1,721,042 research outputs found

    Why sex matters: the biological mechanisms of cardiovascular disease.

    No full text
    Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the leading determinant of mortality and morbidity in women. However, a full understanding of the basic and clinical aspects of CVD in women is far from being accomplished. Sexual dimorphism in CVD has been reported both in humans and experimental animals. Menopause is a risk factor for CVD due to the reduction of endogenous estrogen, although the mechanisms underlying are poorly understood. Estrogens act through binding to vascular estrogen receptors and by non-genomic mechanisms. Advances in this field are essential to improve CVD diagnostic and clinical strategies in women, and to develop sex-specific prevention plans as much as female-oriented treatment algorithms. This paper reviews pathophysiology of CVD in women and its potential clinical implications. Particular emphasis is given to biochemical markers and to indicators of cardiovascular dysfunction and damage. Estimation of these parameters, central to cardiovascular pathophysiology, could represent a particularly relevant tool in female patients. More research is needed to identify women who will profit most of early intervention

    Monthly Intramuscular Neridronate for the Treatment of Postmenopausal Osteoporosis: Results of a 6-Year Prospective Italian Study

    Full text link
    Purpose. Oral bisphosphonates (BPs) are the most commonly used medications for osteoporosis (OP), but their poor gastrointestinal (GI) absorption and tolerance hamper compliance. Intramuscular (IM) neridronate (NE), an amino-BP, is an easy-to-administer, effective, and safe alternative to oral BPs. We assessed the 6-year effects of monthly IM NE on bone mineral density (BMD) and bone turnover biomarkers (BMs) in postmenopausal OP. Methods. This single-center, prospective study enrolled postmenopausal osteoporotic outpatients with gastric intolerance to BPs (based on Tuscany Region's law GRT n. 836 20/10/2008). They received 25mg IM NE once a month (with vitamin D and calcium if necessary) for 6 years. BMD was evaluated at lumbar spine (L1-L4), femoral neck (FN), and total femur (TF) at baseline (BL) and every 12 months afterwards. At BL, month 3, and every 12 months after BL, total and ionized calcium, vitamin D, parathyroid hormone 1-84, bone alkaline phosphatase (BALP), osteocalcin, and N- and C-terminal telopeptides were assayed. Results. Overall, 60 women (mean age: 62.3 +/- 7.5 years) received monthly IM NE for 6 years, with vitamin D and calcium supplementation in 81.3% of cases. Compared to BL, BMD increased significantly already after 1 year at all sites (4.5 +/- 0.9% for L1-L4, 4.5 +/- 0.8% for TF, and 2.1 +/- 0.6% for FN, P0.05), and the changes were maintained over time, whereas FN further improved up to year 3 and remained stable afterwards (P0.05). All BMs, except for total calcium and BALP, progressively decreased over time (P0.05). No fractures and significant adverse events were reported. Conclusion. The monthly administration of IM NE represents a manageable and effective option, in terms of BMD and bone BM improvement, for the long-term treatment of postmenopausal OP women with gastric intolerance to BPs. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03699150

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Full text link
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore