BackgroundScleroderma is an autoimmune disease with a characteristic vascular pathology. The vasculopathy associated with scleroderma is one of the major contributors to the clinical manifestations of the disease.Methodology/Principal FindingsWe used immunohistochemical and mRNA in situ hybridization techniques to characterize this vasculopathy and showed with morphometry that scleroderma has true capillary rarefaction. We compared skin biopsies from 23 scleroderma patients and 24 normal controls and 7 scleroderma patients who had undergone high dose immunosuppressive therapy followed by autologous hematopoietic cell transplant. Along with the loss of capillaries there was a dramatic change in endothelial phenotype in the residual vessels. The molecules defining this phenotype are: vascular endothelial cadherin, a supposedly universal endothelial marker required for tube formation (lost in the scleroderma tissue), antiangiogenic interferon α (overexpressed in the scleroderma dermis) and RGS5, a signaling molecule whose expression coincides with the end of branching morphogenesis during development and tumor angiogenesis (also overexpressed in scleroderma skin. Following high dose immunosuppressive therapy, patients experienced clinical improvement and 5 of the 7 patients with scleroderma had increased capillary counts. It was also observed in the same 5 patients, that the interferon α and vascular endothelial cadherin had returned to normal as other clinical signs in the skin regressed, and in all 7 patients, RGS5 had returned to normal.Conclusion/SignificanceThese data provide the first objective evidence for loss of vessels in scleroderma and show that this phenomenon is reversible. Coordinate changes in expression of three molecules already implicated in angiogenesis or anti-angiogenesis suggest that control of expression of these three molecules may be the underlying mechanism for at least the vascular component of this disease. Since rarefaction has been little studied, these data may have implications for other diseases characterized by loss of capillaries including hypertension, congestive heart failure and scar formation.

Objective. We attempted to elucidate possible pathogenetic mechanisms in scleroderma by analysis of gene expression patterns of purified monocytes and lymphocytes, as well as protein profiles of cytokines and growth factors.Methods. Expression analysis was performed on messenger RNA (mRNA) from cells that had been purified with magnetic beads. Plasma samples from the same patients were used for multiplex cytokine analysis. Potential sources of proteins were also examined by in situ hybridization of skin specimens.Results. A total of 1,800 genes from monocytes and 863 genes from CD4؉ T cells were differentially expressed in scleroderma patients. As observed by other investigators using unfractionated peripheral blood cells from patients with autoimmune connective tissue diseases, the cell type-specific analyses of our scleroderma samples showed expression of genes suggesting the presence of interferon-␣ (IFN␣), despite the apparent absence of this cytokine in plasma. IFN␣ RNA was, however, expressed at enhanced levels in vascular and perivascular cells in scleroderma skin samples. While levels of interleukin-1␣ (IL-1␣) and IL-16 were among 10 proteins found to be significantly elevated in scleroderma patients, none of the large panel of plasma cytokines we analyzed correlated with the expression levels of putative IFN response genes.Conclusion. The pattern of up-regulation of mRNA in both the monocytes and CD4 lymphocytes of scleroderma patients, together with the detection of IFN␣ RNA in the microvasculature, suggests that leukocytes respond to this cytokine locally in the vessels. Detection of high levels of IL-1␣ and IL-16 in plasma and the independence of these protein levels from the IFN signature, implicates an independent contribution of other cytokines to immune activation and/or inflammation in scleroderma.

