Interaction Between ACTN3 (R577X), ACE (I/D), and BDKRB2 (-9/+9) Polymorphisms and Endurance Phenotypes in Brazilian Long-Distance Swimmers.

ABSTRACT: Neto, SLdA, Herrera, JJB, Rosa, TS, de Almeida, SS, Silva, GCB, Ferreira, CES, dos Santos, MAP, Silvino, VO, de Melo, GF. Interaction between ACTN3 (R577X), ACE (I/D), and BDKRB2 (-9/+9) polymorphisms and endurance phenotypes in Brazilian long-distance swimmers. J Strength Cond Res 36(6): 1591-1595, 2022-This study investigated the interactions between the polymorphisms ACTN3 (R577X), ACE (I/D), and BDKRB2 (-9/+9) and their association with endurance phenotypes in Brazilian long-distance swimmers. Twenty-six volunteers (aged 18-30 years) were divided into 2 groups as follows: 19 subelite athletes formed the pool swimming experts (PSE: 400-1500 m) group and 7 elite athletes the open water swimming experts (OWSE: 5-25 km) group. ACTN3 (R577X), ACE (I/D), and BDKRB2 (-9/+9) polymorphisms were genotyped through polymerase chain reaction. A nonathletes control (CON) group derived from studies with the Brazilian population was created. Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium (X2) was observed in all groups. The total genotype score (TGS) associated with endurance phenotypes was used in this study. A significance level was established at p ≤ 0.05. PSE and CON groups had very similar genotyping distribution. The OWSE group had a greater frequency for the genotypes XX (57.1%), ID (57.1%), and the alleles X (71.4%) and I (57.2%) than CON and PSE groups (XX = 21.1 and 21.1%; ID = 47.1 and 52.6% [p > 0.05]; X = 44.0 and 42.1%; I = 45.3 and 42.1%, respectively). Considering BDKRB2, OWSE and PSE groups had a greater frequency of +9/+9 than the CON group (42.9% and 31.6 vs. 27.5%, respectively). Although the expected genotypic distribution was not verified among athletes, the TGS revealed small supremacy of 3-5 typical alleles in the OWSE group (54.8 ± 26.7%) compared with the PSE group (41.2 ± 17.8%) (p = 0.072; confidence interval = 95%; effect size = 0.95). The OWSE group seem to have benefited from the best genotype profile verified for ACTN3 and ACE. However, the results of this work should be approached with caution because of the small number of athletes and polymorphisms assessed.

Circulating microparticles and central blood pressure according to antihypertensive strategy.

OBJECTIVES: This prospective, randomized, open-label study aimed to compare the effects of antihypertensive treatment based on amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide on the circulating microparticles and central blood pressure values of hypertensive patients. METHODS: The effects of treatments on circulating microparticles were assessed during monotherapy and after the consecutive addition of valsartan and rosuvastatin followed by the withdrawal of rosuvastatin. Each treatment period lasted for 30 days. Central blood pressure and pulse wave velocity were measured at the end of each period. Endothelial, monocyte, and platelet circulating microparticles were determined by flow cytometry. Central blood pressure values and pulse wave velocity were recorded at the end of each treatment period. RESULTS: No differences in brachial blood pressure were observed between the treatment groups throughout the study. Although similar central blood pressure values were observed during monotherapy, lower systolic and diastolic central blood pressure values and early and late blood pressure peaks were observed in the amlodipine arm after the addition of valsartan alone or combined with rosuvastatin. Hydrochlorothiazide-based therapy was associated with a lower number of endothelial microparticles throughout the study, whereas a higher number of platelet microparticles was observed after rosuvastatin withdrawal in the amlodipine arm. CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar brachial blood pressure values between groups throughout the study, exposure to amlodipine was associated with lower central blood pressure values after combination with valsartan, indicating a beneficial interaction. Differences between circulating microparticles were modest and were mainly influenced by rosuvastatin withdrawal in the amlodipine arm.

