PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 26, 2007Circulation320 citations

Oxidant Stress Impairs In Vivo Reendothelialization Capacity of Endothelial Progenitor Cells From Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

View Full Paper
SSSajoscha SorrentinoFBFerdinand H. BahlmannCBChristian Besler

Key Result

Rosiglitazone therapy significantly improved the in vivo reendothelialization capacity of endothelial progenitor cells from diabetic patients compared to placebo (38% vs 8%; P<0.001).

Study Design

Type

RCT (n=40)

Randomization

Randomized

Structured PICO

Does rosiglitazone improve the in vivo reendothelialization capacity of endothelial progenitor cells in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus?

P
Population
30 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and 10 healthy subjects. Endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) from these subjects were tested in a nude mouse carotid injury model.
I
Intervention
Rosiglitazone 4 mg oral BID for 2 weeks
C
Comparator
Placebo for 2 weeks
O
Outcome
In vivo reendothelialization capacity of EPCs (reendothelialized area) in a nude mouse carotid injury modelsurrogate

Rosiglitazone improves the impaired reendothelialization capacity of endothelial progenitor cells in diabetic patients by reducing oxidative stress and restoring nitric oxide bioavailability.

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 38% vs 8%

p-value: p=<0.001

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs) are thought to contribute to endothelial recovery after arterial injury. We therefore compared in vivo reendothelialization capacity of EPCs derived from patients with diabetes mellitus and healthy subjects. Moreover, we examined the effect of treatment with the peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma agonist rosiglitazone on oxidant stress, nitric oxide (NO) bioavailability, and the in vivo reendothelialization capacity of EPCs from diabetic individuals. METHODS AND RESULTS: In vivo reendothelialization capacity of EPCs from diabetic patients (n=30) and healthy subjects (n=10) was examined in a nude mouse carotid injury model. Superoxide and NO production of EPCs was determined by electron spin resonance spectroscopy. Thirty patients with diabetes mellitus were randomized to 2 weeks of rosiglitazone (4 mg BID p.o.) or placebo treatment. In vivo reendothelialization capacity of EPCs derived from diabetic subjects was severely reduced compared with EPCs from healthy subjects (reendothelialized area: 8+/-3% versus 37+/-10%; P<0.001). EPCs from diabetic individuals had a substantially increased superoxide production and impaired NO bioavailability. Small-interfering RNA silencing of NAD(P)H oxidase subunit p47(phox) reduced superoxide production and restored NO bioavailability and in vivo reendothelialization capacity of EPCs from diabetic patients. Importantly, rosiglitazone therapy normalized NAD(P)H oxidase activity, restored NO bioavailability, and improved in vivo reendothelialization capacity of EPCs from diabetic patients (reendothelialized area: placebo versus rosiglitazone, 8+/-1% versus 38+/-5%; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In vivo reendothelialization capacity of EPCs derived from individuals with diabetes mellitus is severely impaired at least partially as a result of increased NAD(P)H oxidase-dependent superoxide production and subsequently reduced NO bioavailability. Rosiglitazone therapy reduces NAD(P)H oxidase activity and improves reendothelialization capacity of EPCs from diabetic individuals, representing a potential novel mechanism whereby peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma agonism promotes vascular repair.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Sorrentino et al. (2007) conducted an RCT in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (n=40). Rosiglitazone vs. Placebo was evaluated on In vivo reendothelialization capacity (reendothelialized area) (p=<0.001). Rosiglitazone therapy significantly improved the in vivo reendothelialization capacity of endothelial progenitor cells from diabetic patients compared to placebo (38% vs 8%; P<0.001).

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0ca24f93c2b42b5c887795https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.106.684381
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper