More than half of heart failure (HF) patients have concomitant pulmonary hypertension, impacting symptoms and prognosis. The role of exercise in this category of patients is still unclear, probably because of the lack of a clear relationship between exercise and acute and chronic pulmonary artery pressure variations and related changes in symptoms. The limited evidence on this topic is contradictory and hardly comparable due to use of different exercise programmes and pulmonary artery pressure assessment techniques. This is further compounded by different functional and structural classes of HF making definite assessments and interpretations of exercise effect on outcomes difficult. Exercise training programmes were proven beneficial in HF patients; however, the lack of data about their pulmonary haemodynamic effects prevents clear indications on the best exercise types for patients presenting secondary pulmonary hypertension and different HF categories. Indeed, some data suggest that not all HF patients have similar responses to training, leading to either beneficial or detrimental effects, depending on the HF type. Future studies, involving modern technologies such as continuous pulmonary artery pressure monitoring implantable devices, may clarify the current gaps in this field, aiming at patient-tailored exercise training rehabilitation programmes, in order to improve clinical outcomes, quality of life, and hopefully prognosis.
Multiple cytokines play a critical role in orchestrating and perpetuating inflammation in asthma and several specific cytokine and chemokine inhibitors are now in development as future therapy. Anti-interleukin (IL)-5 antibodies markedly reduce peripheral blood and airway eosinophils, but do not appear to be effective in symptomatic asthma. Inhibition of IL-4, despite promising early results in asthma, has been discontinued and blocking IL-13 may be more effective. Inhibitory cytokines, such as IL-10, interferons and IL-12 are less promising, because systemic delivery produces side-effects. Inhibition of tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α may be useful in severe asthma. Many chemokines are involved in the inflammatory response of asthma and several small molecule inhibitors of chemokine receptors are in development. The CCR3 antagonists (which block eosinophil chemotaxis) are in clinical development for asthma. Because so many cytokines are involved in asthma, drugs that inhibit the synthesis of multiple cytokines may prove to be more useful; several such classes of drug are now in clinical development and any risk of side-effects with these non-specific inhibitors may be reduced by the inhaled route.
Conference Abstract| February 01 1984 New Device for Airflow Measurement: Comparison with Pneumotachograph and Differentiated Respitrace Volume S. E. Mannix; S. E. Mannix 1Department of Medicine, Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Hammersmith Hospital, London W12 OHS Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar P. Chowienczyk; P. Chowienczyk 1Department of Medicine, Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Hammersmith Hospital, London W12 OHS Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar P. J. Barnes; P. J. Barnes 1Department of Medicine, Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Hammersmith Hospital, London W12 OHS Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar N. B. Pride N. B. Pride 1Department of Medicine, Royal Postgraduate Medical School, Hammersmith Hospital, London W12 OHS Search for other works by this author on: This Site PubMed Google Scholar Clin Sci (Lond) (1984) 66 (2): 58P. https://doi.org/10.1042/cs066058Pa_pt2 Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Share Icon Share Twitter LinkedIn Cite Icon Cite Get Permissions Citation S. E. Mannix, P. Chowienczyk, P. J. Barnes, N. B. Pride; New Device for Airflow Measurement: Comparison with Pneumotachograph and Differentiated Respitrace Volume. Clin Sci (Lond) 1 February 1984; 66 (2): 58P. doi: https://doi.org/10.1042/cs066058Pa_pt2 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search nav search search input Search input auto suggest search filter All ContentAll JournalsClinical Science Search Advanced Search This content is only available as a PDF. © 1984 The Biochemical Society and the Medical Research Society1984 Article PDF first page preview Close Modal You do not currently have access to this content.
No abstract is provided for this article.
β-Adrenoceptors regulate many aspects of lung function and β-adrenergic agonists have become the most widely used bronchodilators for the treatment of obstructive airway diseases. There have been important advances in our understanding of the molecular structure and regulation of β-adrenoceptors, which have implications for elucidating β-adrenoceptor function in airway disease and the mechanisms of action of β-agonists [1, 2]. At least three β-adrenoceptors are now recognized (Table 1). β1-Receptors, which are preferentially activated by noradrenaline, are physiologically regulated by sympathetic nerves; β2-receptors are preferentially regulated by circulating adrenaline; β3-receptors or "atypical" β-receptors are involved in lipolysis but are increasingly recognized in other functions. β2-Receptors predominate in lungs and mediate most of the effects of β-agonist on airway function.
Recent reports of randomised trials (ABSORB II, ABSORB Japan and ABSORB China) have raised questions on the “non” non-inferiority of the acute and long-term performance of the Absorb bioresorbable scaffold (BRS) when compared to the XIENCE stent (both Abbott Vascular, Santa Clara, CA, USA). Furthermore, very late scaffold thrombosis has been perceived as a possible new unexpected “enemy” – unexpected because thrombosis occurred at a moment when the scaffold was expected to have disappeared. The three main players in this new debate are: the patient/lesion, the device, and the interventionalist. The selection of the patient/lesion might be inappropriate, the device may have inherent deficiencies and the operator may have used the device inappropriately. If the matter were not of paramount importance for the wellbeing of our patients and were not a topic that demands our utmost medical attention, we would have rephrased the title of a past editorial, “Who was thrombogenic, the device, the doctor…or the patient?”. The format of the present commentary is neither an editorial nor a review, but should be considered as the personal views of two clinical scientists who have been involved in the pioneering investigations of this device and have historical and current insights into the field.