D-amphetamine fails to increase extracellular dopamine levels in mice lacking alpha 1b-adrenergic receptors: relationship between functional and nonfunctional dopamine release.

It was found recently that locomotor and rewarding effects of psychostimulants and opiates were dramatically decreased or suppressed in mice lacking alpha1b-adrenergic receptors [alpha1b-adrenergic receptor knock-outs (alpha1bAR-KOs)] (Drouin et al., 2002). Here we show that blunted locomotor responses induced by 3 and 6 mg/kg d-amphetamine in alpha1bAR-KO mice [-84 and -74%, respectively, when compared with wild-type (WT) mice] are correlated with an absence of d-amphetamine-induced increase in extracellular dopamine (DA) levels in the nucleus accumbens of alpha1bAR-KO mice. Moreover, basal extracellular DA levels in the nucleus accumbens are lower in alpha1bAR-KO than in WT littermates (-28%; p < 0.001). In rats however, prazosin, an alpha1-adrenergic antagonist, decreases d-amphetamine-induced locomotor hyperactivity without affecting extracellular DA levels in the nucleus accumbens, a finding related to the presence of an important nonfunctional release of DA (Darracq et al., 1998). We show here that local d-amphetamine releases nonfunctional DA with the same affinity but a more than threefold lower amplitude in C57BL6/J mice than in Sprague Dawley rats. Altogether, this suggests that a trans-synaptic mechanism amplifies functional DA into nonfunctional DA release. Our data confirm the presence of a powerful coupling between noradrenergic and dopaminergic neurons through the stimulation of alpha1b-adrenergic receptors and indicate that nonfunctional DA release is critical in the interpretation of changes in extracellular DA levels. These results suggest that alpha1b-adrenergic receptors may be important therapeutic pharmacological targets not only in addiction but also in psychosis because most neuroleptics possess anti-alpha1-adrenergic properties.

Mise en place d'un programme de prévention et de prise en charge du diabète en Suisse: le point de vue des patients et des professionnels de la santé [Implementation of a diabetes disease management program in Switzerland: patients' and healthcare professionals' point of view].

BACKGROUND: A reorganization of healthcare systems is required to meet the challenge of the increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, e.g. diabetes. In North-America and Europe, several countries have thus developed national or regional chronic disease management programs. In Switzerland, such initiatives have only emerged recently. In 2010, the canton of Vaud set up the "Diabetes Cantonal Program", within the framework of which we conducted a study designed to ascertain the opinions of both diabetic patients and healthcare professionals on the elements that could be integrated into this program, the barriers and facilitators to its development, and the incentives that could motivate these actors to participate. METHODS: We organized eight focus-groups: one with diabetic patients and one with healthcare professionals in the four sanitary areas of the canton of Vaud. The discussions were recorded, transcribed and submitted to a thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Patients and healthcare professionals were rather in favour of the implementation of a cantonal program, although patients were more cautious concerning its necessity. All participants envisioned a set of elements that could be integrated to this program. They also considered that the program could be developed more easily if it were adapted to patients' and professionals' needs and if it used existing structures and professionals. The difficulty to motivate both patients and professionals to participate was mentioned as a barrier to the development of this program however. Quality or financial incentives could therefore be created to overcome this potential problem. CONCLUSION: The identification of the elements to consider, barriers, facilitators and incentives to participate to a chronic disease management program, obtained by exploring the opinions of patients and healthcare professionals, should favour its further development and implementation.

Programme cantonal Diabète: bilan de la première phase du programme (2010-2011) et construction d'une théorie d'action.

Le Programme cantonal diabète (PCD) du canton de Vaud a pour objectifs de réduire durablement l'impact du diabète sur la population vaudoise. Il a été élaboré à l'initiative du Service de la santé publique du canton de Vaud et la stratégie du programme a été construite sur la base des propositions de plusieurs groupes de travail. Ce programme inclut divers projets complémentaires qui ont été progressivement mis sur pied à partir de 2010. 2012 marque la fin de la première phase du programme et une évaluation-bilan du programme est demandée. Cette évaluation-bilan fait suite à une première phase de travaux qui ont consisté en une évaluation de l'évaluabilité du programme. Les résultats de cette première phase ont été délivrés en décembre 2011 au groupe de pilotage et consignés dans un rapport en février 2012. L'IUMSP propose donc pour 2012 des travaux en continuité de ce qui a été fait en 2011 et qui vont dans le sens d'un bilan critique et de propositions pour un système de monitoring à long terme du programme, comportant des indicateurs d'activité (à harmoniser lorsque c'est possible dans des projets similaires), des indicateurs de couverture et de résultats. [p. 7]

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," published in 2004. DESIGN: Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. METHODS: We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation (1) indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost) or clearly do not. Weak recommendations (2) indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations, listed by category, include early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for postoperative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B), targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization (2C); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); and a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.