BackgroundMany people now take multiple medications on a long-term basis to manage health conditions. Optimising the benefit of such polypharmacy requires tailoring of medicines use to the needs and circumstances of individuals. However, professionals report barriers to achieving this in practice. In this study, we examined health professionals’ perceptions of enablers and barriers to delivering individually tailored prescribing.MethodsNormalisation Process Theory (NPT) informed an on-line survey of health professionals’ views of enablers and barriers to implementation of Individually Tailored Prescribing (ITP) of medicines. Links to the survey were sent out through known professional networks using a convenience/snowball sampling approach. Survey questions sought to identify perceptions of supports/barriers for ITP within the four domains of work described by NPT: sense making, engagement, action and monitoring. Analysis followed the framework approach developed in our previous work.ResultsFour hundred and nineteen responses were included in the final analysis (67.3% female, 32.7% male; 52.7% nurse prescribers, 19.8% pharmacists and 21.8% GPs). Almost half (44.9%) were experienced practitioners (16+ years in practice); around one third reported already routinely offering ITP to their patients. GPs were the group least likely to recognise this as consistent usual practice. Findings revealed general support for the principles of ITP but significant variation and inconsistency in understanding and implementation in practice. Our findings reveal four key implications for practice: the need to raise understanding of ITP as a legitimate part of professional practice; to prioritise the work of ITP within the range of individual professional activity; to improve the consistency of training and support for interpretive practice; and to review the impact of formal and informal monitoring processes on practice.ConclusionThe findings will inform the ongoing development of our new complex intervention (PRIME Prescribing) to support the individual tailoring of medicines needed to address problematic polypharmacy.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-017-0705-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundEffective programmes to help children manage their weight are required. ‘Families for Health’ focuses on a parenting approach, designed to help parents develop their parenting skills to support lifestyle change within the family. Families for Health version 1 showed sustained reductions in mean body mass index (BMI) z-score after 2 years in a pilot project.ObjectiveThe aim was to evaluate its effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a randomised controlled trial (RCT).DesignThe trial was a multicentre, investigator-blind RCT, with a parallel economic and process evaluation, with follow-up at 3 and 12 months. Randomisation was by family unit, using a 1 : 1 allocation by telephone registration, stratified by three sites, with a target of 120 families.SettingThree sites in the West Midlands, England, UK.ParticipantsChildren aged 6–11 years who were overweight (≥ 91st centile BMI) or obese (≥ 98th centile BMI), and their parents/carers. Recruitment was via referral or self-referral.InterventionsFamilies for Health version 2 is a 10-week, family-based community programme with parallel groups for parents and children, addressing parenting, lifestyle, social and emotional development. Usual care was the treatment for childhood obesity provided within each locality.Main outcome measuresJoint primary outcome measures were change in children’s BMI z-score and incremental cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained at 12 months’ follow-up (QALYs were calculated using the European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions Youth version). Secondary outcome measures included changes in children’s waist circumference, percentage body fat, physical activity, fruit/vegetable consumption and quality of life. Parents’ BMI and mental well-being, family eating/activity, parent–child relationships and parenting style were also assessed. The process evaluation documented recruitment, reach, dose delivered, dose received and fidelity, using mixed methods.ResultsThe study recruited 115 families (128 children; 63 boys and 65 girls), with 56 families randomised to the Families for Health arm and 59 to the ‘usual-care’ control arm. There was 80% retention of families at 3 months (Families for Health, 46 families; usual care, 46 families) and 72% retention at 12 months (Families for Health, 44 families; usual care, 39 families). The change in BMI z-score at 12 months was not significantly different in the Families for Health arm and the usual-care arm [0.114, 95% confidence interval (CI) –0.001 to 0.229;p = 0.053]. However, within-group analysis showed that the BMI z-score was significantly reduced in the usual-care arm (–0.118, 95% CI –0.203 to –0.034;p = 0.007), but not in the Families for Health arm (–0.005, 95% CI –0.085 to 0.078;p = 0.907). There was only one significant difference between groups for secondary outcomes. The economic evaluation, taking a NHS and Personal Social Services perspective, showed that mean costs 12 months post randomisation were significantly higher for Families for Health than for usual care (£998 vs. £548;p < 0.001). The mean incremental cost-effectiveness of Families for Health was estimated at £552,175 per QALY gained. The probability that the Families for Health programme is cost-effective did not exceed 40% across a range of thresholds. The process evaluation demonstrated that the programme was implemented, as planned, to the intended population and any adjustments did not deviate widely from the handbook. Many families waited more than 3 months to receive the intervention. Facilitators’, parents’ and children’s experiences of Families for Health were largely positive and there were no adverse events. Further analysis could explore why some children show a clinically significant benefit while others have a worse outcome.ConclusionsFamilies for Health was neither effective nor cost-effective for the management of obesity in children aged 6–11 years, in comparison with usual care. Further exploration of the wide range of responses in BMI z-score in children following the Families for Health and usual-care interventions is warranted, focusing on children who had a clinically significant benefit and those who showed a worse outcome with treatment. Further research could focus on the role of parents in the prevention of obesity, rather than treatment.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN45032201.FundingThis project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full inHealth Technology Assessment; Vol. 21, No. 1. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

No abstract