Identification of the calcitonin receptor in osteoarthritic chondrocytes

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Preclinical and clinical studies have shown that salmon calcitonin has cartilage protective effects in joint degenerative diseases, such as osteoarthritis (OA). However, the presence of the calcitonin receptor (CTR) in articular cartilage chondrocytes is yet to be identified. In this study, we sought to further investigate the expression of the CTR in naïve human OA articular chondrocytes to gain further confirmation of the existents of the CTR in articular cartilage.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Total RNA was purified from primary chondrocytes from articular cartilage biopsies from four OA patients undergoing total knee replacement. High quality cDNA was produced using a dedicated reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) protocol. From this a nested PCR assay amplifying the full coding region of the CTR mRNA was completed. Western blotting and immunohistochemistry were used to characterize CTR protein on protein level in chondrocytes.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The full coding transcript of the CTR isoform 2 was identified in all four individuals. DNA sequencing revealed a number of allelic variants of the gene including two potentially novel polymorphisms: a frame shift mutation, +473del, producing a shorter form of the receptor protein, and a single nucleotide polymorphism in the 3' non coding region of the transcript, +1443 C>T. A 53 kDa protein band, consistent with non-glycosylated CTR isoform 2, was detected in chondrocytes with a similar size to that expressed in osteoclasts. Moreover the CTR was identified in the plasma membrane and the chondrocyte lacuna of both primary chondrocytes and OA cartilage section.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Human OA articular cartilage chondrocytes do indeed express the CTR, which makes the articular a pharmacological target of salmon calcitonin. In addition, the results support previous findings suggesting that calcitonin has a direct anabolic effect on articular cartilage.</p

High Burden of Non-Influenza Viruses in Influenza-Like Illness in the Early Weeks of H1N1v Epidemic in France

BACKGROUND: Influenza-like illness (ILI) may be caused by a variety of pathogens. Clinical observations are of little help to recognise myxovirus infection and implement appropriate prevention measures. The limited use of molecular tools underestimates the role of other common pathogens. OBJECTIVES: During the early weeks of the 2009-2010 flu pandemic, a clinical and virological survey was conducted in adult and paediatric patients with ILI referred to two French University hospitals in Paris and Tours. Aims were to investigate the different pathogens involved in ILI and describe the associated symptoms. METHODS: H1N1v pandemic influenza diagnosis was performed with real time RT-PCR assay. Other viral aetiologies were investigated by the molecular multiplex assay RespiFinder19®. Clinical data were collected prospectively by physicians using a standard questionnaire. RESULTS: From week 35 to 44, endonasal swabs were collected in 413 patients. Overall, 68 samples (16.5%) were positive for H1N1v. In 13 of them, other respiratory pathogens were also detected. Among H1N1v negative samples, 213 (61.9%) were positive for various respiratory agents, 190 in single infections and 23 in mixed infections. The most prevalent viruses in H1N1v negative single infections were rhinovirus (62.6%), followed by parainfluenza viruses (24.2%) and adenovirus (5.3%). 70.6% of H1N1v cases were identified in patients under 40 years and none after 65 years. There was no difference between clinical symptoms observed in patients infected with H1N1v or with other pathogens. CONCLUSION: Our results highlight the high frequency of non-influenza viruses involved in ILI during the pre-epidemic period of a flu alert and the lack of specific clinical signs associated with influenza infections. Rapid diagnostic screening of a large panel of respiratory pathogens may be critical to define and survey the epidemic situation and to provide critical information for patient management

Be careful with triage in emergency departments: interobserver agreement on 1,578 patients in France

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>For several decades, emergency departments (EDs) utilization has increased, inducing ED overcrowding in many countries. This phenomenon is related partly to an excessive number of nonurgent patients. To resolve ED overcrowding and to decrease nonurgent visits, the most common solution has been to triage the ED patients to identify potentially nonurgent patients, i.e. which could have been dealt with by general practitioner. The objective of this study was to measure agreement among ED health professionals on the urgency of an ED visit, and to determine if the level of agreement is consistent among different sub-groups based on following explicit criteria: age, medical status, type of referral to the ED, investigations performed in the ED, and the discharge from the ED.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a multicentric cross-sectional study to compare agreement between nurses and physicians on categorization of ED visits into urgent or nonurgent. Subgroups stratified by criteria characterizing the ED visit were analyzed in relation to the outcome of the visit.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Of 1,928 ED patients, 350 were excluded because data were lacking. The overall nurse-physician agreement on categorization was moderate (kappa = 0.43). The levels of agreement within all subgroups were variable and low. The highest agreement concerned three subgroups of complaints: cranial injury (kappa = 0.61), gynaecological (kappa = 0.66) and toxicology complaints (kappa = 1.00). The lowest agreement concerned two subgroups: urinary-nephrology (kappa = 0.09) and hospitalization (kappa = 0.20). When categorization of ED visits into urgent or nonurgent cases was compared to hospitalization, ED physicians had higher sensitivity and specificity than nurses (respectively 94.9% versus 89.5%, and 43.1% versus 30.9%).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The lack of physician-nurse agreement and the inability to predict hospitalization have important implications for patient safety. When urgency screening is used to determine treatment priority, disagreement might not matter because all patients in the ED are seen and treated. But using assessments as the basis for refusal of care to potential nonurgent patients raises legal, ethical, and safety issues. Managed care organizations should be cautious when applying such criteria to restrict access to EDs.</p