monitoring, cardiac and brain MRI, renal parameters, and abdominal ultrasound were considered important for the assessment of disease progression and response at ERT. CONCLUSIONS: This consensus supplies guidance to healthcare providers on best practice in the management of patients with AFD and indicates a need for more guidanc

Pretomanid for tuberculosis treatment: an update for clinical purposes

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic determined a 10 years-set back in tuberculosis (TB) control programs. Recent advances in available therapies may help recover the time lost. While Linezolid (LZD) and Bedaquiline (BDQ), previously Group D second line drugs (SLDs) for TB, have been relocated to Group A, other drugs are currently being studied in regimens for drug resistant TB (DR-TB). Among these, Pretomanid (PA), a recently introduced antimycobacterial drug derived from nitroimidazole with both solid bactericidal and bacteriostatic effect, and with an excellent effectiveness and tolerability profile, is in the spotlight. Following promising data obtained from recently published and ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), the World Health Organization (WHO) determined to include PA in its guidelines for the treatment of rifampicin-resistant (RR), multi drug resistant (MDR) and pre-extensively drug resistant TB (pre-XDR-TB) with BDQ, LZD and Moxifloxacine (MFX) in a 6-month regimen. Although further studies on the subject are needed, PA may also represent a treatment option for drug-susceptible TB (DS-TB), latent TB infection (LTBI) and non tuberculous mycobacteria (NTM). This narrative review aims to examine current implementation options and future possibilities for PA in the never-ending fight against TB

Comparison of three treatment protocols with intra-articular low or intermediate molecular weight hyaluronic acid in early symptomatic knee osteoarthritis

Introduction: Viscosupplementation with hyaluronic acid (HA) is indicated for non-responders to non-pharmacological therapy, to analgesics or when non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are contraindicated. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy, safety and costs of three different HA treatments (Sinovial® Forte, sinovial one and hyalgan). Patients and methods: Ninety patients with grade I/II Kellgren–Lawrence knee osteoarthritis were included in three groups, the first was treated with hyalgan (weekly for 5 weeks), the second with Sinovial® Forte (weekly for 3 weeks) and the third group with a single injection of sinovial one. Results: All three treatments were effective, with an average reduction in the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) score of 18.9 points for hyalgan, 18.04 points for Sinovial® Forte and 17.92 points for sinovial one. The comparison of the three groups did not show any statistical difference in terms of efficacy. National health system (NHS) and social costs are, respectively, €419.12 and €853.43 for hyalgan, €338.64 and €599.22 for Sinovial® Forte, €221.56 and €308.42 for sinovial one. Conclusion: All three treatments were equally effective with no statistically significant differences; thus, the treatment with sinovial one may be considered as clinically effective as the other two regimens, but with a very efficient cost profile in early symptomatic knee osteoarthritis