Circulating microparticles and central blood pressure according to antihypertensive strategy

OBJECTIVES: This prospective, randomized, open-label study aimed to compare the effects of antihypertensive treatment based on amlodipine or hydrochlorothiazide on the circulating microparticles and central blood pressure values of hypertensive patients. METHODS: The effects of treatments on circulating microparticles were assessed during monotherapy and after the consecutive addition of valsartan and rosuvastatin followed by the withdrawal of rosuvastatin. Each treatment period lasted for 30 days. Central blood pressure and pulse wave velocity were measured at the end of each period. Endothelial, monocyte, and platelet circulating microparticles were determined by flow cytometry. Central blood pressure values and pulse wave velocity were recorded at the end of each treatment period. RESULTS: No differences in brachial blood pressure were observed between the treatment groups throughout the study. Although similar central blood pressure values were observed during monotherapy, lower systolic and diastolic central blood pressure values and early and late blood pressure peaks were observed in the amlodipine arm after the addition of valsartan alone or combined with rosuvastatin. Hydrochlorothiazide-based therapy was associated with a lower number of endothelial microparticles throughout the study, whereas a higher number of platelet microparticles was observed after rosuvastatin withdrawal in the amlodipine arm. CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar brachial blood pressure values between groups throughout the study, exposure to amlodipine was associated with lower central blood pressure values after combination with valsartan, indicating a beneficial interaction. Differences between circulating microparticles were modest and were mainly influenced by rosuvastatin withdrawal in the amlodipine arm.

Clinical Applications of Point-of-Care Testing in Different Conditions.

BACKGROUND: The use of point-of-care testing (POCT) in different clinical applications is justified by the fact that the time to release the result is shortened, allowing the physician to define the diagnosis and most appropriate therapy in a shorter time. However, the negative aspects must also be highlighted and studied so that we can move forward with the use of these devices. These negative aspects include greater analytical imprecision compared to laboratory automation, the variability between different equipment from different manufacturers, the risk of inappropriate use, a low level of global regulation, higher costs compared with laboratory testing and cost ineffectiveness in terms of health care. Methods and. RESULTS: This review presents some clinical applications of POCT in different scenarios, such as for diabetes mellitus, infectious diseases, pediatrics, and chronic kidney disease, among others. CONCLUSIONS: We hope to see a global consensus on an acceptable quality standard for performing POCT that is adaptable, practical, and cost effective in primary care settings, ensuring patient safety, and minimizing the risk of harm.

Point-of-Care Testing: General Aspects.

Point-of-Care Testing (POCT) has been highlighted in the health care sector in recent decades. On the other hand, due to its low demand, POCT is at a disadvantage compared to conventional equipment, since its cost is inversely proportional to the volume of use. In addition, for the implementation of POCT to succeed, it is essential to rely on the work of a multidisciplinary team. The awareness of health professionals of the importance of each step is perhaps the critical success factor. The trend towards the continuous advancement of the use of POCT and the great potential of its contributions reinforce the need to implement quality management tools, including performance indicators, to ensure their results. This review presents some advantages and disadvantages concerning POCT and the real need to use it. A worldwide call for the availability of easy-to-use health technologies that are increasingly closer to the final user is one of the main reasons for this focus.

Monocyte subtypes and the CCR2 chemokine receptor in cardiovascular disease.

Monocytes circulate in the blood and migrate to inflammatory tissues, but their functions can be either detrimental or beneficial, depending on their phenotypes. In humans, classical monocytes are inflammatory cluster of differentiation (CD)14++CD16-CCR2++ cells originated from the bone marrow or spleen reservoirs and comprise ≥92% of monocytes. Intermediate monocytes (CD14++CD16+CCR2+) are involved in the production of anti-inflammatory cytokines [such as interleukin (IL)-10], reactive oxygen species (ROS), and proinflammatory mediators [such as tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) and IL-1ß). Nonclassical monocytes (CD14+CD16++CCR2-) are patrolling cells involved in tissue repair and debris removal from the vasculature. Many studies in both humans and animals have shown the importance of monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) and its receptor [chemokine receptor of MCP-1 (CCR2)] in pathologies, such as atherosclerosis and myocardial infarction (MI). This review presents the importance of these monocyte subsets in cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), and sheds light on new strategies for the blocking of the MCP-1/CCR2 axis as a therapeutic goal for treating vascular disorders.

Challenges Facing the Use of Endothelial Progenitor Cells in Stem Cell Therapies.

The paper summarizes the difficulties to study the rare population of endothelial progenitor cells in clinical trials, based on the experience of our group in many publications in this area.