Cathepsin S as a biomarker of low-grade inflammation, insulin resistance, and cardiometabolic disease risk

Cathepsin S is a protease important in major histocompatibility complex (MHC) class II antigen presentation and also in degrading the extracellular matrix. Studies, most of them experimental, have shown that cathepsin S is involved in different pathological conditions such as obesity, inflammation, atherosclerosis, diabetes, and cancer.    The overall hypothesis of this report is that high levels of circulating cathepsin S, is a biomarker that reflects pathology induced by inflammation and obesity. The overall aim of this report was to investigate possible associations between circulating cathepsin S, inflammation, glucometabolic disturbance, and its associated diseases in the community. As cathepsin S appears to be a novel risk marker for several pathological conditions, we also wanted to examine the effect of dietary intervention on circulating cathepsin S concentrations.    This thesis is based on data from three community-based cohorts, the Uppsala longitudinal study of adult men (ULSAM), the prospective investigation of the vasculature in Uppsala seniors (PIVUS), and a post-hoc study from the randomized controlled NORDIET trial.    In the first study, we identified a cross-sectional positive association between serum cathepsin S and two markers of cytokine-mediated inflammation, CRP and IL-6. These associations were similar in non-obese individuals. In longitudinal analyses, higher cathepsin S at baseline was associated with higher CRP and IL-6 levels after six years of follow-up. In the second study, we identified a cross-sectional association between increased serum levels of cathepsin S and reduced insulin sensitivity. These associations were similar in non-obese individuals. No significant association was observed between cathepsin S and insulin secretion. In longitudinal analysis, higher cathepsin S levels were associated with an increased risk of developing diabetes during the six-year follow-up. In the third study, we found that higher serum levels of cathepsin S were associated with increased mortality risk. Moreover, in the ULSAM cohort, serum cathepsin S was independently associated with cause-specific mortality from cardiovascular disease and cancer. In the fourth study, we identified that adherence to an ad libitum healthy Nordic diet for 6 weeks slightly decreased the levels of plasma cathepsin S in normal or marginally overweight individuals, relative to the control group. Changes in circulating cathepsin S concentrations were correlated with changes in body weight, LDL-C, and total cholesterol.    Conclusion: This thesis shows that circulating cathepsin S is a biomarker that independently reflects inflammation, insulin resistance, the risk of developing diabetes, and mortality risk. Furthermore, a Nordic diet moderately reduced cathepsin S levels in normal-weight and overweight men and women. This effect may be partially mediated by diet-induced weight loss and possibly by reduced LDL-C concentrations. 

A multicentre randomized controlled trial of an empowerment-inspired intervention for adolescents starting continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion : a study protocol

Background. Continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII) treatment among children with type 1 diabetes is increasing in Sweden. However, studies evaluating glycaemic control in children using CSII show inconsistent results. Omitting bolus insulin doses using CSII may cause reduced glycaemic control among adolescents. The distribution of responsibility for diabetes self-management between children and parents is often unclear and needs clarification. There is much published support for continued parental involvement and shared diabetes management during adolescence. Guided Self-Determination (GSD) is an empowerment-based, person-centred, reflection and problem solving method intended to guide the patient to become self-sufficient and develop life skills for managing difficulties in diabetes self-management. This method has been adapted for adolescents and parents as Guided Self-Determination-Young (GSD-Y). This study aims to evaluate the effect of an intervention with GSD-Y in groups of adolescents starting on insulin pumps and their parents on diabetes-related family conflicts, perceived health and quality of life (QoL), and metabolic control. Here, we describe the protocol and plans for study enrolment. Methods. This study is designed as a randomized, controlled, prospective, multicentre study. Eighty patients between 12-18 years of age who are planning to start CSII will be included. All adolescents and their parents will receive standard insulin pump training. The education intervention will be conducted when CSII is to be started and at four appointments in the first 4 months after starting CSII. The primary outcome is haemoglobin A1c levels. Secondary outcomes are perceived health and QoL, frequency of blood glucose self-monitoring and bolus doses, and usage of carbohydrate counting. The following instruments will be used to evaluate perceived health and QoL: Disabkids, 'Check your health', the Diabetes Family Conflict Scale and the Swedish Diabetes Empowerment Scale. Outcomes will be evaluated within and between groups by comparing data at baseline, and at 6 and 12 months after starting treatment. Results and discussion. In this study, we will assess the effect of starting an insulin pump together with the model of Guided Self-Determination to determine whether this approach leads to retention of improved glycaemic control, QoL, responsibility distribution and reduced diabetes-related conflicts in the family. Trial registration: Current controlled trials: ISRCTN22444034

