Project description:I thank Drs. Littlechild and Isupov for their recent comments, which are considered below. Before addressing these specifically, their correspondence raises two more general issues which require initial clarification.[...].
Project description:Idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) is a progressive and fatal lung disease in which most patients die within 3 years of diagnosis. With an unknown etiology, IPF results in progressive fibrosis of the lung parenchyma, diminishing normal lung function, which results in respiratory failure, and eventually, death. While few therapies are available to reduce disease progression, patients continue to advance toward respiratory failure, leaving lung transplantation the only viable option for survival. As incidence and mortality rates steadily increase, the need for novel therapeutics is imperative. The receptor for advanced glycation endproducts (RAGE) is most highly expressed in the lungs and plays a significant role in a number of chronic lung diseases. RAGE has long been linked to IPF; however, confounding data from both human and experimental studies have left an incomplete and perplexing story. This review examines the present understanding of the role of RAGE in human and experimental models of IPF, drawing parallels to recent advances in RAGE biology. Moreover, this review discusses the role of RAGE in lung injury response, type 2 immunity, and cellular senescence, and how such mechanisms may relate to RAGE as both a biomarker of disease progression and potential therapeutic target in IPF.The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.
Project description:The coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic exposed weaknesses in multiple domains and widened gender-based inequalities across the world. It also stimulated extraordinary scientific achievement by bringing vaccines to the public in less than a year. In this article, we discuss the implications of current vaccination guidance for pregnant and lactating women, if their exclusion from the first wave of vaccine trials was justified, and if a change in the current vaccine development pathway is necessary. Pregnant and lactating women were not included in the initial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine trials. Therefore, perhaps unsurprisingly, the first vaccine regulatory approvals have been accompanied by inconsistent advice from public health, governmental, and professional authorities around the world. Denying vaccination to women who, although pregnant or breastfeeding, are fully capable of autonomous decision making is a throwback to a paternalistic era. Conversely, lack of evidence generated in a timely manner, upon which to make an informed decision, shifts responsibility from research sponsors and regulators and places the burden of decision making upon the woman and her healthcare advisor. The World Health Organization, the Task Force on Research Specific to Pregnant Women and Lactating Women, and others have highlighted the long-standing disadvantage experienced by women in relation to the development of vaccines and medicines. It is uncertain whether there was sufficient justification for excluding pregnant and lactating women from the initial severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 vaccine trials. In future, we recommend that regulators mandate plans that describe the development pathway for new vaccines and medicines that address the needs of women who are pregnant or lactating. These should incorporate, at the outset, a careful consideration of the balance of the risks of exclusion from or inclusion in initial studies, patient and public perspectives, details of "developmental and reproductive toxicity" studies, and approaches to collect data systematically from participants who are unknowingly pregnant at the time of exposure. This requires careful consideration of any previous knowledge about the mode of action of the vaccine and the likelihood of toxicity or teratogenicity. We also support the view that the default position should be a "presumption of inclusion," with exclusion of women who are pregnant or lactating only if justified on specific, not generic, grounds. Finally, we recommend closer coordination across countries with the aim of issuing consistent public health advice.