Regenerative Medicine: A New Perspective on a Controversial Topic
By medpagetoday.com
The year was 2001, but it seems like only yesterday that President George W. Bush's restriction on funding for new embryonic stem cell research made the front pages of every national newspaper, giving rise to significant ethical debates - and driving some U.S. scientists to set up laboratories in other countries.
Fast forward to last fall when a former colleague, Robin L. Smith, MD, MBA, forwarded me a copy of the proceedings from "The Progress of Regenerative Medicine and Its Cultural Impact", an international conference that was co-sponsored by the Pontifical Council for Culture and held in Vatican City.
The surprising confluence of science and religion was refreshing; it prompted me to dive a little deeper into what has transpired in the field of stem cell research over the past 15 years.
Although research on embryonic stem cell lines continues, the field has become much less dependent on them since 2006, when Shinya Yamanaka (a Japanese researcher who later won a Nobel Prize) devised a method for turning adult cells back into stem cells (i.e., cells with the ability to become differentiated cell types.)
Extraordinary progress in the field of stem cell research has laid the foundation for a broad range of cell-based therapies that arrest degeneration or restore functionality for patients with diseases that cannot be cured by traditional medicines; today, at least 4,500 clinical trials are underway in the U.S. using adult stem cells to directly treat patients with heart disease, blindness, Parkinson's disease, HIV, diabetes, blood cancers, spinal cord injuries, and other conditions.
Beyond direct therapies, researchers are creating stem cells from adult cells of patients with challenging chronic conditions (e.g., amyotrophic lateral sclerosis) to study diseases in Petri dishes; and Australian scientists have developed a new technique for reprogramming bone and fat cells as stem cells – a breakthrough with enormous potential for treating back pain, spinal disc injury, and joint degeneration.
All of this has led to the emergence of regenerative medicine, a branch of medical science that works to restore the structure and function of damaged tissues and organs, and to create solutions for organs that become permanently damaged.
What does all this portend for population health – and, importantly, how might these advances impact the culture of medicine and change everyday clinical practice?
For insight into these questions, I turned to Smith, a global thought leader, medical expert in cell therapy research, president of the Stem for Life Foundation, and respected author and Huffington Post columnist.
On the population health front, she anticipates that continued advances in the science, safety, and ethics of adult stem cell use to defend against disease and reduce the effects of degeneration will result in people living longer, more productive lives.
As the health system continues its shift toward spending on value rather than volume, she expects that nontraditional medical and technological constructs (e.g., personalized medicine, immunotherapy, regenerative medicine, genomics and "big data") will be pivotal in improving patients' access to the most appropriate treatments.
She foresees a gradual but steady change in the way practicing physicians approach disease – a shift from treating symptoms with drugs to understanding and addressing the underlying causes of disease and degeneration; this will require physician education in new concepts, and collaboration among generalists and specialists (e.g., oncologists, immunologists).
In a nutshell, Smith makes a very convincing case that "cells are the new drugs" in the clinician's armamentarium.
Source: http://www.medpagetoday.com/columns/focusonpolicy/63562
cialis index fórum http://cialissom.com/ how long do side effects of cialis last cialis generic who has the best price on cialis cialis cheap effets indésirables cialis 20mg http://cialisles.com/ generic cialis
Thursday, May 14, 2026
Furosemide (Lasix) - Diuretics guide
Furosemide, sold under the brand name Lasix, is a loop diuretic and one of the most potent and widely used diuretic agents in clinical medicine. Unlike thiazide diuretics that act in the distal tubule of the kidney, furosemide works in the thick ascending limb of the loop of Henle by blocking the sodium-potassium-chloride cotransporter, producing a robust increase in urinary output. The primary clinical applications of furosemide include edema management in heart failure, liver cirrhosis, and kidney disease, as well as treatment of hypertension, particularly in patients with reduced kidney function where thiazide diuretics lose much of their effectiveness. Furosemide maintains diuretic activity even at substantially reduced glomerular filtration rates, making it the preferred diuretic option when renal impairment is present. In heart failure management, furosemide is frequently used both for long-term maintenance of fluid balance and for acute decompensation when patients develop rapid fluid accumulation. IV formulations are used in hospital settings for acute decompensated heart failure, while oral formulations support chronic outpatient management. The diuretic effect of furosemide is more rapid and intense than thiazide diuretics. Oral doses typically produce increased urine output within one to two hours, with peak effect around two hours and duration of four to six hours. This pharmacokinetic profile means that twice-daily dosing is common, and many patients take furosemide in the morning and early afternoon to concentrate fluid excretion during waking hours. Common electrolyte considerations with furosemide include hypokalemia, hypomagnesemia, and in some cases hyponatremia. Because furosemide promotes greater sodium and potassium loss than thiazides, electrolyte monitoring is done more frequently, especially at the start of therapy or after dose changes. Potassium replacement or combination with potassium-sparing diuretics is often part of the long-term plan. Ototoxicity is a rare but recognized adverse effect of furosemide, most often seen with very high intravenous doses or in patients with preexisting hearing impairment. At typical oral doses used for chronic management, clinically significant hearing effects are uncommon. Patients with sulfonamide allergy history sometimes raise questions about furosemide, which contains a sulfonamide moiety. Cross-reactivity risks are generally considered low, but prescribers review allergy histories individually when initiating therapy. For patients who want to understand how loop diuretic therapy fits their clinical situation, learning about lasix-furosemide for fluid and blood pressure management provides relevant background. For a broader view of the diuretic medication category and how agents in this class compare, patients can explore diuretic medication guides and patient resources.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.