Nitric oxide treatments as adjuncts to reperfusion in acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review of experimental and clinical studies.

Unmodified reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction (AMI) is associated with irreversible myocardial injury beyond that sustained during ischemia. Studies in experimental models of ischemia/reperfusion and in humans undergoing reperfusion therapy for AMI have examined potential beneficial effects of nitric oxide (NO) supplemented at the time of reperfusion. Using a rigorous systematic search approach, we have identified and critically evaluated all the relevant experimental and clinical literature to assess whether exogenous NO given at reperfusion can limit infarct size. An inclusive search strategy was undertaken to identify all in vivo experimental animal and clinical human studies published in the period 1990-2014 where NO gas, nitrite, nitrate or NO donors were given to ameliorate reperfusion injury. Articles were screened at title and subsequently at abstract level, followed by objective full text analysis using a critical appraisal tool. In twenty-one animal studies, all NO treatments except nitroglycerin afforded protection against measures of reperfusion injury, including infarct size, creatinine kinase release, neutrophil accumulation and cardiac dysfunction. In three human AMI RCT's, there was no consistent evidence of infarct limitation associated with NO treatment as an adjunct to reperfusion. Despite experimental evidence that most NO treatments can reduce infarct size when given as adjuncts to reperfusion, the value of these interventions in clinical AMI is unproven. Our study raises issues for the design of further clinical studies and emphasises the need for improved design of animal studies to reflect more accurately the comorbidities and other confounding factors seen in clinical AMI.

Bibliometric Assessment of European and Sub-Saharan African Research Output on Poverty-Related and Neglected Infectious Diseases from 2003 to 2011.

BACKGROUND: The European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) is a partnership of European and sub-Saharan African countries that aims to accelerate the development of medical interventions against poverty-related diseases (PRDs). A bibliometric analysis was conducted to 1) measure research output from European and African researchers on PRDs, 2) describe collaboration patterns, and 3) assess the citation impact of clinical research funded by EDCTP. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Disease-specific research publications were identified in Thomson Reuters Web of Science using search terms in titles, abstracts and keywords. Publication data, including citation counts, were extracted for 2003-2011. Analyses including output, share of global papers, normalised citation impact (NCI), and geographical distribution are presented. Data are presented as five-year moving averages. European EDCTP member countries accounted for ~33% of global research output in PRDs and sub-Saharan African countries for ~10% (2007-2011). Both regions contributed more to the global research output in malaria (43.4% and 22.2%, respectively). The overall number of PRD papers from sub-Saharan Africa increased markedly (>47%) since 2003, particularly for HIV/AIDS (102%) and tuberculosis (TB) (81%), and principally involving Southern and East Africa. For 2007-2011, European and sub-Saharan African research collaboration on PRDs was highly cited compared with the world average (NCI in brackets): HIV/AIDS 1.62 (NCI: 1.16), TB 2.11 (NCI: 1.06), malaria 1.81 (NCI: 1.22), and neglected infectious diseases 1.34 (NCI: 0.97). The NCI of EDCTP-funded papers for 2003-2011 was exceptionally high for HIV/AIDS (3.24), TB (4.08) and HIV/TB co-infection (5.10) compared with global research benchmarks (1.14, 1.05 and 1.35, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The volume and citation impact of papers from sub-Saharan Africa has increased since 2003, as has collaborative research between Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. >90% of publications from EDCTP-funded research were published in high-impact journals and are highly cited. These findings corroborate the benefit of collaborative research on PRDs.