Multifaceted roles of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) at the cellular and whole organism levels.

Chronic disorders, such as obesity, diabetes, inflammation, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease and atherosclerosis, are related to alterations in lipid and glucose metabolism, in which peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPAR)α, PPARβ/δ and PPARγ are involved. These receptors form a subgroup of ligand-activated transcription factors that belong to the nuclear hormone receptor family. This review discusses a selection of novel PPAR functions identified during the last few years. The PPARs regulate processes that are essential for the maintenance of pregnancy and embryonic development. Newly found hepatic functions of PPARα are the mediation of female-specific gene repression and the protection of the liver from oestrogen induced toxicity. PPARα also controls lipid catabolism and is the target of hypolipidaemic drugs, whereas PPARγ controls adipocyte differentiation and regulates lipid storage; it is the target for the insulin sensitising thiazolidinediones used to treat type 2 diabetes. Activation of PPARβ/δ increases lipid catabolism in skeletal muscle, the heart and adipose tissue. In addition, PPARβ/δ ligands prevent weight gain and suppress macrophage derived inflammation. In fact, therapeutic benefits of PPAR ligands have been confirmed in inflammatory and autoimmune diseases, such as encephalomyelitis and inflammatory bowel disease. Furthermore, PPARs promote skin wound repair. PPARα favours skin healing during the inflammatory phase that follows injury, whilst PPARβ/δ enhances keratinocyte survival and migration. Due to their collective functions in skin, PPARs represent a major research target for our understanding of many skin diseases. Taken altogether, these functions suggest that PPARs serve as physiological sensors in different stress situations and remain valuable targets for innovative therapies.

Therapy modifications in response to poorly controlled hypertension, dyslipidemia, and diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Poorly controlled cardiovascular risk factors are common. Evaluating whether physicians respond appropriately to poor risk factor control in patients may better reflect quality of care than measuring proportions of patients whose conditions are controlled. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate therapy modifications in response to poor control of hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes in a large clinical population. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study within an 18-month period in 2002 to 2003. SETTING: Kaiser Permanente of Northern California. PATIENTS: 253,238 adult members with poor control of 1 or more of these conditions. MEASUREMENTS: The authors assessed the proportion of patients with poor control who experienced a change in pharmacotherapy within 6 months, and they defined "appropriate care" as a therapy modification or return to control without therapy modification within 6 months. RESULTS: A total of 64% of patients experienced modifications in therapy for poorly controlled systolic blood pressure, 71% for poorly controlled diastolic blood pressure, 56% for poorly controlled low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level, and 66% for poorly controlled hemoglobin A1c level. Most frequent modifications were increases in number of drug classes (from 70% to 84%) and increased dosage (from 15% to 40%). An additional 7% to 11% of those with poorly controlled blood pressure, but only 3% to 4% of those with elevated low-density lipoprotein cholesterol level or hemoglobin A1c level, returned to control without therapy modification. Patients with more than 1 of the 3 conditions, higher baseline values, and target organ damage were more likely to receive "appropriate care." LIMITATIONS: Patient preferences and suboptimal adherence to therapy were not measured and may explain some failures to act. CONCLUSIONS: As an additional measure of the quality of care, measuring therapy modifications in response to poor control in a large population is feasible. Many patients with poorly controlled hypertension, dyslipidemia, or diabetes had their therapy modified and, thus, seemed to receive clinically "appropriate care" with this new quality measure.

Insulin resistance, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension in mice lacking endothelial nitric oxide synthase.

BACKGROUND: Insulin resistance and arterial hypertension are related, but the underlying mechanism is unknown. Endothelial nitric oxide synthase (eNOS) is expressed in skeletal muscle, where it may govern metabolic processes, and in the vascular endothelium, where it regulates arterial pressure. METHODS AND RESULTS: To study the role of eNOS in the control of the metabolic action of insulin, we assessed insulin sensitivity in conscious mice with disruption of the gene encoding for eNOS. eNOS(-/-) mice were hypertensive and had fasting hyperinsulinemia, hyperlipidemia, and a 40% lower insulin-stimulated glucose uptake than control mice. Insulin resistance in eNOS(-/-) mice was related specifically to impaired NO synthesis, because in equally hypertensive 1-kidney/1-clip mice (a model of renovascular hypertension), insulin-stimulated glucose uptake was normal. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that eNOS is important for the control not only of arterial pressure but also of glucose and lipid homeostasis. A single gene defect, eNOS deficiency, may represent the link between metabolic and cardiovascular disease.

Treatment intensification and risk factor control: toward more clinically relevant quality measures.

BACKGROUND: Intensification of pharmacotherapy in persons with poorly controlled chronic conditions has been proposed as a clinically meaningful process measure of quality. OBJECTIVE: To validate measures of treatment intensification by evaluating their associations with subsequent control in hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes mellitus across 35 medical facility populations in Kaiser Permanente, Northern California. DESIGN: Hierarchical analyses of associations of improvements in facility-level treatment intensification rates from 2001 to 2003 with patient-level risk factor levels at the end of 2003. PATIENTS: Members (515,072 and 626,130; age >20 years) with hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and/or diabetes mellitus in 2001 and 2003, respectively. MEASUREMENTS: Treatment intensification for each risk factor defined as an increase in number of drug classes prescribed, of dosage for at least 1 drug, or switching to a drug from another class within 3 months of observed poor risk factor control. RESULTS: Facility-level improvements in treatment intensification rates between 2001 and 2003 were strongly associated with greater likelihood of being in control at the end of 2003 (P < or = 0.05 for each risk factor) after adjustment for patient- and facility-level covariates. Compared with facility rankings based solely on control, addition of percentages of poorly controlled patients who received treatment intensification changed 2003 rankings substantially: 14%, 51%, and 29% of the facilities changed ranks by 5 or more positions for hypertension, hyperlipidemia, and diabetes, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment intensification is tightly linked to improved control. Thus, it deserves consideration as a process measure for motivating quality improvement and possibly for measuring clinical performance.