Acupuncture with manual and electrical stimulation for labour pain : a longitudinal randomised controlled trial

Background: Acupuncture is commonly used to reduce pain during labour despite contradictory results. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture with manual stimulation and acupuncture with combined manual and electrical stimulation (electro-acupuncture) compared with standard care in reducing labour pain. Our hypothesis was that both acupuncture stimulation techniques were more effective than standard care, and that electro-acupuncture was most effective.  Methods: A longitudinal randomised controlled trial. The recruitment of participants took place at the admission to the labour ward between November 2008 and October 2011 at two Swedish hospitals. 303 nulliparous women with normal pregnancies were randomised to: 40 minutes of manual acupuncture (MA), electro-acupuncture (EA), or standard care without acupuncture (SC). Primary outcome: labour pain, assessed by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes: relaxation, use of obstetric pain relief during labour and post-partum assessments of labour pain. The sample size calculation was based on the primary outcome and a difference of 15 mm on VAS was regarded as clinically relevant, this gave 101 in each group, including a total of 303 women.  Results: Mean estimated pain scores on VAS (SC: 69.0, MA: 66.4 and EA: 68.5), adjusted for: treatment, age, education, and time from baseline, with no interactions did not differ between the groups (SC vs MA: mean difference 2.6, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.7-6.9 and SC vs EA: mean difference 0.6 [95% CI] -3.6-4.8). Fewer number of women in the EA group used epidural analgesia (46%) than women in the MA group (61%) and SC group (70%) (EA vs SC: odds ratio [OR] 0.35; [95% CI] 0.19-0.67).  Conclusions: Acupuncture does not reduce women's experience of labour pain, neither with manual stimulation nor with combined manual and electrical stimulation. However, fewer women in the EA group used epidural analgesia thus indicating that the effect of acupuncture with electrical stimulation may be underestimated. These findings were obtained in a context with free access to other forms of pain relief.

Acupuncture with manual and electrical stimulation for labour pain : a two month follow up of recollection of pain and birth experience.

BACKGROUND: In a previous randomised controlled trial we showed that acupuncture with a combination of manual- and electrical stimulation (EA) did not affect the level of pain, as compared with acupuncture with manual stimulation (MA) and standard care (SC), but reduced the need for other forms of pain relief, including epidural analgesia. To dismiss an under-treatment of pain in the trial, we did a long-term follow up on the recollection of labour pain and the birth experience comparing acupuncture with manual stimulation, acupuncture with combined electrical and manual stimulation with standard care. Our hypothesis was that despite the lower frequency of use of other pain relief, women who had received EA would make similar retrospective assessments of labour pain and the birth experience 2 months after birth as women who received standard care (SC) or acupuncture with manual stimulation (MA). METHODS: Secondary analyses of data collected for a randomised controlled trial conducted at two delivery wards in Sweden. A total of 303 nulliparous women with normal pregnancies were randomised to: 40 min of MA or EA, or SC without acupuncture. Questionnaires were administered the day after partus and 2 months later. RESULTS: Two months postpartum, the mean recalled pain on the visual analogue scale (SC: 70.1, MA: 69.3 and EA: 68.7) did not differ between the groups (SC vs MA: adjusted mean difference 0.8, 95 % confidence interval [CI] -6.3 to 7.9 and SC vs EA: mean difference 1.3 CI 95 % -5.5 to 8.1). Positive birth experience (SC: 54.3 %, MA: 64.6 % and EA: 61.0 %) did not differ between the groups (SC vs MA: adjusted Odds Ratio [OR] 1.8, CI 95 % 0.9 to 3.7 and SC vs EA: OR 1.4 CI 95 % 0.7 to 2.6). CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lower use of other pain relief, women who received acupuncture with the combination of manual and electrical stimulation during labour made the same retrospective assessments of labour pain and birth experience 2 months postpartum as those who received acupuncture with manual stimulation or standard care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01197950.